Repossession Help

betmunch

Call the lender and check that paying the arrears will stop the repo, which I believe it will.

If so, pay them so its up to date AND have enough to make the payments between now and the next hearing, do not miss the payments between now and the hearing!

Then pray that the business works and you can pay your parents back.

fairyclicks

Thanks Betmunch I thought it should stop the repo too - its the only thing i can think of and even though i hate to go to parents sometimes its the only option! Will call the mortgage people tomorrow and let you know what they say!

Thanks for you time and suggestions

betmunch

No worries, its not a forgone conclusion as the repo has already been granted subject to the judge confirming he doesnt think the business is viable.

However, I think the lender would have a hard time explaining how its TCF to continue the repo if the arrears were paid off!

I cant stress enough how important it is to maintain the monthly payments after paying off the arrears, make sure you include these payments when you ask the 'rents, and put them aside until they are needed

Thrugelmir

betmunch wrote: »

No worries, its not a forgone conclusion as the repo has already been granted subject to the judge confirming he doesnt think the business is viable.

However, I think the lender would have a hard time explaining how its TCF to continue the repo if the arrears were paid off!

The lender is under no obligation to offer consent to let on the property. In addition the letting of the property is also a business. So hard to see the grounds for a judge reversing his decision.

DVardysShadow

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The lender is under no obligation to offer consent to let on the property. In addition the letting of the property is also a business. So hard to see the grounds for a judge reversing his decision.

Presumably, the 'cause for action' in the repo hearing is arrears. If the arrears are paid off, then the lender would have to go again to court with another cause for action, along the lines of 'breach of occupation conditions'. As I see it, with arrears paid off, the Judge has no option but to lift the repo order.

Thrugelmir

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Presumably, the 'cause for action' in the repo hearing is arrears. If the arrears are paid off, then the lender would have to go again to court with another cause for action, along the lines of 'breach of occupation conditions'. As I see it, with arrears paid off, the Judge has no option but to lift the repo order.

The borrower has yet to prove a viable income. As the arrears have been funded from a borrowed source not his own.

betmunch

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The lender is under no obligation to offer consent to let on the property. In addition the letting of the property is also a business. So hard to see the grounds for a judge reversing his decision.

As its been let for 2 years already I was working on the assumption that Consent had been granted. If it wasnt then surely this should have been brought up in the hearing?

DVardysShadow

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The borrower has yet to prove a viable income. As the arrears have been funded from a borrowed source not his own.

The cause for action would have been addressed, OP would not be in default. The need to prove a viable income would be in relation to the court accepting a recovery plan. With the OP in compliance on the original cause for action, the lender would have to start again, I believe.

A poor defence lawyer or not defending himself well might lead to a repo. But I can't see it at this stage.

betmunch

also, if the arrears are cleared, new kitchen in, and tenants lined up, surely that is a viable income for a BTL and wont revlove round the new business set up the judge wasnt keen on?