Redundancy & 50k Loan

Here_Comes_The_Judge

d3liberate wrote: »

I can assure you the post is not a wind up. Perhaps a couple of my comments were tongue in cheek in response to how I am going to get a loan but having been in full time employment since I graduated from university and never having financial issues, this is all new territory to me and I was perhaps a little naive in how difficult it was to get a loan without the security of a job.

So I appreciate all the comments and advice on this thread, and I will assess the situation fully and see where it takes me.

Hmmm I recently got a loan from NatWest.

As part of the process they had something along the lines of "do you know of any reason why you will not remain employed by your current employer". (I read that as. If you know you are going to loose your job, be made redundant, then you need to tell us).

Any decent lender worth their salt would probably have the same type of clause.

Did you lie on your application d3liberate?

Thrugelmir

d3liberate wrote: »

this property belongs to a family member who is willing to sell it to me below market rate for 250k, so its quite a bargain.

I can sell the place in 6-12 months for over 300k and walk away with a tidy sum of money.

Why not agree a deferred consideration agreement for the property? Hand other the the final £50k when the property is sold.

d3liberate

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Why not agree a deferred consideration agreement for the property? Hand other the the final £50k when the property is sold.

Already asked the question, and the blood relation in question said categorically NO.

My plan was to pay the £200k, and then defer the £50k into payments over the next 60 months which is £833 a month, which I can afford without a permanent job, by using a combination of my savings and temp work until I secure a permanent position to keep up the payments.

So if I want the property, I will have to find 50k from other kind sources.

In a nutshell, I have to depend on some distant uncles to bail me out or i'm screwed.

jonesMUFCforever

Why are you screwed?
Any other potential buyers waiting to take the property off his hands?

To me you hold all the aces unless you are one of those little danish people with spiky hair.

d3liberate

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Why are you screwed?
Any other potential buyers waiting to take the property off his hands?

To me you hold all the aces unless you are one of those little danish people with spiky hair.

Why am I screwed? Because if I do not take this property for 250k, when its worth 300k, it means I already lose 50,000 in an asset.

If I don't get this property, then I would struggle to find anything decent in London for £200k, so I would probably need to wait until I am in full time employment again, and able to secure a mortgage to part fund a property. While I wait, I would then need to rent somewhere, which will reduce my cash I have, and by the time I am able to buy again, prices will probably be higher and therefore my repayments higher.

There is an offer in for the property at 290 (it was put on the market as a feeler) and the agent is confident that given time it will get an offer for the asking price of 300.

The person who owns the property has a mortgage on their other property of 250k, hence the reason they want the non negotiable minimum of 250 so they can be mortgage free. Why sell it to me for 200 now when someone is willing to pay 290?

If they sell it for 290, maybe I can say ok, sell it and give me the 40k balance, and I will have 240k because you were going to sell it to me for 250 anyway but unfortunately that is not how they think. they do not want me to profit in cash terms from their property but to get my foot on the ladder and have a property without paying rent.

Am I still screwed?

Lungboy

d3liberate wrote: »

Why am I screwed? Because if I do not take this property for 250k, when its worth 300k, it means I already lose 50,000 in an asset.

If I don't get this property, then I would struggle to find anything decent in London for £200k, so I would probably need to wait until I am in full time employment again, and able to secure a mortgage to part fund a property. While I wait, I would then need to rent somewhere, which will reduce my cash I have, and by the time I am able to buy again, prices will probably be higher and therefore my repayments higher.

There is an offer in for the property at 290 (it was put on the market as a feeler) and the agent is confident that given time it will get an offer for the asking price of 300.

The person who owns the property has a mortgage on their other property of 250k, hence the reason they want the non negotiable minimum of 250 so they can be mortgage free. Why sell it to me for 200 now when someone is willing to pay 290?

If they sell it for 290, maybe I can say ok, sell it and give me the 40k balance, and I will have 240k because you were going to sell it to me for 250 anyway but unfortunately that is not how they think. they do not want me to profit in cash terms from their property but to get my foot on the ladder and have a property without paying rent.

Am I still screwed?

Firstly, you don't lose anything as you don't own the house. Secondly, why sell it to you for 250 if someone will pay 290? Thirdly, why on earth should they give you 40k if they sell for what it's worth?

jonesMUFCforever

Exactly an asset is only worth what somebody is prepared to pay for it.

robatwork

d3liberate wrote: »

There is an offer in for the property at 290 (it was put on the market as a feeler) and the agent is confident that given time it will get an offer for the asking price of 300.

Delightful relatives.

Put their property on the market with no intention to sell - so sod these people who are probably excited about their £290k new house have already wasted money, and certainly time to view it.

jjgold

wind up post