Massive arrears and shortfall sale

DannyboyMidlands

I would ask the family member who mugged you for £50k and left you saddled with a mortgage at 8% to chip in and help you out.

Zulu187

maninthestreet wrote: »

Your proposal fails to address how you intend to repay the £54K shortfall if you sell the house for only £90K with a current mortgage balance of £144K.

The proposal I was suggesting was to complete the sale and set up a payment plan to cover the shortfall over a certain period of e.g £x a month for x number of years etc...should it prove too much then bankruptcy but not until i've got the house secure

suburbanwifey

So you want to pass the house to a family member cheaply (compared to what is owed to the mortgage company) and then go bankrupt, which means Kensington lose 50K plus & you walk away laughing (so does your family member I would imagine) No wonder they won't do it .... they probably can guess what you would do! Repossession is the way to go for the mortgage company that lent you the money, that way they are in control for how much is sells for and to whom.

Your situation is quite shocking and a good example of why sub-prime mortgages should never have existed.

BoGoF

There's a difference between arrears and shortfall. Your earlier post suggests they may consider an arrangement on the shortfall should you sell but they want the arrears brought up to date first - which is totally understandable.

They are only trying to mitigate their losses, they are probably reading between the lines and think there is a chance of bankruptcy (which there is).....but they want the arrears paid off.

Zulu187

suburbanwifey wrote: »

So you want to pass the house to a family member cheaply (compared to what is owed to the mortgage company) and then go bankrupt, which means Kensington lose 50K plus & you walk away laughing (so does your family member I would imagine) No wonder they won't do it .... they probably can guess what you would do! Repossession is the way to go for the mortgage company that lent you the money, that way they are in control for how much is sells for and to whom.

Your situation is quite shocking and a good example of why sub-prime mortgages should never have existed.

I see what your saying and hands up I messed up here...however, if they repossess they are not gonna be able to sell it for more than 70-80k...so I'd still be stuck with the difference, probably a higher amount...no chance at auction they'll get 90k for it, so if anything my offer is better for them financially than a repo. I appreciate this is an open forum, but I don't think what you're posting is helpful

ILW

You say you bought the place in 2007 but your mum has lived there for 30 years. How did that happen?

suburbanwifey

Zulu187 wrote: »

I see what your saying and hands up I messed up here...however, if they repossess they are not gonna be able to sell it for more than 70-80k...so I'd still be stuck with the difference, probably a higher amount...no chance at auction they'll get 90k for it, so if anything my offer is better for them financially than a repo. I appreciate this is an open forum, but I don't think what you're posting is helpful

The reason its preferable for them to go for repossession rather than allow you to sell it is that they will then be able to lodge a repossession on you which will follow you for 12 years. I didn't post to be helpful to you, I posted to give my opinion, not all posters on here require helpful posts.