Secured Lender. Is it Legal?

amibeingrippedoff_2

opinions4u wrote: »

Still completely lost me.

Lets say a lender is giving you £60k to build your house on land i owned ,they plan to give you £20k to get so far with the build then another £40k later on so i can continue.

So they give you £20k and you start building, you then go back a couple of months later and say i need the rest of the money £40k to continue, they refuse (the reason is another story)

Now, lets say you try to work this out between yourself, the lender and both sets of solicitors, everyone stands their ground and it cant be resolved.

Now, the important part. The lender provided £20k so i only owe them £20k+ fees if i want to pay them back and get my charge removed.BUT the same solicitor on behalf of and on instruction by the lender SOLD the charge on my property to another person without me knowing for £60k so he is effectively £40k in pocket/in his bank

Now, at the time his solicitor is chasing me and threatening to repossess my property to pay the lender back his £20k + fees the solicitor knew their client (the lender) had sold it on to someone else as that solicitor dealt with the sale for the lender and the guy who bought the charge from the lender

Effectively at that time, i owed the lender £20k + fees and i owed the guy that bought the charge from the lender £60k = I am in debt to the sum of £80k + fees at that time for a loan of £20k + fees

What i believe should have happened was, IF the lender had the right to sell the charge, it should have been sold for what i owed him at the time £20k + fees and i should have been notified that another person had taken over the contract.

Now lets say, i decided to sell my property to get rid of the lender and the charge removed from my deeds, which was suggested to me, again lets say via an auction for £60k. the guy that held the charge for £60k would have taken the lot. i would have got nothing and then the lender would have chased me for his £20k + fees i owe him under the original contract.

The end result would have been the lender got £40k in profit while chasing me for £20k + or even better, he would have dissolved the ltd company and forgot about it as he was well in the money anway. The guy that held the charge would have got his £60k back directly from the solicitor that sold the property for me, just as would hapen when anyone sells their house, the bank get paid and the owner gets whats left automatically.

I only wish i could say that this was the worst part of this whole ordeal but it aint! trust me

amibeingrippedoff_2

gb12345 wrote: »

But you need advice on whether you are being scammed or not and no one on this forum is going to give you that advice (and most of us are not qualified to any way) - so all you are going to get are opinions, which are really worth nothing. Anything I tell you will have no weight or relevance in court and if it does go to court, for this level of money you will need proper legal representation or you could end up owing a lot more than you currently do if you lose the case.

If you want to avoid being scammed or find out the legality of your situation then you need to stump up some cash for proper legal advice (or maybe a free 1/2 consultation or a claim on your house insurance if you have legal cover).

I understand i wont be able to deal with such a complex matter myself, i just answered the last post under stress, hence i have been up all night trying to find out as much as i can to try help myself.

Apologies to poppasmurf_bewdley

thanks

gb12345

What does the charge on your deeds actually say? It was obviously originally a charge for £20K was this changed to a charge for £60k and if so how did they manage to get it changed.

Who/what is the "entity" that lent you the original money (no need to name them if you want to keep it private - are they legally registered to be lending money to people). You mention a Ltd company and closing it down to avoid repaying - this doesn't sound like something a legitimate lender would consider doing.

Also, what were the terms for repaying the £20,000? You mention that the solicitor is threatening to reposess - is this because you have failed to pay back the £20k when you should have?

Nebulous2

There are several issues that I think need to be dissected carefully and in detail from your story and I am wading into things I know very little about, to be upfront!

Firstly the contractual agreement between you and the lender. What were the agreements for the stage payments? You say you do not want to go into why the subsequent payment wasn't made, but one of you may have been in breach of the agreement. It would strengthen your case if it is him.

Secondly I do not see, again from limited information that you need to pay £60,000, unless (maybe and its a big maybe!) you were at fault in point one. You provided a charge over the property which you tell us can be discharged for £20k plus fees. The lender didn't offer an additional charge over the property, how could he, as he didn't own it? He sold on his rights to the first charge. If you pay your £20k plus fees and that genuinely removes the first charge then the second buyer has to look to the first one for his money back.

As I said, just some random musings from someone who knows very little about property law, but in my view the agreement must be key. If the remainder of the £60k wasn't forthcoming someone broke that agreement. What actually happened is not really the point. It is what did the agreement say should happen and who failed in their responsibilities under the agreement.

molerat

One of you have probably breached the contract.
It is going to take proper legal advice to get this sorted.
The original lender has been either very silly or very clever and a solicitor and / or the courts will be the only way forward.

loubel

Your position should be set out in the loan agreement and legal charge that you would have had to sign to set this agreement up. Presumably you got independent legal advice on the agreement before you entered into it? You would be best advised to take all of the paperwork involved to a specialist solicitor to get advice about your current position.

amibeingrippedoff_2

gb12345 wrote: »

What does the charge on your deeds actually say? It was obviously originally a charge for £20K was this changed to a charge for £60k and if so how did they manage to get it changed.

