Help, the 2nd charge on our house are trying to bully us into paying them.

JCS1

Lost2 wrote: »

If I where you I would get in contact with your OR
and let them know what is going on as debtors are not suppose to
contact you after BR

In this case they can make contact and chase for money. BR covers unsecured debt only. It is only when the property is sold/repossessed that the debt becomes unsecured and therefore falls into the BR.

lollyheart

The women incharge of the scheme has said it's best not to get in contact with them.

The 2nd charge know we are br, we have already been to court a few times as they have tried to reposess, the judge kept adjourning the case so the mrs could complete, but they are stiil trying to get us to pay what we haven't got.

The people in charge of our mrs case have said they have never a 2nd charge be so uncooperative.

The 2nd charge is first plus btw.

It's typical that our or is on holiday this week.

Angiepange

Hang on in there and fight your corner!

I went through the Mortgage Rescue scheme from Sept 09, completing in Oct 10 (BR in Aug 09)

I didn't have a 2nd charge but our mortgage co insisted on us signing their shortfall sale forms acknowledging liability or they would not allow the sale. Took several weeks of negotiation between myself, solicitor, council and HA before they agreed to the sale. Its stressful but can be done. Dryliner's experience was just as prolonged as ours.

I had a thread going at the time, links here

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1930931=


May give you some ideas as alot of people contributed with advice and support.

Good luck x

kepar

Whilst appreciating your predicament, surely the second charge have every right to chase you for the money. The loan was taken out against the house, and you still have it. They may feel that if they are not getting their money you are not getting the house, even if you are going to sell it to rent. In my opinion, they are being bloody minded but you do owe them money.

silvercar

kepar wrote: »

Whilst appreciating your predicament, surely the second charge have every right to chase you for the money. The loan was taken out against the house, and you still have it. They may feel that if they are not getting their money you are not getting the house, even if you are going to sell it to rent. In my opinion, they are being bloody minded but you do owe them money.

If the house is not worth more than the main mortgage, then the advantage of it being a secured loan is lost. 2nd charge holder can't win - repossess and get nothing, don't repossess and still get nothing.

These second charge holders charge more interest than main mortgage lenders because there is a higher risk that they will end up with a secured loan with no equity to be secured against. Higher risk = more defaults. Some they win, some they lose but its their business model and I won't be shedding any tears if they lose some loans.

About time there was more regulation to stop them holding people to ransom. They need to forced to realise that their loans are no different to unsecured loans, when the property value is less than the main mortgage. It is wrong that they cannot be forced to sort out their admin so they have to look at the bigger picture. I can understand them refusing consent to a sale (or rescue) when they stand to gain, but when they would lose out whatever their actions, they should be forced to behave logically.

kepar

The problem is most of these second mortgages were taken out 6-7 years ago , when companies offered 110-120% of house value top ups. At that time house prices were rising fast and they as everyone else thought that the prices would rise fast enough to cover that loan. As we now know house prices have fallen, but no made anybody take out these second loans including myself. You cannot blame the companies for offering you just have to question peoples judgement for taking out the loans.
As stated we took one out, so I at fault as anyone else, my comments above though that they have the right to chase you for the money.

freddy911

kepar wrote: »

Whilst appreciating your predicament, surely the second charge have every right to chase you for the money. The loan was taken out against the house, and you still have it. They may feel that if they are not getting their money you are not getting the house, even if you are going to sell it to rent. In my opinion, they are being bloody minded but you do owe them money.

I dissagre, they have no legal right to chase you for the money unless you want to retain ownership of the house which the OP does not!! They simply want to rent it from the new owner! If they did people in the same position, myself included would find themselfs in court pretty fast. They have a right to reposses the house and thats it.

Quote from the IS

A debt which is secured by a mortgage or a charge on a property is still a provable bankruptcy debt. The mortgage loan company is "a secured creditor" which means they have rights over an asset, the house, and can require the asset to be sold to pay their debt. These rights are not affected by the bankruptcy.

If they couldnt get a better offer on the open market, then the top and bottom of it is the secured loan company are being spitfull and cutting off there nose to spite there face.

kepar

But that is the point, they can do what they like, the debt is still there until the house is repossessed.

silvercar

I dissagre, they have no legal right to chase you for the money unless you want to retain ownership of the house which the OP does not!! They simply want to rent it from the new owner! If they did people in the same position, myself included would find themselfs in court pretty fast. They have a right to reposses the house and thats it.

They have the right to not consent to remove their charge unless they are paid back in full. So they have the right to prevent a sale. So it is the sale to the mortgage rescue people they are blocking, not that the current owner wants to rent it.

So they have the right to repossess if payments aren't made and they have the right to block a sale if they are not repaid in full.

freddy911

silvercar wrote: »

They have the right to not consent to remove their charge unless they are paid back in full. So they have the right to prevent a sale. So it is the sale to the mortgage rescue people they are blocking, not that the current owner wants to rent it.

So they have the right to repossess if payments aren't made and they have the right to block a sale if they are not repaid in full.

Agreed but to what benefit?

The OP is obviously not going to pay unless the debt is really small and not worth the hassel of moving, so by blockng the sale they are being spitefull, costing themselfs money in court fees and repossesion fees etc.

As the fist mortgage have agreed what would happen if they repossess and get less money than the mortagage rescue offer for the property hence resulting in a bigger loss for the first mortgage co. Surely there must be a law to force the sale, as the first mortgage have agreed, unless the secured loan co can show they would get more return through reposesion.