Receivers appointed to manage BTL flat

DVardysShadow

holly_hobby wrote: »

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

Indeed. We were short of facts until antrobus mentioned (s109(1) LPA 1925)

holly_hobby

Simon_gloster wrote: »

And then Dirty Den got run over by a taxi.

.... you're always a little ray of sunshine

Thrugelmir

Maybe there's more to the story. As to finance the mortgage repayments even on an interim basis for a couple of months on the due date shouldn't be an issue for a well run business.

Trollfever

A short reply based on the very limited information given!

Would the FSA be interested in my plight?

No.

Simon_gloster

At the end of the day, the FSA can do little at present against main residence mortgagers who are no longer here, Southern Pacific, Preferred, Future, Amber etc so a BTL from Rooftop? 2 hopes..........

One of them is a dead golfer.

holly_hobby

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Indeed. We were short of facts until antrobus mentioned (s109(1) LPA 1925)

That BTLs don't go via the traditional resi repo route ? Yes.

H

Jimbo1976

How does TCF apply to the unregulated business of a firm?


While our principles for business do not apply directly to unregulated business, if we discover behaviour related to a firm's unregulated business which arouses our concerns, we may use this as an indicator of risks in the firm's regulated business. The firm’s culture determines whether customers are treated fairly. In our dialogue with firms on TCF we have said that it is difficult to see how they could successfully introduce a culture in one part of their business (the regulated part) without simultaneously expecting the same approach elsewhere (the unregulated part).

From FSA website

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/doing/regulated/tcf/faqs

holly_hobby

Thanks Jimbo .....

At last light at the end of the tunnel .... thanks for posting the above info you've kindly dug out which I hope can draw a line under this ....

"FSA principles do not directly apply to unregulated business .... " which is also confirmed by Antro's article link.

ALTHOUGH, as I have already pointed out, in respct of BTLs (and acknowledgement of no FSA regulation) the CML & FSA for that matter, nevertheless do expect Firms to TCF even in unregulated bus, but with the action applied to each case both individual and isolated in nature i.e there can be no carte blanche approach to all ..... whilst FSA will look at discovered behaviour they consider to "arouse their concerns" .

Although Antros article does suggest a blanket and robust approach across the industry to sweeping up those whom are struggling to maintain the mge - the FSA, as per the article (and rightly or wrongly), don't apparently consider such action to "arouse their concerns" or certainly not enough for intervention. Which does unfortuantely leave those facing such action a little high and dry.

Right that said, lets move on .... to which those peeps whom still won't accept that FSA regs do not directly (legally) apply to unregulated business, against those of us who acknowledge the fact - lets just happily agree to disagree.

Maybe the OP will reappear to give some further info which means that some positive assistance can be provided.

Holly

holly_hobby

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Maybe there's more to the story. As to finance the mortgage repayments even on an interim basis for a couple of months on the due date shouldn't be an issue for a well run business.

Yep I absolutely agree T., I mentioned this in an ealier post that they do seem a bit eager to go down the seize root, suggesting possibly a discovery of breach of contractual terms OR there is a history of late payments/arrears, over the preceeding term to today.

I also agree and discussed the fact that the OP having to obtain a loan to pay just 2 mths arrears, suggests that without rental income he's stuffed and obv has little or no working capital underpinning the business.

And I believe it's this that may have lent them to apply for possession with less than 3 mths arrears (which as we know is a traditional tipping point for regulated mge borrowing, but may be applied to unreg bus. IF the lender elects to adopt the same guidelines). With added refusal of the 2mths arrears payment, suggesting that they are aware the capital is coming from a loan and not the OPs own contingency fund/income, with I gather no current tenant either, suggesting the lenders view that this is a very precarious foundation to continue their exposure under - but I may be wrong.

It all depends on the history of this mge, and whether the lenders current action is super robust and could be considered a little unfair (given circs), or that its simply the end of the track for a historically mis-managed/troublesome account (no offence OP !).

H

Simon_gloster

The upshot of it all is that there are lenders like Rooftop who are not trading and used brutal force on those in arrears (charges, daily phone calls etc), more than in this instance. OK some of those customers would have had a gripe on main res charges, but even then the FSA did little.

TCF is bulls*it most of the time, I agree with it in principle, however if I lent the money i'd do all I could to get my money back plus charges.

Did dirty Den survive anyone? H?