Previous owner appealing reposession after I've exchanged contracts!

hawk30

jamesd wrote: »

Thanks. Indeed, on further reading I find that I was misled a little by something on the CILEx site. So, a double-take:

I agree that AnnieO1234's "merely a legal executive or worse a fellow of the ILEX" is misleading, because a Fellow of ILEx is of higher and not lower professional grade than is necessarily the case to be in the broader legal executive category.

I've also edited my post to correct a word order error that made part of it incorrect, replacing the incorrect struck through order with the corrected italic order.

I've also removed the "not all CILEx members are legal executives" text because from looking again at the CILEx site I'm no longer sure that it's accurate.

While I definitely prefer it not to be necessary, please don't ever hesitate to correct me in any error of fact. I appreciate the learning opportunity that comes from being corrected after a mistake.

Thanks for such a gallant response James.

Guest101

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The lender concerned will decline to complete as there's a pending court case!

Assuming the buyer is a mortgagee

Guest101

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Have you been in that position? We have.

I did not say that we did not have rights but it is not as simple as saying that because you have exchanged contracts that the sale must complete.

The vendor can still sell to someone else( or decide not to sell at all), you then have to decide if you want to take steps to prevent this while the matter goes to court and then the hassle of suing them for breach of contract -not something I relished doing at the time as I was pregnant.

So your wrong, as u said it wasn't legally binding, but it is. Just because u chose not to pursue it doesn't make it anything less. More fool u for not pursuing it IMO

anselld

Guest101 wrote: »

Assuming the buyer is a mortgagee

How can a buyer be a mortgagee and why is that even relavant?

hawk30

anselld wrote: »

How can a buyer be a mortgagee and why is that even relavant?

I guessing he/she means taking out a mortgage (so a soon-to-be mortgagor) and not a cash buyer.

anselld

hawk30 wrote: »

I guessing he/she means taking out a mortgage (so a soon-to-be mortgagor) and not a cash buyer.

Still irrelevant. Thrugelmir's post referred to the mortgagee in posession ( ie the ex owners lender) not the buyer's lender.

gadgetmind

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

the hassle of suing them for breach of contract -not something I relished doing at the time as I was pregnant.

Blimey, my wife would have ripped your face off for taking the mick out of her waddle when she was in late pregnancy!

jayss

If you delay 3months will you need a new mortgage offer?
You need a long think and to add up the costs to you of the delay.

Best of luck, hope things work out positively for you.

Strapped

gadgetmind wrote: »

As part of appealing a repossession notice, I assume that all arrears need to be paid in full?

Bear in mind that I'm no expert, but I'd say no, you assume incorrectly. It depends on what grounds the repo is being challenged (eg the owner was not properly notified, or they dispute that they are in arrears, etc). Even if they are in arrears, and the repo process has been correctly followed by the mortgage company, if there is sufficient equity in the property, then the court may deem it reasonable to capitalise the arrears depending on circumstances (eg financial position has improved and can prove on-going affordability of future mortgage payments, or eg they are in the process of selling and it was unreasonable of the mortgage company to repossess at the point it did, etc, etc). Every case is different.

silvercar

Strapped wrote: »

Bear in mind that I'm no expert, but I'd say no, you assume incorrectly. It depends on what grounds the repo is being challenged (eg the owner was not properly notified, or they dispute that they are in arrears, etc). Even if they are in arrears, and the repo process has been correctly followed by the mortgage company, if there is sufficient equity in the property, then the court may deem it reasonable to capitalise the arrears depending on circumstances (eg financial position has improved and can prove on-going affordability of future mortgage payments, or eg they are in the process of selling and it was unreasonable of the mortgage company to repossess at the point it did, etc, etc). Every case is different.

What a court may deem reasonable or not may be swayed by the fact that they have already left the property. The reasonableness of evicting people from their home doesn't apply when the owner has voluntarily already moved out.