Mortgage company steals my money

ACG

If your telling us what it is - why are you asking us to vote on it?
If your solicitor is telling you something take their legal advice, pay their fees and take it to court - see if you win.

Just to help me understand, could yo clarify if the below is correct...

You owe a lender £236k in 2 separate mortgages to the same lender.
Your selling one and theyre using the full sale money to clear £170k of the £236k.
So in theory you are now left with 1 property and a mortgage of approx £66k?

If i am wrong anywhere please correct me (but preferably try to keep emotions out of it and stick to the facts... and if possible paragraphs, they really do help).

Is that correct so far?

JimmyTheWig

GINNAK2 wrote: »

this is no different than a bank taking the interest from your savings

I think it is more like the bank taking the interest from your savings (if not your entire savings) to pay off an overdraft that they want you to pay off. In many cases they _are_ allowed to do this and some people suggest not to have savings with the same institution that you have debts.

If they are taking your £69k and using it for a deposit for their Christmas party then that is wrong.
If they are taking your £69k and using if to reduce your other mortgage, that might be ok. Or it might be unfair. But either way it is not theft.

So it seems that there is some reason why they are keen for you to reduce the amount you owe on the property you are living in. Have they said this? Have they said what those reasons are? If they haven't said, can you gues what those reasons are? (E.g. have you stopped paying the monthly mortgage repayments?)
It also seems that they think they are allowed to take the proceeds from one property sale to reduce the balance of the mortgage on the other property. I would imagine that this is in the terms and conditions of the mortgage that you signed up for. I presume that you were aware of this at the time (or at least could have been aware of it at the time if you read what they sent you)? If not, ask your solicitor to look into it.

If there is a reasonable reason for them to be keeping this money and they are allowed to from the contract you signed then I would vote that what they are doing is ok. If not, it isn't.


But one other thing...
This might actually be in your favour.
Remember that you are not losing this money, that it is reducing what you owe which will, in turn, reduce the amount of interest that you pay on your mortgage each month. So from that point of view it is a break-even situation.
But if you had £69k sat in the bank you would be unlikely to receive any means-tested benefits.
If you don't have this money (and you had no way of keeping this money) then you may well qualify for benefits.

ValHaller

GINNAK2 wrote: »

In total, both mortgages, I owe them £236,000, but these are separate mortgages, which separate account numbers. The mortgage in question is approximately £101,500 and house has sole for £170,000.

Putting it all together

House 1 - value 170, mortgage 102 => equity 68 from sale

House 2 - value 100, mortgage 134 => equity -34


The key question now is does your lender have the right to offset your negative equity with your equity from sale?

GINNAK2

NO

I had no choice but to move into one of the properties whne myself and my ex-wife jointly decided to separate. I had nowhere to live or have my children.

Artfullodger; this wasn't a stockmarket gamble, this was a sensible investment in property. Barring something happening as in the 80's, its a sure fire long term investment. I should be entitled to the profits made on the property after repaying the mortgage, that's what is mine. As the interest on your building society savings are yours, so should the interest from this investment be mine. What most replies seem to be conveying, is that these financial institutions should be allowed to do anything they want, just pop "you sacrifice your legs if you do not keep up payments on your mortgage" in the terms and conditions and it's legal and binding, because you signed it! All power to these big organisations and stuff the little man who's spent his life trying to make the future better for their families. Doesn't anybody stick up for their own rights nowadays, not just legally, but morally too?

G_M

YES

GINNAK2 wrote: »

* both mortgages, I owe them £236,000,

(but these are separate mortgages, which separate account numbers.) but can be consolidated, so NOT separate.

* The mortgage in question is approximately £101,500
* and house has sole for £170,000.

The fact is that I paid the original fees on purchase, I saved and provided the deposit, I took out the mortgage (risk), I've paid the interest for 13 years and I've paid for the sale of the property. all normal.... and irrelevant to your issue

As I've said, this is no different than a bank taking the interest from your savings, ..rubbish. It is like having an unauthorised overdraft on your current account and the bank taking the interest from your savings to pay off the overdraft!.[/QUOTE]

So instead of owing £236,000, and owning two properties, you now owe £66,000 aprox 236-101), and own 1 property.

