Benficial Interest and Secured Loans

silvercar

"I can understand that because a remortgage at a higher value could put full repayment of the secured loan at risk in the future, i.e. they may not get all their money back."

On that basis it is probably easier to have a say on ANY remortgage than to specify "only if at a higher value".

Not sidetracking, just commenting on your input earlier on.

I agree with you. Though the technical reason is that charges are fulfilled (ie paid off) in order of the date they were registered if there is no other order of precedence made. So if you repay a main mortgage, the second charge jumps to first place unless the second charge holder (agrees) and signs a "deed of postponement" ie agrees to go to position 2.

Sometimes they refuse, particularly if the property is in negative equity. So they prevent a remortgage, which can put the borrower in a position of being stuck with their existing lender and not able to take advantage of a lower rate elsewhere.

Ineedaname

Silvercar - re your post #31, plese see my post #22 where I already suggested FP spotted an opportunity!

From recent threads on the forum FP are so and so's anyway and often prevent the most logical course of action, resulting in BR and FP losing out anyway. Their loss.

debt_doctor

silvercar wrote: »

We are getting side tracked. The point here is whether the OR will allow the BI interest to revert to the bankrupt without the written consent from FP.

Given that money has already been paid over, there is a second question. Would the OR be right to refuse to register the reversion of the BI if FP refuse to consent? and if so should the money be returned?

Yes, I agree, that is the point, and I'm very interested in hearing what the outcome is. I also hope it all works out ok for the poster.

DD

debtinfo

On the money thing, i would assume that the transaction is. not yet complete and the money is just held on account awaiting authority to complete

Chuckie1998

Would the general consensus of opinion be that I do not reply to Firstplus, and wait to see what happens?

My concern is if FP can legally prevent the transfer from going through.

silvercar

Chuckie1998 wrote: »

Would the general consensus of opinion be that I do not reply to Firstplus, and wait to see what happens?

My concern is if FP can legally prevent the transfer from going through.

The question to ask yourself is whether it is worth making yourself liable for the debt again, in order to buy the beneficial interest?

If it isn't, then don't sign and there is little point in communicating with FP. Worth seeing if the BI reverts to you regardless and if not querying with the OR whether they are right to refuse to allow the BI to be bought without FP's agreement.

Chuckie1998

Just had a further letter in the post today from Firstplus, stating that "there is a requirement to sign a new credit agreement so that we can arrange for consent to be issued to TLT Solicitors" (the OR solicitors).

silvercar

Chuckie1998 wrote: »

Just had a further letter in the post today from Firstplus, stating that "there is a requirement to sign a new credit agreement so that we can arrange for consent to be issued to TLT Solicitors" (the OR solicitors).

Don't sign.

Ask the OR if they can go ahead with the transfer without consent and if not, why not.

Chuckie1998

In addition to the letter today, I had a telephone call this evening from Firstplus, asking me to confirm that I had received the credit agreement, and that I need to return it signed, otherwise they can't give consent to the transfer.

Chuckie1998

This post has been going on for months, and then a letter out of the blue from Firstplus this morning.

Basically, before giving me the consent to getting the BI transferred back to me on my property, Firstplus were asking for me to sign a new credit agreement on my secured loan.

Thanks to my persistance, and the help and advice from many people on this forum, the letter from Firsplus states...

"We confirm that we have reviewed our current procedures and would advise that there is no requirement for you to complete a new loan agreement, as correctly outlined in your corresspondance to us on 2nd December and 16th December repectively.

We thank you for your kind assistance in this matter, and should you have any further queries, please don't hesitate to contact our customer support team."

So, if you have a secured loan on your property, and the finance company claim that you need to sign a new agreement before they give formal consent to the transfer taking place, DONT DO IT as there is no legal requirement to do so.

Many thanks to everyone who gave advice .