Receivers appointed to manage BTL flat

holly_hobby

Nice useful post V.

H

DVardysShadow

holly_hobby wrote: »

If he has 2 mths arrears (now in his 3rd) , no capital to pay it other than secure a personal loan, no tenant and no supporting income to svc the mge whilst out of tenant - how is the lender treating him unfarily by refusing the repayment of current arrears from a personal loan and instead seeking a possession order.

Would a court accept unfair treatment based on the above, in rexpect of rejecting or postponing the possession order ?

Doubt it.

If OP takes the family loan, then there will be no arrears and no cause for action in court to seek a repo. Granted the family loan is far from ideal and does not appear to represent a sustainable way forward that will do more than postpone reaching the same point again by a few more months.

I do think a judge would have little option but to refuse a repo if the arrears were cleared. I suspect where this may be going wrong is that OP is not actually unconditionally clearing the arrears with the loan, but is using clearing the arrears as a bargaining position to attempt to gain further concessions from the lender

holly_hobby

Of course, if the lender accepts the arrears payment - but as this isn't a primary residence, and its without tenants, that will affect the Judges decision to authorise any order (either now or at any future arrears/possessionary hearing).

As I stated earlier, if he's divulged arrears repayment is from a loan and not his own capital (giving the impression he can't sustain the mge without a tenant, hence the actual accrual in the first place), then I believe this may have created the issue, re their refusal to accept and instead go down the possessionary route.

It may be that they are now aware he is in breach of a contracutal term, hence they going for blood at a relatively early starge of arrears - hence the refusal to accept a payment and play hardball.

Maybe the OP will advise the reasons they gave for arrears settlement rejection.

Notwithstanding the above, and as suggested earlier, 1/2 hr free advice with a solicitor may be v beneficial - which would be definately useful for any future court defence .

Holly

DVardysShadow

holly_hobby wrote: »

Of course, if the lender accepts the arrears payment.

As I stated earlier, if he's divulged its from a loan and not his own capital (giving the impression he can't sustain the mge without a tenant), that I believe this may have created the issue, re their refusal to accept and instead go down the possessionary route. Maybe the OP will advise the reasons they gave for its rejection.

As suggested earlier, 1/2 hr free advice with a solicitor may be v beneficial - which would be definately useful for any future court defence .

Holly

It might not be the wisest move to divulge that the arrears would be repaid from a loan. But if the lender is actually refusing to take payment in cleared funds, I don't believe that they have a leg to stand on with a repo - however valid their reasoning on the sustainability of that resolution.

If OP provides evidence of refusal of funds and pays the money in to the court, repo proceedings will be pretty much vexatious IMO. If an unconditional offer of funds has been refused, either the lender is bluffing or their action is a misguided attempt to exploit what they see as an opportunity to reduce their mortgage exposure.

Agree. OP needs to see a solicitor to fight this. And also needs to come up with a sustainable realistic plan to resolve the on going funding of his mortgage

Jimbo1976

I am not on a soap box, I just don't enjoy people insulting me. You couldn't even be bothered to notice that I was not the OP until someone Wh05apk pointed it out.

It is difficult to re read your posts as you seem to change them every 5 mins (apart from the one which said "Nice useful post")

antrobus

DVardysShadow wrote: »

If OP takes the family loan, then there will be no arrears and no cause for action in court to seek a repo. ...

Lender has no need to repo. They've appointed a LPA receiver. A lender can't appoint a LPA receiver unless they are entitled to exercise power of sale over the property or properties in question (s109(1) LPA 1925). Lender can simply instruct the receiver to sell. No court action is required.

holly_hobby

Oh go and do something useful Jimbo ..... starting with improving your attitude and losing the persecution complex.

antrobus

Brennus wrote: »

My tenant did a runner owing £2k, 2 mortgage payments were missed and Rooftop have appointed receivers to manage the flat. They appear to have no sympathy to someone in a tight corner. Despite offering to pay arrears using a family loan, this was refused. I have now lost control of my BTL property. Would the FSA be interested in my plight?

You would not be the only BTLer having this kind of problem. See this story here:-

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2105915/Northern-Rock-B-B-bad-bank-forcing-sell-loss-buy-let-landlords-claim.html

P.S. Re the fisticuffs above, it does say in the article that "landlord mortgages are not policed by the Financial Services Authority, so rules about ‘treating customers fairly’ do not apply". For what ever that's worth.

holly_hobby

Thanks Antro.

As stated way back at the start .... FSA regs do not apply to BTL finance as its unregulated. Alhough as stated, CML do expect lenders to demonstrate fair treatment - albeit its a case by case situ, and what BTL lenders class as fair may be considered tough when comparing to traditional resi lending.

But yes, some people argue without knowing the facts of their argument ...

Thanks

Holly x

Simon_gloster

And then Dirty Den got run over by a taxi.