Definition of "Mortgage Arrears"

David_White

.....again, did you stop paying your mortgage each month because you had PPI money coming?

Simple question.

GarthThomas

Your replies are making no sense at all, and you are skirting round the issue here. People have told you the situation, and you are trying to be silly now by extrapolating behaviour which obviously doesn't follow. No, they can't simply take money out of your mortgage account, credit it to another, and take your house, that would be ridiculous, and is nothing to do with your situation.

Now, do you want help, or are you just here to argue with people until someone agrees with you?

Have you had your house repossessed? Did you stop making your contracted payments?

dunstonh

One major consideration here is that MPPI is standalone. It is not like a personal loan PPI. The mortgage is independent of the PPI. The fact there may be a similar logo in the corner does not mean they are linked.

Geoff1963

I didn't stop paying anything. The bank stopped the money which I had paid it ; getting from the place in its organisation where it was, to the place in its organisation where it should have been. My mortgage contract did not say "pay into the mortgage account of the bank", it just said "pay to the bank".

Google search on : .gov.uk ppi bankruptcy
The PPI refund money does not become owing, when the bank decides to pay it, nor when the customer makes a claim ; it was owing from the moment the customer paid it for the PPI, even though at the time, no-one realised. That is why the refund includes interest back to that date.
If the customer became bankrupt in the meantime, it goes to their creditors because ". . . the right to make a claim comes into existence when the PPI or other product was originally mis-sold."

If you were found guilty of stealing something, which you were later able to prove you owned at the time ; you would surely expect that conviction to be overturned. The thief's success in convincing the jury, didn't suspend your ownership.

Try this scenario :
You need to pay £2 into your current account to prevent it going overdrawn. You hand a £5 note to the cashier, who says it is counterfeit, so refuses to pay it in. You ask for it back, so you can change it in a shop, but they say it is evidence of fraud, so they keep it.
In the morning, you get a phone call from the very apologetic bank manager. The £5 note was indeed genuine, and they have paid it into your account, plus a £1 goodwill gesture. Unfortunately, because your money wasn't in your current account at the close of business, you were overdrawn, incurring a charge of £8, so it is now £4 overdrawn.
Anyone happy with that ?

If a security guard had refused to let you onto the premises, would the overdraft charge be fair ?

The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 says effectively that a customer can only be expected to do, what is reasonably practical. If the bank moves ( or doesn't move ) their money around on a whim, claiming charges and arrears as it wishes, that cannot be fair.

Geoff1963

So everyone thinks that repossession is based on "mortgage arrears" and that means, the money isn't in the mortgage account ? It doesn't matter if it was somewhere else in the lender's organisation, or the reason for it not being in the mortgage account ?

Try this :
Parliamentary question 49118.
Answered by Rt Hon Sir Oliver Heald QC, former Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
"If a person finds that a county court judgment has been entered against them and they did not owe the money, they can apply to the court to have the judgment ‘set aside’."
He said : "did not owe the money", not ; "the money was not missing from the mortgage account".

Does anyone else have experience of their home being taken by a lender, who later paid them more PPI redress than had been missing from the mortgage account ?

GarthThomas

Can you please ask someone to help you to set out what actually happened, in order, and without the ranting? If you just want to rant, there's another forum for that. If you want some help, for god's sake sit down, with someone more literate than you, and write out what happened, clearly.

I've no interest in helping you at this point, as you come across as just an angry person who failed to honour their contracts and who wants to blame the world for their mistakes. I'm hopefully very wrong, and if you can write something coherent someone else will be able to help you out.

minimike2

My recommendation, as with all of these situations where people try to be clever for the sake of some misplaced sense of trying to get one over on the establishment............. Construct yourself a tin foil hat.

Withholding mortgage payments, or placing mortgage payments manually into some account other than the mortgage account in a bid to try and be clever, in lieu of having made a PPI claim against the same lender, is just another one of the ridiculous things I will add to the list of things seen on this forum.

Grow up and sort the issue out. It sounds like it could have been rectified very simply by you making a payment of wherever you have accumulated your money which you failed to pay to the mortgage. You've created your own problem needlessly. If you feel your principal over whatever this issue is, is worth losing your home over, then more fool you.

Thrugelmir

Geoff1963 wrote: »

The judge said, effectively, "Sure. If it isn't in the mortgage account, that's all that matters.

Absolutely correct on a legal basis at that point in time. Courts can only base a decision on facts not hearsay.

Geoff1963

I'm not ranting. I'm simply trying to find out :
1) If anyone else had their home repossessed, on the grounds of "mortgage arrears", by a bank which later returned to them, more than that amount of PPI redress.
2) If it is official government policy to do that.

This forum doesn't lend itself well, to either a detailed explanation of my situation, or a reasoned argument with references to legislation and government statements which seem to contradict (2) ; and I don't know where to publish it.

Most people who have replied so far on this forum, seems to think (1) is entirely reasonable ; but when I asked the Ministry of Justice about (2), they evaded the question, suggesting they would be embarrassed if it were. My MP said he would ask them more directly, but he'll be busy for the next three weeks.

dunstonh

1) If anyone else had their home repossessed, on the grounds of "mortgage arrears", by a bank which later returned to them, more than that amount of PPI redress.

Unlikely. PPI premiums added to loans typically increased the monthly cost of the loan by £15-£30pm. Individually, not enough to force someone into repossession and unlikely to go on long enough for it to be a contributory factor.

A lof of the PPI redress would come from interest and not be the actual premium. Indeed, many now are getting more back in interest than they are in premium paid.

There is a provision within the FCA guidelines for consequences to be considered but this is aimed at those who may have gone overdrawn say by £10 in a month when a £20 PPI premium went through. In reality, those that went through their limits tended to go through by far more than that.

2) If it is official government policy to do that.

There is no Govt policy.