Mortgage company steals my money

SternMusik

YES

OK, I can understand why you are upset and annoyed. You expected to receive the proceeds of the sale but you didn't receive them. But honestly, what do you expect the lender to do?

They originally agreed to give you mortgages on two BTL houses, which were both rented out thus providing an income to cover the mortgage payments. You have now moved into one of them which is now not providing an income any longer. So there are two BTLs with only one of them providing an income. You now decide to sell the house that provides an income and want to leave the lender with a BTL mortgage on a house in massive negative equity which is not even rented out.

Your mortgage lender have their loans secured on your property assets. Your other debts are unsecured. You want to use a property asset to clear unsecured debts and leave your mortgage lender high and dry. It is perfectly understandable that they will take steps to avert that, and their T&Cs appear to allow them to do this.

Edit: I've just read that you say there is no negative equity. It would still seem a prudent thing for the lender to do what they have done, given that the BTL doesn't generate an income. It is not a BTL any longer. You should really have a residential mortgage on it. You have withdrawn from the lettings business, and they want to reduce their exposure given that it's not a business any longer.

kingstreet

As previously mentioned, your entitlement to benefits will change when the second property is sold.

WestonDave

IF CHL are no longer trading then that may be another reason why funds are being liquidated as soon as possible when assets are sold - so the administrators etc can close down old balances.

Its pointless complaining that companies aren't thinking of the bigger moral picture such as your ongoing wellbeing - they aren't there to do that, and in fact their legal obligations to their shareholders etc mean they have to consider what is best in terms of return for their shareholders rather than a wider social conscience. Its a machine which produces what its designed to produce - profit - complaining otherwise is like moaning that a sausage machine doesn't produce hammers.

I entirely agree that there is potentially a wider debate about whether the current corporate model needs further adjustment mechanisms (e.g. Climate Change Levy acts financially to ensure companies consider environmental issues) but in this case a company appears to have done what its terms say it can do, and what the law suggests it ought to be doing for its shareholders.

DTDfanBoy

YES

GINNAK2 wrote: »

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.

Instead of blaming everyone else for the predicament you find yourself in, perhaps you could take a second to do something proactive and check the mortgage agreements :T

If the mortgagee has a right to consolidate your mortgages it will be clearly outlined in the agreement

If they do have the right to consolidate feel free to go back to blaming everyone else, but if they do not have the right I'm sure there are many here who would be happy to offer you advice

DTDfanBoy

YES

WestonDave wrote: »

IF CHL are no longer trading then that may be another reason why funds are being liquidated as soon as possible when assets are sold - so the administrators etc can close down old balances.

Its pointless complaining that companies aren't thinking of the bigger moral picture such as your ongoing wellbeing - they aren't there to do that, and in fact their legal obligations to their shareholders etc mean they have to consider what is best in terms of return for their shareholders rather than a wider social conscience. Its a machine which produces what its designed to produce - profit - complaining otherwise is like moaning that a sausage machine doesn't produce hammers.

I entirely agree that there is potentially a wider debate about whether the current corporate model needs further adjustment mechanisms (e.g. Climate Change Levy acts financially to ensure companies consider environmental issues) but in this case a company appears to have done what its terms say it can do, and what the law suggests it ought to be doing for its shareholders.

CHL are a subsidiary of Permanent TSB, an Irish bank which is currently 99.8% state owned :eek: after various bailout packages

They are obviously looking to reduce liability wherever they can.

[Deleted User]

kingstreet wrote: »

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

That sounds reasonably fair, the money is just being spent in a way that the OP is not happy with, that £65,000 will buy him equity in the other property, correct? (well, less the interest incurred)

I wonder why the OP cannot sell his primary residence (that will almost be mortgage free?) and downsize... no homelessness, and able to claim benefits.

GINNAK2

NO

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

They have two different account numbers, therefore they are two separate accounts.

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

That is exactly the point, would you be happy to throw THE PURCHASE PRICE + MAINTENTS COSTS + YOUR EFFORT AND TIME + SALES COSTS, out of the window, because you'll get nothing back!

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

It's not an unauthorised overdraft, it's a signed and agreed mortgage (loan).


And the reason for sale is to clear £30,000 worth of debts! and not duck away from my responsibilities to pay those debts, rather than paying them a £1 a month for the rest of my life, ensuring that everybody else's bills go up, due to scroungers like me.

kingstreet

DTDfanBoy wrote: »

CHL are a subsidiary of Permanent TSB, an Irish bank which is currently 99.8% state owned :eek:

They are obviously looking to reduce liability wherever they can.

Blimey, is it?

When it started back in 1989 it was a joint venture between Credit Foncier and Societe Generale.

_Andy_

1) I love the rise in popularity of pointless polls.
2) I like turtles.

SternMusik

YES

GINNAK2 wrote: »

And the reason for sale is to clear £30,000 worth of debts! and not duck away from my responsibilities to pay those debts, rather than paying them a £1 a month for the rest of my life, ensuring that everybody else's bills go up, due to scroungers like me.

And you should be commended for that. The problem is that the equity in your properties is "spoken for". Your mortgage company has a charge over it. Your were effectively trying to put your mortgage lender in a much worse position (less equity to back their BTL loans) in order to repay unsecured debt.