Mortgage company wont let me pay my arrears

ValHaller

My feeling on this is that the money laundering line is a totally false barrier. If the money was paid on time, they would never have questioned where it came from, so why ask when the arrears are about to be settled?

The fact is that if you march into court and tell the judge that you have the money and the lender won't accept it, he is not going to be too impressed. To me, this is more about trying to give you enough rope to hang yourself because for whatever reason they are fed up with you as a customer. So if they refuse the money, they hope you will spend it and they will win the repo order. Have you had a longstanding problem with arrears?

I suggest that you get today recorded in a letter to the lender, stating that you tried to pay over the phone and the money was refused. Ask them to confirm how they will accept the money. If the lender has a solicitor involved, copy them in and keep a copy for yourself.

Go to court with a copy of the letter and a cheque. Tell the judge you have offered to pay by phone and have been refused, state that you have offered by letter in the light of the refusal and you have the money available.

Let us know how you get on.

kingstreet

In what form do you have this money and what is its source?

Goldiegirl

And what evidence are they asking for?

Thrugelmir

toomuchbeer wrote: »

No there is no problem, and no I have not lied to them in the past! Only problem is getting my ex to send info through too. I have no problem sending everything I have through at all, but want to make the payment ASAP, the cash is there you would think they would be more than happy to take it off my hands

I'm merely illustrating the view of the lender. Being in arrears is a serious matter, more so when the point of possession is reached. A lender isn't going to waste time if this a temporary respite. If in a few months you'll be back treading the same path again.

ValHaller

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I'm merely illustrating the view of the lender. Being in arrears is a serious matter, more so when the point of possession is reached. A lender isn't going to waste time if this a temporary respite. If in a few months you'll be back treading the same path again.

:eek::eek::eek: The lender has no standing to judge whether this is a temporary respite. If they are using the excuse of moneylaundering to refuse payment of arrears because they believe that this is no more than a temporary respite, then it is an abuse of process to ask a court for a repo order.

Dave_Ham

I suspect the OP physically has cash and this is what may have them jumpy.

I do not believe they can or will refuse this, although it is difficult to interpret if they cannot accept or will not accept.

Pay the cash into a bank account and call them and pay on a card, if I am right in my assumption of course..

Goldiegirl

ValHaller wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek: The lender has no standing to judge whether this is a temporary respite. If they are using the excuse of moneylaundering to refuse payment of arrears because they believe that this is no more than a temporary respite, then it is an abuse of process to ask a court for a repo order.

If a mortgage account is up to date, there's no point in the lender getting a court hearing date, as a Judge wouldn't grant a possession order on a mortgage account that it up to date.

If the mortgage did subsequently fall into arrears, the lender would have to start the proceedings again.

I think I would pay the money into the account, to make sure the proceedings are stopped, then provide the proof of the money's origins, if that is what the lender is insisting on

If they actually did refuse to take my money and carried on with the proceedings, I'd tell the judge at the hearing that the lender was putting up barriers to me clearing the arrears.

In the dim and distant past, when I dealt with mortgage arrears for my former employer, judges were sympathetic to borrowers.

dunstonh

The fact is that if you march into court and tell the judge that you have the money and the lender won't accept it, he is not going to be too impressed.

Although if the lender said to the judge that they have not been able to comply with the legal requirements imposed on them and explained what they had asked for but had not been supplied with then the judge would not likely rule against them. After all, he has to consider law. That said, the judges tend to not grant possession lightly and would probably consider the length of time and whether the reason for not accepting it is fair. e.g. if its been a month and the evidence still hasnt arrived then is that enough time to have given the individual. (not saying whether it is or isnt as that is what the judge would need to decide)

The lender may well be saying that they will continue the process until you supply the evidence. However, the minute you satisfy them, they will stop the process.

Source of funds doesnt have to be explicitly proven on amounts of that size. If it was an automated payment in from your ex's bank account then it will have his/her name on the statement. If the explanation for the ex paying you is reasonable then that explanation along with a copy of the statement showing the entry on your account should be fine.

ValHaller

dunstonh wrote: »

Although if the lender said to the judge that they have not been able to comply with the legal requirements imposed on them and explained what they had asked for but had not been supplied with then the judge would not likely rule against them. After all, he has to consider law. That said, the judges tend to not grant possession lightly and would probably consider the length of time and whether the reason for not accepting it is fair. e.g. if its been a month and the evidence still hasnt arrived then is that enough time to have given the individual. (not saying whether it is or isnt as that is what the judge would need to decide)

The lender may well be saying that they will continue the process until you supply the evidence. However, the minute you satisfy them, they will stop the process.

Source of funds doesnt have to be explicitly proven on amounts of that size. If it was an automated payment in from your ex's bank account then it will have his/her name on the statement. If the explanation for the ex paying you is reasonable then that explanation along with a copy of the statement showing the entry on your account should be fine.

The worst the judge would do, you would hope, is to stay proceedings while this is resolved. As there is no set standard AFAIK as to what is an acceptable source or one which is acceptable to reject, no judge is going to want proceedings to stry into this:

OP: The money is a gift from Aunt Geraldine form selling her Italian Villa
Lender: We reject the money because it might be from the !!!!! (edit: stupid cuss filter - Mafia)

Thrugelmir

ValHaller wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek: The lender has no standing to judge whether this is a temporary respite. If they are using the excuse of moneylaundering to refuse payment of arrears because they believe that this is no more than a temporary respite, then it is an abuse of process to ask a court for a repo order.

You are assuming that the the issue relates to money laundering. Personally I do not, based on the sums involved.

The judge won't be enamoured by the fact that the OP was unwilling to answer simple straightforward questions. Should that end up being the case.

While the arrears may be resolved. Affordability may well still be an issue. That still has to be determined.

There's always far more to a tale than is told. So only possible to comment on what is published.