Could I sue for being mis-sold

Flyboy152

theblindman wrote: »

I think that you should not accept the split offer, too many pitfalls.

I assume the developer will want thier 25% when you sell, I assume a sale will trigger the payment to them via the deeds, ie a charge on the property.

I have my house for sale and some dodgy mortgage advisor wanted to buy it on a buy now pay later deal, with his girlfriends name on the deal.
They would pay 280k now and then 100k within the next 5 years, it stank at the time (if you search 'joint venture trust deed' on here you will find more details.
The main thing is that I assume they will secure a mortgage with your 35% as the deposit then you will be left holding a second charge on the property (ie they have a 100% mortgage) so as you have the second chargeany losses in 5 years will be yours to stand not thier lender.
Your solicitors fees will be larger with an arrangement as such, you will not have all you money so will not recieve interest on it, and will not benefit from any rent. you will be much worse off in 5 years than if you accept 5k less for the property now

As for advice on any claim - your losses will be fairly small 2-5k? your legal fees will be high, and you have to balance against your chance of winning - do you have all paperwork, records of all conversations etc. If the answer is no then you probably dont have a claim

mandbaby wrote: »

Brilliant advice, thank you so much. At last, after over a hundred posts someone that makes perfect sense.

I will withdraw now - but not on your advice, Flyboy. But because someone has (finally) spoken perfect sense, answered my question and then some. And anyway, what are you, the forum police?!

LOL. Someone else gives you the same advice that others have been doing all week and you say it is different? You really need help with your reading skills.

Flyboy152

theblindman wrote: »

I too agree I just echoed previous advice, all that I did was try not to put things in such a 'you stupid person' tone as many posts appeared to be.
It helps no-one when posts are phrased as such, even when they arent meant to be
And those posting questions on forums - -dont rise to the bait!

To be fair though Blindman, everyone else started that way as well. But the OP's opposition to have it been told straight, set her on this path of stark resistance.

moneybunny123

BadgerFace wrote: »

You ignored my question on the last page requesting you to copy this contract clause...would you do this?

Sorry, I didn't ignore you. I'd happily copy it as I know it's correct. But the paperwork is in the attic and at nearly 5 months pregnant I don't fancy climbing a ladder to go and get it.

theblindman

Sometimes if things are put across in a different manner they become clearer, what difference does it make to the OP if I think she set herself up for the fall and what benefit to her or me if I tell her so. I feel superior and smug? If that's what floats your boat then carry on trolling

moneybunny123

Dave101t wrote: »

you entered into a pretty standard formal agreement. and it seems like you want to use the small print as an excuse. its never easy to sell a house while tenants live there, you could have viewings while they are in the property but obviously they wont be happy about that.
i would also suggest that if you have 2 properties, you CAN afford the mortgage rate and simply dont want to.

You know my personal financial situation, do you? Hardly. What a ridiculous statement to make.

moneybunny123

Flyboy152 wrote: »

To be fair though Blindman, everyone else started that way as well. But the OP's opposition to have it been told straight, set her on this path of stark resistance.

I have no opposition to being told straight. Nor do I need help with my reading skills. I've just found it incredibly infuriating to read replies from people who miss points, fail to read things thoroughly themselves, and give advice that is neither useful, asked for, or workable.

And the stark resistance I was forced to put up after being personally attacked by so many. I was put on the defence from page 1 and it wasn't deserved. As "theblindman" said, there are ways of saying certain things without getting so personal.

Thanks one and all.

moneybunny123

theblindman wrote: »

Sometimes if things are put across in a different manner they become clearer, what difference does it make to the OP if I think she set herself up for the fall and what benefit to her or me if I tell her so. I feel superior and smug? If that's what floats your boat then carry on trolling

What a lovely person you sound - precisely the manner in which I give advice.

Flyboy152

mandbaby wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't ignore you. I'd happily copy it as I know it's correct. But the paperwork is in the attic and at nearly 5 months pregnant I don't fancy climbing a ladder to go and get it.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

GDB2222

theblindman wrote: »

Sometimes if things are put across in a different manner they become clearer, what difference does it make to the OP if I think she set herself up for the fall and what benefit to her or me if I tell her so. I feel superior and smug? If that's what floats your boat then carry on trolling

I agree totally. I really couldn't see the point of quite a lot of things that were said, but then I thought that this thread ran out of useful things to say after the first page. In the end, mandy either sues her solicitors or she doesn't, but she can't get sensible advice on that except by showing all the correspondence to a litigation solicitor.