Mortgage Co.-carried On Renting My House For 8 Years Before Repossession

KURTIS

Sorted Now..................................

Robert_Sterling

They did not have a vacant property to sell. The value of a property with a sitting tenant may be less than it is when it is sold with vacant posession.

KURTIS

Robert_Sterling wrote:

They did not have a vacant property to sell. The value of a property with a sitting tenant may be less than it is when it is sold with vacant posession.

This was a shorthall tenancy, therefore that wasn't the problem. In anycase it was unauthorised and therefore after possession they can evict without much trouble.

A_Nice_Englishman

KURTIS wrote:

Mortgage company found out its on rent and started collecting rent, at times through their receivers and sometimes themselves. Things were just becoming unmanageable so I basically let the course take its turn.

After 1993/4 lost contact with them altogether and just left them to do what they want.

From the mortgage company's point of view you washed your hands of the property in 1993/4 . They waited 7 or 8 years for you to make contact but you didn't so they acted in the best interests of the only two (apparently) interested parties, themselves and the tenant, and sold it to him.

If you wanted the tenant evicted and the house sold why didn't you do it yourself?

KURTIS

Nice Englishmen

Thanks for your comment but you got the wrong end of the stick. I didn't want to do anything with the tenant.

In the 90, a lot of people suffered with negative equity and unfortunately I was amongst them and majority of them threw the towel and moved on for a fresh start.

Since the account was in arrears, they would sell the property and maybe forget the shortfall if any or may take me for the difference. But not after some 10 years.

My arguement is that lenders dont wait to be in arrears by 8/9 years before deciding to reposses and sell.

Another thing i noticed from the file that they sent me under SAR- various people had dealt with my account and notes on the file suggest that some of them thought that I was still living there whilst others realised that it was a tenant.

thehairybuilder

Not wanting to appear harsh but you undertook to make the mortgage payments way back pre 1994 but then decided , for whatever reason , to stop making the payments .
At a quick calculation then you would , in my uneducated eyes , seem to owe them 144 payments which even if they were a modest £500 would leave you owing the mortgage Company approx £72000 . . . . . !
2006 really is not the time for you to be starting to complain about this . You could`ve/should`ve sorted this out way back in 1994 .
What have you done about this during the last 5 years ? as I note they advised you of this shortall in 2001.

I don`t think you have any cause for complaint at all but I`d be interested in the views of others.

KURTIS

thehairybuilder wrote:

Not wanting to appear harsh but you undertook to make the mortgage payments way back pre 1994 but then decided , for whatever reason , to stop making the payments .
At a quick calculation then you would , in my uneducated eyes , seem to owe them 144 payments which even if they were a modest £500 would leave you owing the mortgage Company approx £72000 . . . . . !
2006 really is not the time for you to be starting to complain about this . You could`ve/should`ve sorted this out way back in 1994 .
What have you done about this during the last 5 years ? as I note they advised you of this shortall in 2001.

I don`t think you have any cause for complaint at all but I`d be interested in the views of others.

I am realy not interested in justifying anything to you, you are obviously missing the point.

I'd be interested to learn about redress on situations where lenders have been responsible for running up arrears due to their mistakes or negligence.

If you don't have anything progressive please don't post.

silvercar

KURTIS wrote:

I am realy not interested in justifying anything to you, you are obviously missing the point.

I'd be interested to learn about redress on situations where lenders have been responsible for running up arrears due to their mistakes or negligence.

If you don't have anything progressive please don't post.

Seems you only want to here things that could benefit you.

A lender can seek monies owed for 12 years after repossession.

You couldn't make the rent cover the mortgage while you owned the property, I don't see how you expect the lender to be able to.

If you didn't actually formally hand back the keys (to the lender) and inform them in writing that you were giving them the house, how were they meant to know that you weren't an absent landlord who had neglected to inform them you were leasing the property?

I don't think you can complain that they should have repossessed sooner. If you wanted them to take possession you should have told them.

A_Nice_Englishman

But in the absence of any instructuions (or even contact) from you what were the mortgage company supposed to do?

They could have evicted the tenant and sold the house but how were they to know you didn't want to come back and live in it again?

By the way, what happened to the rent? You said the arrears were £70-£80K and thehairybuilder's calculations show this is roughly the same as the total mortgage payments (£72K) so on the face of it none of the rent was given to the mortgage lender.

Robert_Sterling

I can see what your point is and it is this "Did the lender carry out its obligations in accordance with the law of contract after you had failed to carry out your obligations under the terms of the contract?"

A_Nice_Englishman

Robert_Sterling wrote:

I can see what your point is and it is this "Did the lender carry out its obligations in accordance with the law of contract after you had failed to carry out your obligations under the terms of the contract?"

Good point, Robert Sterling.

Anyone know what the law says about this situation?