In a terrible mortgage situation, please help

lemonjelli

I should add, and I don't know if this is going to be a spanner in the works, but Adam has said he is expecting to "come out of this with something"... Hmm.

holly_hobby

lemonjelli wrote: »

We did come abroad for employment, but not through his UK employer. He left his job in the UK and is now employed by a company here. So I guess we would be considered as neither resident nor expats, how funny!

Ok, so you voluntarily moved abroad and secured employment there.

Under UK residency, of course you are ex-pat's, is just in relation to UK mortgage lenders approach that the basis of your overseas employment status wouldn't generally meet their ex-pat criteria for new borrowing (which apart from that discussed above, also includes holding a UK banking account with direct payments and typically residing in Europe) - which are 2 v different things.

lemonjelli wrote: »

You have really put our minds at rest, we feel we will approach the conversation with the lender a lot better now (as you have laid it out), you make the TOE sound so straightforward, we can only hope!

You need to remember to play it that its to their advantage to allow your CTL and TOE request (which the GF will also have to agree to be removed from the mge etc). I can't promise the lender will accept either request (baring in mind the residency issue and neg equity problem), so when presenting your case, be mindful that you want the lender to see it as being a positive move for them to replace Mary with you, and permit the CTL - other than that its in the lap of the gods (ie the underwriters !).

Adam wants to come out with what .. ? He's neither a joint mortgagor nor legal owner ... does he intend citing and proving beneficial ownership rights ?

Here if you need a chat ....

Holly xx

lemonjelli

(which apart from that discussed above, also includes holding a UK banking account with direct payments)

Out of interest, we do own and maintain UK bank accounts, a credit card which we send money home every month to clear etc. I don't know if that's any use? Unfortunately, the exchange rate has gone against our favour recently, a year or two ago, 3x our two salaries would easily have covered the mortgage, now however it may only be around 100k. A quick search on here for NR and ToE does not fill us with confidence regarding this fact!

Adam wants to come out with what .. ? He's neither a joint mortgagor nor legal owner ... does he intend citing and proving beneficial ownership rights ?

Well, when the three of them got into this sorry scheme, the plan was to keep the house for a bit, sell it, make some money and walk away. Obviously life had other ideas! Adam isn't on the mortgage, however:

- The 10k loan they had on top of the mortgage was split three ways between them, not two.

- Adam and Mary aren't married, but Adam says that "he's the one" who's been paying the mortgage, and that he and Mary would like to see some money out of the venture, as originally planned.

- Adam made very clear in his messages to H that they've been the ones paying the mortgage and bills for the last four years while H moved out, so they feel they have the upper hand so to speak, that they have been the ones hard done by, by paying it all on their own?

My H and me don't think they realise that actually they'd be very very lucky to just walk away with nothing and no adverse credit score! H thinks that should this COE and CTL go through, that they would only agree to it on the basis of them getting a share of the sale price if and when we ever sold the house at a profit. Their employment and credit histories are such that without my H going on the mortgage, they would never have been able to get one by themselves, and still wouldn't be able to. So H is worried that they have 'nothing to lose' and so would happily default if they didn't think there was any money in it for them at the end of it all.

afly

lemonjelli wrote: »

Adam couldn't get a mortgage because his job was very 'cash under the table'.

lemonjelli wrote: »

I should add, and I don't know if this is going to be a spanner in the works, but Adam has said he is expecting to "come out of this with something"... Hmm.

A quick anonymous chat with HMRC and he could come out of it with free bed and board at her majesty's pleasure

Sorry, but I'd be furious :mad:

holly_hobby

afly wrote: »

A quick anonymous chat with HMRC and he could come out of it with free bed and board at her majesty's pleasure

That did make me chuckle Afly !!

Lemon

Whilst trying to remain unbiased - this is a chicken and egg situ, and I can appreciate where Adam is coming from, if he has been maintaining the mge when Hubby has taken himself abroad and not incurred any costs during the same period (and I mean that in the nicest way). However as you so rightly say, without Hubby, neither Adam or Mary would have had the house to live in .

Putting to one side the situ re mortgagors from the mge lenders point of view, from a beneficial ownership (BO)and rights angle, if Adam can prove he has been paying the mortgage and costs from outset or a signfiicant duration (ie bank statements etc), a solicitor may be able to satisfy BO for the court's purpose.

But, of course even if a court order was in place, this division would only occur on sale of the property (his proportion of costs coming from any share), and if there were any profit left to distribute.

Otherwise, if Mary agrees to the TOE, and its accepted by the lender, and there are no trust doc/court direction or similar in place, how would they know when and if you had sold (apart from keeping a beady eye), and actually get any monies out of you ... (profit or no profit ????) ...

But to be fair if there were any profit after application of sale and legal costs etc, IMHO it would only be fair to consider Adam & Mary - given as I say they have maintained the mge over the past yrs in Hubbys absence.

Anyhoo, lot to chew on .....

Hope this helps

Holly

lemonjelli

Too scared to ring them!

Because lets be honest. There is no way NR, of all banks, are going to agree to:

- Change to interest only, AND
- transfer of equity, AND
- Consent to let, on a property with
- Negative equity, AND
- 2 mortgagees who don't reside in the uk!

No chance. We are sat here worrying what the worst case scenario is going to be. They will laugh us off the phone!

Thrugelmir

lemonjelli wrote: »

No chance. We are sat here worrying what the worst case scenario is going to be. They will laugh us off the phone!

Well you have 2 options , be pro active with the aim of minimising damage to your husbands credit profile or sink with ship taking the impact.

Missed this point earlier. Why was the original mortgage 110%. What happened to the additional £12k that was borrowed. Who benefited from the money. Does this have a bearing on what's going on?

holly_hobby

lemonjelli wrote: »

Too scared to ring them!

Because lets be honest. There is no way NR, of all banks, are going to agree to:

- Change to interest only, AND
- transfer of equity, AND
- Consent to let, on a property with
- Negative equity, AND
- 2 mortgagees who don't reside in the uk!

No chance. We are sat here worrying what the worst case scenario is going to be. They will laugh us off the phone!

Ah, NR together mge (now NRAM) ...

Personally I'd call them to see what they DO say - as what other option do you have ?

Anyhoo, leave it with you - let us know how you get on.

Hope this helps

Holly x

lemonjelli

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Well you have 2 options , be pro active with the aim of minimising damage to your husbands credit profile or sink with ship taking the impact.

Missed this point earlier. Why was the original mortgage 110%. What happened to the additional £12k that was borrowed. Who benefited from the money. Does this have a bearing on what's going on?

The extra was 10k (so not quite a 110% mortgage), it was split as so:

- 3k to my H (on the mortgage)
- 3k to Mary (on the mortgage)
- 3k to Adam (not on the mortgage!)
- 1k on furnishings.

Thrugelmir

lemonjelli wrote: »

(on the mortgage)

Could you clarify?