Advice on eviction

BigAunty

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Of course equity is not only "about the current situation". My house had £10,000 equity in 2005, it has £20,000 equity now. Only the CURRENT equity is about the current situation.

In this case the current equity is relevant if she is looking to sell the house today,and the equity at the time of the sale is relevant to considering whether or not it was a fair deal at the time.

This really isn't rocket science.

No its not rocket science - you have no concept about equity. It is about the current market value of a property less its liabilities, such as outstanding mortgage.

Historic equity is a worthless concept. Future equity is a worthless concept.

It's about what the property owner could now get if it is sold. You are fixated on the imaginary sum you think the OP has extracted from the property at the outset of her purchase. That sum no longer exists....Unless of course the OP has developed a time machine and can breach the existing space/time continuum.

RAS

Cna we please get back to the Op's situation and not let this ding dong about equity smother the whole thread; we are not even getting answers to basic questions because they are three pages back already.

Somerset

BigAunty wrote: »

Historic equity is a worthless concept. Future equity is a worthless concept.

It's not worthless in this context. If this ever goes to court, the number's then, is what the judge will look at, in determining whether, on the balance of probabilities, a life tenancy was granted.


Edit : Sorry RAS

BigAunty

RAS wrote: »

Cna we please get back to the Op's situation and not let this ding dong about equity smother the whole thread; we are not even getting answers to basic questions because they are three pages back already.

You make a good point and I wish I could cooperate.

but I am determined that the other poster gets a proper challenge to the notion that somehow the OP is magically up £150k. Their misinterpretation of the concept of equity gives the impression that the OP can shout 'ker ching'.

So what if there was a £100k plus difference in the value and mortgage 5 years ago - how does that historic fact have any bearing on how she can resolve her financial crisis and her parents future homelessness? There is in fact somewhere between 30 and 40k equity if the OPs calculations are correct. There will be a lot less if the lender repossesses.

I'm sure the OP can pick out the questions and address them separately. Apologies to the OP though if my challenge is annoying her.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

BigAunty wrote: »

You make a good point and I wish I could cooperate.

but I am determined that the other poster gets a proper challenge to the notion that somehow the OP is magically up £150k. Their misinterpretation of the concept of equity gives the impression that the OP can shout 'ker ching'.

So what if there was a £100k plus difference in the value and mortgage 5 years ago - how does that historic fact have any bearing on how she can resolve her financial crisis and her parents future homelessness? There is in fact somewhere between 30 and 40k equity if the OPs calculations are correct. There will be a lot less if the lender repossesses.

I'm sure the OP can pick out the questions and address them separately. Apologies to the OP though if my challenge is annoying her.

Oh !!!!!!. I never mentioned the equity in respect to her resolving her current financial crisis. I have only ever mentioned the historic equity in relevance to the fairness of the transaction. You're just not reading what I say.

BigAunty

Somerset wrote: »

It's not worthless in this context. If this ever goes to court, the number's then, is what the judge will look at, in determining whether, on the balance of probabilities, a life tenancy was granted.


Edit : Sorry RAS

Possibly but but possibly not. The judge may very well choose to go by current valuations and actual equity if the parents seek compensation. Or they may order the OP to pay back the 100k plus that was lost over time and good luck to the OPs parents in getting that enforced. Warring couples get their actual assets divided up, for example, not fantasy historic valuations.

A general rule of thumb when taking action against another party is that you can't get money out of someone who doesn't have it and repayment schedules can be set up. By the time the OP lists her income/outgoings if it goes to an attachment of earnings to enforce payment (that clearly don't stretch to her having £700 per month disposable income), it'll be a token sum payable each month.

She's already been told to find out if she can get any future legal judgement costs written off via bankruptcy or DRO, etc. She might be able to walk away ridding herself of a 100k plus mortgage and any judgements against her with just a bad credit record for a few years. She might feel relief once she's had a formal debt management strategy in place as at least there's an end in sight and various options. The current mortgage is a millstone round her neck for perhaps up to 20 years.

To the OP - do you have the mortgage in your sole name or in joint names with your partner?

Rocky99

It's a residential mortgage the lender has no idea they live there, and the 'contract' was completed three months after the completion.

One question if we applied for repossession and a judge rubber stamps it without my parents defending it, would the judges decision over ride this contract, ie if the judge says we can have the house, can they use the contract at a later stage?

DaftyDuck

I have to chip in again (sorry RAS, you're probably right, but the OP is obviously reading all this, and by all of us beating this out on this thread, may well get some partial solution, or consensus of opinion)... and disagree with BigAunty over this equity business. The equity that was relevant to the deal was that available (released or not) at the time the deal was made. That would be what the fairness of the deal would be judged on, and it does apppear to have been reasonable at the time.

A professional equity release agency would have looked at the value of the house, life expectancy of parents, and proceeded or not on that basis. The OP did likewise.

The OP's release of £50k was her choice, not influenced by parents - and it does bear mention now because, although it is not helpful in resolving the current situation, it was instrumental in arriving at this financial breakpoint this early. It also removes one solution: there is insufficient value in the property to interest any professional equity release program - of that I'm pretty certain.

Additionally, I very much doubt any landlord would be interested, even if the parents stated they were willing to pay rent: they don't have viable income to pay rent, they have a history of not paying rent, there would be some doubt as to whether eviction would ever be possible, and I suspect that if the parents chose to enforce the current terms, they could.

The s21 route is the most viable, as there is little obvious detriment to the OP's position by doing this. I don't think a failed eviction on this basis is going to enormously increase the evidence the parents do have a lasting right of occupation (possible though), eviction would solve the OP's problems and would actually not be detrimental to the parents - who will face collapse of this arrangement one way or the other. If OP is unable to afford it, that (sadly) is that.

DaftyDuck

Rocky99 I think the s21 grant would trump any contract; it would be an effective termination of that contract, leaving you free to evict your parents. If it failed, I don't think you'd be worse off, as I don't think the judge would be able to comment on the validity of that contract, other than from the point of the s21.

Edit: I still wonder if the mortgage company's lack of knowledge that it shouldn't be a residential mortgage couldn't play to Rocky's advantage. Their contract would trump that of any subletting that Rocky99 would do...

Rocky99

Joint names