Repo's fall further

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

antrobus wrote: »

He isn't homeless, he's "living in a family home rent free". You didn't actually read that thread did you?

It appears that is your point of view, but the reality is different. As I said before, if your income isn't sufficient to at least service the interest due on the debt, then the debt is just going to compound. Getting out now can leave you owing less.

That's why people are often advised to allow repo to take place. That's why people are often advised to go bankrupt.

Yes, I read your thread very carefully.

I'm responding on your thread at the moment. I must say that it's miraculous that this almost perfect example of someone who might be better off handing in his keys and walking away appears, just as I ask you to provide proof! And it's the first post of a newbie who joined just today!

It's just amazing!! :rotfl:

Thrugelmir

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

If a property is repossessed, the bank sells it at 'fire-sale' prices in order to cover as much of the outstanding debt as possible,

There is a due process to follow in the marketing of the property to try and obtain the best possible price.

Mortgage debt is normally only pursued for 6 years in instances where there is no agreed single settlement figure or an agreed payment plan.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

Thrugelmir wrote: »

There is a due process to follow in the marketing of the property to try and obtain the best possible price.

Yes, and we can trust them not to put their own profits before their customers needs. That's why we don't have a PPI scandle... oh, hang on!

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Mortgage debt is normally only pursued for 6 years in instances where there is no agreed single settlement figure or an agreed payment plan.

You'd better tell these people:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/53290541#Comment_53290541

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2344573

This:

"Following the cases of Paragon v Banks and Halifax v Grant, The Court of Appeal has made a decision. They say the limitation period for mortgage lenders trying to recover mortgage shortfall debts is 12 years (Section 20 of the Limitation Act 1980).

This means the lender has 12 years from the last time a payment was made on the account or you acknowledged the debt to start action to recover the capital owed on the mortgage. It appears that the lender has 6 years to start action to recover interest added to the debt.

This decision means that you will not be able to argue that lenders should have started action within 6 years."

This guy was outside the 12 years and so got lucky:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1116415

I see you are still pushing opinion as fact, thrug. No wonder people on the mortgages and finance boards warn newbies about you.

Thrugelmir

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

I see you are still pushing opinion as fact, thrug. No wonder people on the mortgages and finance boards warn newbies about you.

I did use the word "normally". So did not infer all.

As there are guidelines on the subject.

Bite your tongue and let's move along.

grizzly1911

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

Yes, and we can trust them not to put their own profits before their customers needs. That's why we don't have a PPI scandle... oh, hang on!




You'd better tell these people:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/53290541#Comment_53290541

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2344573

This:

"Following the cases of Paragon v Banks and Halifax v Grant, The Court of Appeal has made a decision. They say the limitation period for mortgage lenders trying to recover mortgage shortfall debts is 12 years (Section 20 of the Limitation Act 1980).

This means the lender has 12 years from the last time a payment was made on the account or you acknowledged the debt to start action to recover the capital owed on the mortgage. It appears that the lender has 6 years to start action to recover interest added to the debt.

This decision means that you will not be able to argue that lenders should have started action within 6 years."

This guy was outside the 12 years and so got lucky:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1116415

I see you are still pushing opinion as fact, thrug. No wonder people on the mortgages and finance boards warn newbies about you.

Are all cases pursued or does closure actually occur on many cases where the lender accepts that further action would not be in their interest?

I know some debts are sold on and of others retained in house but where a genuine effort has been made of restitution then IME these are not pursued.

If a debtor tries to evade all responsibility it doesn't seem unreasonable that they should be "pursued". I do think it is reprehensible that this should be seen as a business opportunity, with scandalous feeds and charges though.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If a debtor tries to evade all responsibility it doesn't seem unreasonable that they should be "pursued". I do think it is reprehensible that this should be seen as a business opportunity, with scandalous feeds and charges though.

Totally agree, though I dare say many of these people who 'evaded all responsibility' entered into it (possibly due to bad advice) thinking that once they walked away from the property that they walked away from the responsibilty and it's was the bank's problem now.

Often it's not a case of deliberate evasion of responsibility but merely a lack of financial acumen. That's why people need to know all the facts (proper facts, not just hearsay and opinion) in order to base their judgements on.

michaels

I have a genuiene question:

If one were in a position of negative equity and wished to sell the property privately in order to achieve a better valuation and lower costs than having the lender selling as a repossession is this possible or does the lenders security on the property mean that repression is the only possibility?

grizzly1911

michaels wrote: »

I have a genuiene question:

If one were in a position of negative equity and wished to sell the property privately in order to achieve a better valuation and lower costs than having the lender selling as a repossession is this possible or does the lenders security on the property mean that repression is the only possibility?

Each case would be different and woudl be dependent on how protracted the case is.

Voluntary private sale would benefit all providing the best price was realised and not just given away. The lender would have to agree this. Would certainly save unecessary costs.

The down side would be any negative equity. Depending on the circumstance you could be said voluntarily put yourself in that position rather than being forced into it. A forced sale may clear the books.

Repossessions tend to be a last resort when all other avenues have failed and the borrower will not, can not sell to clear the debt, having being unable to service the debt in accordance with the agreement.

Once the lender has legally reprocessed the property they have taken control. They would still be expected to realise a fair value.

This is my understanding, practical experience and not legal opinion, there of course of brands of opinion out there.;)

Thrugelmir

michaels wrote: »

If one were in a position of negative equity and wished to sell the property privately in order to achieve a better valuation and lower costs than having the lender selling as a repossession is this possible or does the lenders security on the property mean that repression is the only possibility?

Lender holds the mortgage charge so the property cannot be sold without lenders consent.

So an agreement as to how the shortfall would be addressed needs to be put into place before the sale transaction can be effected.

More often or not. Repossession is to do with arrears on the mortgage rather than negative equity. To save costs (i.e. legal and court) the option for the borrower is to voluntarily allow possession by the lender.

IveSeenTheLight

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

It's politically expedient to help owner occupiers. People vote with their pockets and nothing counts for more in the economic well-being scale than the affordability of mortgages (mostly rational) and the value of houses (often irrational). Political parties probably haven't twigged yet that the rented sector is becoming more and more significant, and if they don't feel loved and wanted too it could have repurcussions.

I believe recently the last statistic showed home ownership levels at 67%, meaning that social and private rental market was 33%.

It would take a lot of change to make the rented market more than the home owner market.

Some of the retned market decide / want to rent.
Some of the rented market would never be able to afford.

It's a small percentage of agrieved renters against homeowners.