Is that correct?

You have considerably reduced your debts.

ILW

GINNAK2 wrote: »

I had no choice but to move into one of the properties whne myself and my ex-wife jointly decided to separate. I had nowhere to live or have my children.

Artfullodger; this wasn't a stockmarket gamble, this was a sensible investment in property. Barring something happening as in the 80's, its a sure fire long term investment. I should be entitled to the profits made on the property after repaying the mortgage, that's what is mine. As the interest on your building society savings are yours, so should the interest from this investment be mine. What most replies seem to be conveying, is that these financial institutions should be allowed to do anything they want, just pop "you sacrifice your legs if you do not keep up payments on your mortgage" in the terms and conditions and it's legal and binding, because you signed it! All power to these big organisations and stuff the little man who's spent his life trying to make the future better for their families. Doesn't anybody stick up for their own rights nowadays, not just legally, but morally too?

It obviously was not the guaranteed earner you expected. Stop whining.

kingstreet

citricsquid wrote: »

Please explain, what on earth do your mortgage company have to do with the sale? How are they just going to take money from you? You are right that they have no right to take the money from you, so you're either misunderstanding the process or there is some serious negligence going on (which seems unlikely). They can't just dip into your bank account willy-nilly.

Have you spoken to your solicitor, have they explained what is happening? Please explain further and put aside your anger/frustration for a minute so people can get a clearer picture and help you.

I suspect an "all monies" charge and the ability to claim equity from the sale of one property to reduce the indebtedness on another.

GINNAK2

NO

Valhaller , I'm not sure where you go negative equity from, neither house is in negative equity!

The main point is, that I have sold the property to get myself out of problems without claiming benefits from the state, which is something I have never ever done. When they take the money, I won't be able to pay the mortgage, my bills etc etc, and they'll reposes the house I live in, leaving me homeless and a burden to the state and they'll sell the property in an auction for enough money to cover the mortgage owed and I'll end up with nothing. Where is the correct in that? Why on earth did I even both to try and better mine and my families future? CHL are no longer trading as they messed up along with all the other lenders and banks, and as usual, the little man is the one that's suffering. Mind you, all of the immigrants that have moved into the town I live in are take care of, housed etc., I've paid in all my life, since leaving school in 1983, and I'm entitled to nothing, unless I'm made homeless, then I might be lucky enough to get a bedsit as apposed to the houses and flats being given to immigrants! Sorry to add emotion to this, but I suffer with severe clinical depression and this is getting a little too much to handle, seeing my future as a nothing and 30 years of work and saving whipped away by the blind inconsiderate decision, which has quite frankly ruined my life and will have a lasting effect on my children. It's quite simply wrong and immoral.

JimmyTheWig

GINNAK2 wrote: »

What most replies seem to be conveying, is that these financial institutions should be allowed to do anything they want, just pop "you sacrifice your legs if you do not keep up payments on your mortgage" in the terms and conditions and it's legal and binding, because you signed it!

If the "sacrifice your legs" bit had been in the terms and conditions, would you have signed the mortgage agreement? I'm guessing that you wouldn't, which is why I think it is different.

All power to these big organisations and stuff the little man who's spent his life trying to make the future better for their families.

Not true. Generally, on this site, we do stick up for the little man against the big organisation.
But BTL landlords often come into some stick because in being a landlord they are trying to be more like the big organisation and creating another "little man" in the form of the person renting from them.

Doesn't anybody stick up for their own rights nowadays, not just legally, but morally too?

Again, generally we do on this site.
Is it morally right to sell an asset and pocket the equity while leaving another asset in serious negative equity? I'm not sure that it is.
So to know who is morally right here we need to establish why the mortgage company want this money. Why do you think that is?

JimmyTheWig

OP, this has nothing, whatsoever, to do with immigrants.