People in thier 60's being forced to sell homes.

julieq

Hate to say it, but I agree with the Graham side of the argument in this case. The fact that it's a little old lady is irrelevant.

GDB2222

abaxas wrote: »

I'd get reading again, you obviously missed a bit.

Also all loans will have this. Get reading the small print.

You quite sure that this isn't the mortgage offer that you are looking at?

silvercar

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The courts wouldn't even rule that she is being treated harshly anyway.

There must have already been hundreds of people facing the same issue. Courts haven't ruled in their favour.

If you've found a precedent please link to it. I haven't heard of the elderly who can pay the interest on their mortgage being turfed out by lenders. Isn't that the point we are discussing?

Courts would just suggest she has the money to sell and pay off the loan. No different to any other form of debt.

So would they give her time to sell?

Infact, secured loans have succesfully been taking assets for a while, or forced the owner into bankruptcy. I don't know why anyone see's this as any different.

You are confusing repossession with bankruptcy. Secured loan lenders may apply for repossession to clear a secured loan, but its only worth their while doing so if there is equity, otherwise they are spending on legal costs and selling costs for no return.

You can't bankrupt someone over a secured loan as secured loans are excluded from bankruptcy. If you repossess and sell the asset and there is still money owing, you have the right to make them bankrupt but again that costs you for no return.

silvercar

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Would.

Theres not a cat in hells chance of a court ruling in favour of this one.

The amount of business and personal loans out there that would just be renegaded on would be massive. Suddenly, no lender would be able to sieze an asset.

It'd be anarchy.

Imagine the compensation claims from those already having had their assets siezed.

Let's not get carried away eh.

julieq wrote: »

Hate to say it, but I agree with the Graham side of the argument in this case. The fact that it's a little old lady is irrelevant.

So why isn't the Daily Mail full of pictures of people repossessed who have kept paying their mortgage?

Graham_Devon

Can just see the court case on this one.

"You have the means to sell the asset, pay the debt, and provide accomodation for yourself....why do you feel this is unfair".

"Well, I like my neighbours"....

Graham_Devon

silvercar wrote: »

If you've found a precedent please link to it. I haven't heard of the elderly who can pay the interest on their mortgage being turfed out by lenders. Isn't that the point we are discussing?

No, the mortgage term has come to an end. Or coming to an end.

There is very clear advice on this situation on DirectGov.

The advice states that if you are doing everything to sell the house, the lender must work with you. However, they can take possesion. But you could be deemed as making yourself intentionally homeless if you do not work with the lender to sell the house and pay the mortgage debt.

Other advice is to look at sell and rent back schemes.

This lady has 360k of equity. She can sell and move. It's simple. She doesn't want to and likes her neighbours, and that's entirely fair for her to feel that way. But it isn't going to win court cases.

If she truly likes her neighbours, then she can use a sell and rent back scheme. Although I wouldn't advise it, the product fits her needs. However, from the daughter getting involved, it sounds as if there are inheritance issues and they want to keep the optimum value. Nothing again wrong in that, but you can't eat all the cake.

This lady has more options than most.

julieq

silvercar wrote: »

So why isn't the Daily Mail full of pictures of people repossessed who have kept paying their mortgage?

She's not being repossessed in the normal sense of the word, she's come to the end of the term of a loan agreement. No-one is guaranteed a rolling loan agreement, that's a simple fact. Graham is absolutely right about this.

IO loans are perfectly reasonable things to do under some circumstances, but they're not a means of renting your house from a bank in perpetuity at below normal rental rates. Sorry, but that's the long and the short of that. She has equity, she has options.

GDB2222

silvercar wrote: »

So why isn't the Daily Mail full of pictures of people repossessed who have kept paying their mortgage?

I imagine that most lenders treat such situations with consideration and give the owner a reasonable time to sell the property or sort out alternative finance. I am really trying to understand what sort of story the Daily Mail could make out of this? The mortgage term has come to an end, and the lender wants their money back. Why would that be a shock horror story?

Graham_Devon

GDB2222 wrote: »

I imagine that most lenders treat such situations with consideration and give the owner a reasonable time to sell the property or sort out alternative finance. I am really trying to understand what sort of story the Daily Mail could make out of this? The mortgage term has come to an end, and the lender wants their money back. Why would that be a shock horror story?

Which seems to be exactly what is happening, hence the mortgage / financial advisor writing the OP.

However, the products don't exist that fit the requirements of this lady (and her daughter).

Sell and Rent back is perfectly suitable for her scenario where she wants to stay in the house. However, it's not suitable for inheritance issues. There would be a lot more inheritance to be had if the lady could just sit in the home making token interest payments to the bank....I believe this to be the nub of the issue, hence the daughter getting involved now to cover her inheritance. Nothing wrong with that like I say....they (and Conrad) simply don't like it and seem to find it unfair.

silvercar

julieq wrote: »

She's not being repossessed in the normal sense of the word, she's come to the end of the term of a loan agreement. No-one is guaranteed a rolling loan agreement, that's a simple fact. Graham is absolutely right about this.

IO loans are perfectly reasonable things to do under some circumstances, but they're not a means of renting your house from a bank in perpetuity at below normal rental rates. Sorry, but that's the long and the short of that. She has equity, she has options.

Its not a repossession due to debt and arrears but it is still the lender taking the mortgagee to court to take possession of the property. That is the only mechanism available to the lender other than extending the term.

I would imagine that the court would allow the lady to remain in the property subject to continuing to make the same IO payments and agreeing to sell the property, so effectively forcing the lender to extend the term for a short time.