Buying from relative, ex-partner, repossession.

FBaby

The fact that a financial ombudsman has recommended that the lender takes some responsibility for the ex being on the deeds and mortgage (I've since looked into this, it is the case) and provides assistance to the process of removing them, will probably be quite relevant.

This sounds like the ombudsman ruled out that the lender didn't act unlawfully and therefore don't have to compensate your relative, however, there is a suggestion that they might, as a gesture of goodwill, provide support, which they are absolutely free to ignore.

I don't see how your relative would have any recourse taking this further.

davidmcn

gingercordial wrote: »

OP, are you aware that in a repossession sale the bank has a duty to obtain the highest price possible for the property? That means they must market it fully (and so can't just agree a sale to you), won't take it off the market for you, and you could be gazumped right up to the day of exchange. This could therefore result in your relative being evicted if you do not want to pay the amount the bank thinks it can sell for or you lose it at the last minute. So don't count on the repo route as being easier or more certain.

If the bank markets it they'll already have carried out an eviction. Although in theory it can happen, I've never seen a bank try to sell a property with the disgruntled customer still in occupation!

Tobster86

FBaby wrote: »

This sounds like the ombudsman ruled out that the lender didn't act unlawfully and therefore don't have to compensate your relative, however, there is a suggestion that they might, as a gesture of goodwill, provide support, which they are absolutely free to ignore.

I don't see how your relative would have any recourse taking this further.

Judge: "Why didn't you follow any part of the ombudsman's recommendation?"

Bank: "Because we didn't have to."


...Really?

Tobster86

This "repossession route" is interesting, but highly, highly, highly speculative unless there's some kind of past examples of it working out.

I presume it would also mean removing everything from the property and reinstating it afterwards?

Anyone else with elderly relatives who are nuts will understand my concerns!

eddddy

Tobster86 wrote: »

This "repossession route" is interesting, but highly, highly, highly speculative unless there's some kind of past examples of it working out.

I presume it would also mean removing everything from the property and reinstating it afterwards?

Also, it sounds like there would be surplus cash left over if it's repossessed, sold and the mortgage paid off.

I guess, you'd need to find out what would happen to that surplus cash.

For example, would your relative get 50%, and the bank hold the other 50% - waiting for the joint owner to turn up. (Would you be happy with that?)

Or, even worse, would the bank hold 100% waiting for both owners to sign an agreement saying how the money should be split?

davidmcn

eddddy wrote: »

For example, would your relative get 50%, and the bank hold the other 50% - waiting for the joint owner to turn up. (Would you be happy with that?)

Or, even worse, would the bank hold 100% waiting for both owners to sign an agreement saying how the money should be split?

When I've acted for lenders we just split it 50:50. If that wasn't how the owners wanted to deal with it they need to sort it out between themselves.

TBagpuss

Tobster86 wrote: »

Judge: "Why didn't you follow any part of the ombudsman's recommendation?"

Bank: "Because we didn't have to."


...Really?

On a posession, the judge's options are fairly limited. It's my understandign that here the bank can show that there are arears the default is that the repossession will be gratned unless there is evidence that the debtor will be in a position to clear them in a reasonable time.
So you making an offer to give or lend your relative enough money to clear the arrears might well result in a suspended repossession, but I don't think that the ombudsman stuff would be relevant, as the issue the judge is looking at is not whether or not the bank mis-sold anything to your relation, but whether or not there are arrears.

People who have a joint mortgage have 'joint and several' liability for it, they don't owe half each. So your relative was still responsible for letting the mortgage go into arrears, there was no legal right to have his ex pay half.

I would suggest that you assist your relative to get advice from a solicitor who deals with repossessions and can advice about whether the Ombudsman's involvement, or indeed your relative's disability, would have any relevance at all to the repossession proceedings, and go from there

Cheeky_Monkey

Tobster86 wrote: »

Judge: "Why didn't you follow any part of the ombudsman's recommendation?"

Bank: "Because we didn't have to."


...Really?

That's exactly right. It was only a recommendation not an Order to assist in the process of removing them.

Mind you, I've never heard of a lender having the power to remove a joint owner from the mortgage without their consent.

They're not in the business of tracking down a joint owner whose whereabouts are unknown - that is for your relative to do, but it appears they have made no effort to do so.

IMO, as has been said, the Judge is likely to look at the amount of the current arrears and the fact that they will continue to increase and, in all likelihood, grant the repossession order.

Being represented at the hearing by a solicitor will be crucial for your relative given that you so charmingly describe them as 'nuts' due to their MH issues.

Tobster86

Cheeky_Monkey wrote: »

Being represented at the hearing by a solicitor will be crucial for your relative given that you so charmingly describe them as 'nuts' due to their MH issues.

Absolutely; but I've been unable to establish what speciality of solicitor I need or how to go about finding one who will perform a good service without being ripped off. It's probably worth also stating that the one my relative initially used ten years ago, when the ex had emptied a joint account and done a runner, was completely useless.

parkrunner

Tobster86 wrote: »

The partner was not ex at the time. The relative was very reluctant to add them to the mortgage, but the lender overcame their objections. They were sold a financial product which was not in their interest, as subsequent events proved.

We could debate whether it crosses the same line as, for example, PPI all day. I'm seeking the best way to get a professional legal opinion on the matter, and whether it should be bundled with other issues.

From what I've read subsequent events is the partner emptying the account and fleeing had nothing to do with the bank doing anything wrong.