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

kepar

That's right create a law to benefit those who go br over the lenders, dream on.
If you start trying to dictate , there will be no one giving second loans, a lot of people can afford to repay them , why should they be penalised.

freddy911

kepar wrote: »

That's right create a law to benefit those who go br over the lenders, dream on.
If you start trying to dictate , there will be no one giving second loans, a lot of people can afford to repay them , why should they be penalised.

That law obviously already exists with the mortage rescue scheme! the fact is the secured loan co are being spitefull! end of!

Which ever way this goes, the OP will not own the house anymore, and the secured loan co wont get their money back. The only diference is if the OP get to stay in the house as a tennant, and the only reason the secured loan co have to stand in the way of this is spite, plain and simple, if there is no financial benefit to them to blockit.

MissMoneypenny

srichar3 wrote: »

The only diference is if the OP get to stay in the house as a tennant, and the only reason the secured loan co have to stand in the way of this is spite, plain and simple, if there is no financial benefit to them to blockit.

Maybe the lenders are looking at the bigger picture now? The lender will lose all their money and the borrower who has defaulted, won't get to live in the house either. But how many times would lenders have to do this before other borrowers realised that that when they went bankrupt, they would have to move house too?

By taking this stance now, the lender may get more of its money back in the long term, as more borrowers may decide not to go bankcrupt if it means they have to also move house?

I'm not saying that is what they are doing this time, but it maybe a business move to protect their assets in the future.

freddy911

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Maybe the lenders are looking at the bigger picture now? The lender will lose all their money and the borrower who has defaulted, won't get to live in the house either. But how many times would lenders have to do this before other borrowers realised that that when they went bankrupt, they would have to move house too?

By taking this stance now, the lender may get more of its money back in the long term, as more borrowers may decide not to go bankcrupt if it means they have to also move house?

I'm not saying that is what they are doing this time, but it maybe a business move to protect their assets in the future.

But the mortgage rescue scheme isnt open to every one you have to meet criteria;

Who can get help from the Mortgage Rescue scheme?

To be eligible for the scheme your household must include someone in 'priority need'. This could be:

• a pregnant woman
• someone with dependent children
• someone who is vulnerable because of old age or a physical or mental impairment

You’ll also need to meet the following criteria:

• your household earns less than £60,000 a year
• you don’t own a second home, including a home abroad

silvercar

I don't think the second charge holders are being spiteful, they just aren't set up with the systems to cope. Their mentality is that you risk repo if you don't meet your payments. Its only when they get around to considering repossessing that they realise they won't get any money. So then they have to think whether they want to repossess.

Remember if they accept a less than full settlement, the money is lost forever. If they refuse consent to sell, they hope that you will remain in the property, even if you fall into arrears. That way when prices eventually increase they can get their money back.

Bottom line is they don't want to repossess, they don't want to agree a sale below full loan redemption. What they want is for you to stay there (ideally paying the loan) so that eventually the property value exceeds the loans secured on it.

MissMoneypenny

silvercar wrote: »

What they want is for you to stay there (ideally paying the loan) so that eventually the property value exceeds the loans secured on it.

They lenders don't care whether the person gets to stay in the house or whether the property goes into negative equity; just as long as they get their money every month (with it's high interest rate charge).

They use the repossesion threat as a means to get people to pay, because borrowers won't want to lose what they see as "their house".

freddy911

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

because borrowers won't what to lose what they see as "their house".

I told my secured loan co there welcome to the house, and they still try bullying tactics to make me make payment and sign deed of acknowledgment. They are constantly sending me income and expenditure forms to fill in to prove I cannot make payments to them which I refuse to return, there last call ended with me telling them that if they dont think im meeting my legal obligations regarding the debt then there welcome to take me to court. She kept telling me the charges are adding on daily, which I kept pointing out wont mean jack when the house is sold as they will be included in the BR regardless.

lollyheart

Just thought I would update.

We are no further forward with the rescue, they are not budging until we sign the form to say we will continue to pay the loan which we can't do.

The solicitor dealing with the rescue seems to think because we are now discharged from bankrupsty that they 2nd charge can get their money once the loan is unsecured.

It's all very stressful.

debt_doctor

Hi,

Your solicitor is wrong. If the property is sold then the shortfall fill fall in to your BR - providing you sgn nothing to the contrary.

Secured lenders retain all their rights in br. They have a right to request payment and a right to take possession action if not paid. I see this 2nd lender problem in MRS quite often. The lenders have got wise to the fact there is a pot (although a dwindling pot) of money for full and final settlements.

Sadly you are in a huge gamble as to whether the lender will eventually cave in to your holding out, or not.

Im afraid your OR will not / cannot do anything to assist you other than allow the MRS to go ahead as the property currently vests in him / her.

If you really want the rescue to go ahead then you might end up having to sign the shortfall letter which may well create a post BR debt. I hope the lender sees sense in getting something rather than potentially nothing.

Its a bit drastic but if the shortfall was large then you could potentially go BR again or enter in to a DRO to deal with it. TAKE ADVICE before considering such an action as there are consequences to further insolvency so soon afterwards.

EDIT; I would also point out that whilst signing an aknowledgement of the debt MAY create a new debt it is by no means certain, and as far as I know, not been tested in the courts. If you do end up having to sign, then you could turn round to the lender and say - take me to court then, because as far as i'm concerned that debt is still part of my BR!

You would then get a chance to defend, and have an opportunity to get some expert advice, perhaps through a CAB or other advice agency. Please remember though that signing is a risk that a post BR debt has been created.

DD

lollyheart

Just another update.

We completed today first plus saw sense in the end a released the 2nd charge.