Mortgage Valuation then and now! SHORTFALL

tmb70

Devildog, you are correct but it is not straight forward.

tmb70

opinions4u wrote: »

That would be a job for the solicitor to establish. Not the valuer.

If you do hand the keys in and the lender makes a loss, you are liable for that loss. Not sure how your bankruptcy affects it though (could be an escape route?).

Thanks is that based on fact/knowledge.

But how does the valuer know who owns what to establish a value for the lender to work out LTV?

All I know is that I have made a complaint to the lender and they say it is nothing to do with them, then I say if you repossess the property or I hand the keys it will be your problem.

There must be a mechanism for all the parties to link together.

Obviously errors/oversights happen so where am I in this instance?

opinions4u

There is no right of access, surely the lender has to carry out its own due diligence to ensure the money is covered.

That is the job of the solicitor. The solicitor should draw such things to the attention of the lender who should, in turn, ask the valuer to revise their opinion accordingly.

The solicitor acting for you in the purchase of the land etc should also have drawn this to your attention.

Did you cut any corners?

tmb70

opinions4u wrote: »

That is the job of the solicitor. The solicitor should draw such things to the attention of the lender who should, in turn, ask the valuer to revise their opinion accordingly.

The solicitor acting for you in the purchase of the land etc should also have drawn this to your attention.

Did you cut any corners?

No corners were cut.

Do you mean the solicitor acting for the lender,TMB? Because from memory I dont recall a solicitor acting for me on the remortgage from HSBC to TMB.

TonyMMM

Probably should have been raised by the solicitor working on your behalf when you purchased the land originally ? Assuming they knew of your intention to build on the land.

Dave_Ham

Sorry guys, I didn't get this the when originally posted and I still do not get it now. I would love to be able to offer more of an insight, however the whole situation does not stack up for me and I just cannot believe we are getting the full facts. TMB I get, they would have almost remortgaged from HSBC and were market share hungry. But when you originally purhcased with HSBC (If I am getting this correct) your solicitor would have acted for them also (In the job description) and I just do not get why the access route was not identified.

Now I am no legal expert and I think you have been naive and now trying to play this out to your advantage, but to be fair I think we would all do that given circumstances.

I cannot see past the original solicitor at the first purchase as being negligent, if we are all privvy to all of the facts.

Just my humble opinion...

opinions4u

tmb70 wrote: »

No corners were cut.

Do you mean the solicitor acting for the lender,TMB? Because from memory I dont recall a solicitor acting for me on the remortgage from HSBC to TMB.

Forget TMB.

Forget the valuer.

1) How did you acquire the land?

2) How did you come to build on it?

3) What legal representation did you have up to that point?

4) Was the HSBC mortgage used to fund the building, or was it raised afterwards?

tmb70

Dave ham, I am not hiding anything and I can see lots of folk saying & thinking 'look at this bloke who had it all and now . . .'

Right then, it was bought at auction with a top up loan from HSBC (at the time doing business with them so security elsewhere), then gained planning to demo and rebuild.

Moved from HSBC to TMB with house nearly complete.

Gone bankrupt so had house revalued for OR/trustee and has kicked out a figure a lot less - with the valuation for the OR/trustee I have gone into great depth.

Regards detail for TMB, I was not privvy so could not go into detail. The valuer was working for the lender - or am incorrect.

Surley the lender needs to safeguard its asset and carry out due diligence.

Thrugelmir

tmb70 wrote: »

All I know is that I have made a complaint to the lender and they say it is nothing to do with them, then I say if you repossess the property or I hand the keys it will be your problem.

The bank will take the loss on the chin. That's the nature of business. Banks lend money they do not trade property.

Dave_Ham

Hands up I did misintepret the details.

So the HSBC finance is irrelevant as the security was elsewhere. Although in a previous post you put the remortgage from HSBC to TMB which is what threw me as in the trade I would refer to that as being the same property - accept if not in the trade then things gets called all manner of names

Was the TMB finance acquired on this property then?

And now I see your point, if the answer to above is yes. Questions 2 and 3 from Opinions above are now the most necessary..

Still not being a legal expert I am unsure how this will all pan out.. especially given you being bankrupt now...

One of those threads where I would like to give more specific help, although not a straightforward question and answer...