Who/what is the "entity" that lent you the original money (no need to name them if you want to keep it private - are they legally registered to be lending money to people). You mention a Ltd company and closing it down to avoid repaying - this doesn't sound like something a legitimate lender would consider doing.

Also, what were the terms for repaying the £20,000? You mention that the solicitor is threatening to reposess - is this because you have failed to pay back the £20k when you should have?

Who/what is the "entity" that lent you the original money (no need to name them if you want to keep it private - are they legally registered to be lending money to people). You mention a Ltd company and closing it down to avoid repaying - this doesn't sound like something a legitimate lender would consider doing.

Also, what were the terms for repaying the £20,000? You mention that the solicitor is threatening to reposess - is this because you have failed to pay back the £20k when you should have?[/QUOTE]

The original charge shown was for £60k (full amount i was supposed to get) but from the details on the legals my solicitor had me sign and he also signed, i was only giving a charge to what was outstanding at any given time. I did not sign ANY charge for the full amount. ( i can provided the wording on here if it helps)

i cant name the lender for obvious reasons. As for were they authorised to lend, the Parnership who provided the contract had a CCL to lend, BUT the charge was in the name of a Limited company and passing of the Partnership company on the contract as if they were a trading name of that Limited company. ( confused? I was but not now) the Limited company did not have a CCL to lend money but they are also noted on the documents i signed at soliciotrs as the lender (NO CCL to be a lender) pretty clever way to portray themselves once you see the big picture. As for legitimate company, NOT. between the directors they have dissolved well over 20 companies between them over a few years.

there were no terms to repy the £20k, the terms were in contract to supply full £60k in 2 stages, at that point and only at that point, there was another lender coming in to refinance and pay him back, that cant happen as i needed to be at a certqin stage before the refinancing could be done.

amibeingrippedoff_2

that

Nebulous2 wrote: »

There are several issues that I think need to be dissected carefully and in detail from your story and I am wading into things I know very little about, to be upfront!

Firstly the contractual agreement between you and the lender. What were the agreements for the stage payments? You say you do not want to go into why the subsequent payment wasn't made, but one of you may have been in breach of the agreement. It would strengthen your case if it is him.

Certainly the lender in breach, thats another mess that would very much confuse you

Secondly I do not see, again from limited information that you need to pay £60,000, unless (maybe and its a big maybe!) you were at fault in point one. You provided a charge over the property which you tell us can be discharged for £20k plus fees. The lender didn't offer an additional charge over the property, how could he, as he didn't own it? He sold on his rights to the first charge. If you pay your £20k plus fees and that genuinely removes the first charge then the second buyer has to look to the first one for his money back.

Well you would need to ask the lenders solicitor who did do the sale of the charge based on what the lender was supposed to give me. It was for the full £60k to another guy not even within the UK

If i paid the lender what i owed him, he couldnt remove the charge as he didnty hold it, he sold the charge to the other guy only a short time after releasing the first of 2 stage payments. the lender provided £20k then soon after sold the charge for the £60k as he had registered his charge for the full £60k even though he knew he was supplying 2 stages £20k + £40k a couple of months apart. yes, it sounds not right doesnt it. but thats exactly how it is. His solicitor dealt with conveyancing for the contract between me and the lender and also the contract between the lender and the guy he sold it to. Fact

As I said, just some random musings from someone who knows very little about property law, but in my view the agreement must be key. If the remainder of the £60k wasn't forthcoming someone broke that agreement. What actually happened is not really the point. It is what did the agreement say should happen and who failed in their responsibilities under the agreement.

That would most certainly be the lender!

amibeingrippedoff_2

molerat wrote: »

One of you have probably breached the contract.
It is going to take proper legal advice to get this sorted.
The original lender has been either very silly or very clever and a solicitor and / or the courts will be the only way forward.

thanks....

amibeingrippedoff_2

loubel wrote: »

Your position should be set out in the loan agreement and legal charge that you would have had to sign to set this agreement up. Presumably you got independent legal advice on the agreement before you entered into it? You would be best advised to take all of the paperwork involved to a specialist solicitor to get advice about your current position.

The legal charge i signed was to give a charge to the lender for the amount outstanding at any given time but the lender simply registered his charge for the full amount £60k from day one!

His solicitor signed all this off even though they knew how the lender was providing funds, in 2 stages

When i recently got the docs from Land registry i was shocked, they even told me they flagged this and made notes against the title deeds as it was unusual but they concluded the charge as it was carried out by a solicitor who are regulated.