1992 mortgage, repossession mess

davidmcn

davidmcn wrote: »

The fact the building society no longer exists is irrelevant

t_in_atrance wrote: »

I believe it is relevant. If a company no longer exists it cannot enforce a deed. The company would have to be re-established in order to press the deed.

No, obviously the original lender can't if it no longer exists, but it can assign the mortgage to another party. Who then step into their shoes. Perfectly commonplace. What do you think would happen otherwise - they'd have to go round every borrower and ask them nicely if they'd mind signing a new deed?

davidmcn wrote: »

So what's your argument about those? That there was an alternative set of Ts&Cs in place? That there weren't any Ts&Cs? Presumably the mortgage deed you signed makes reference to there being separate conditions?

t_in_atrance wrote: »

Yes, that is it exactly - other Ts&Cs set out in the offer, and absolutely no mention in any correspondence about another set of ts&cs - except one line on the deed, hidden as 5th of 6th items.

Right, so they were mentioned. The lender really doesn't need to prove that anybody thrust a copy of the conditions into your hands and made you read them. Like I asked, what difference do they make? Unless they are unusually onerous then I doubt this is going to be relevant.

t_in_atrance wrote: »

My interest is whether they did what they were legally required to do in respect of the deed on my home.

They wouldn't have done anything different from what they did with the thousands of other mortgages. And it was a decade ago, so in the unlikely event that they got something completely wrong, they'd have realised and sorted it by now.

t_in_atrance wrote: »

They also made us pay out for an insurance policy to cover part of the mortgage to benefit them in the event that that part of the mortgage wasn't repaid. For all I know they have already collected on that

I think much more likely that it only pays out if and when they suffer a shortfall - which they wouldn't be able to ascertain until after they complete a sale of the repossessed property.

t_in_atrance wrote: »

All we wanted was to be left unmolested for 6-9 months to tart-up the property & sell it. But no they had to act like a bunch of bat wheelding boot-boys and frustrate our attempts

It's not clear to me what they've actually done to stop you selling it.

Thrugelmir

t_in_atrance wrote: »

Ok, thanks for that. But if you had the opportunity to read all the correspondence and knew the full details you might feel differently.

With my business hat on. Probably not. The reason solicitors require payment upfront is that your case little chance of a positive outcome. As the accusations you are making are in essence unfounded.

If you've approached the lender in the same tone as you've written about them on here. Then I wouldn't be surprised if their patience has worn thin. You are simply wasting their time and incurring unneccesary cost.

You won't be the last to play the David vs Goliath card. Trouble is it's been heard far many times before.

AnotherJoe

t_in_atrance wrote: »

All we wanted was to be left unmolested for 6-9 months to tart-up the property & sell it. But no they had to act like a bunch of bat wheelding boot-boys and frustrate our attempts.

Can you explain how they prevented you "tarting the place up" (presumably you mean slapping some paint on?) over a period of 6-9 months? What did they do that prevented you wielding a paint brush, decluttering, taking stuff to the dump? It does, without details, sound somewhat unlikely they let your tyres down to prevent you getting to B&Q for example. And again, without examples, it sounds like excuses. They sent you some perhaps distressing letters but rather than as a response spur you into a bit of painting you seem to have spent the time becoming an amateur lawyer looking for loopholes.

Fair enough if you were too ill to do the DIY / decluttering, but then thats not their fault, and you'd still have been better just to sell as is rather than have it forced on you when it will still be sold as-is with added costs.

silvercar

All we wanted was to be left unmolested for 6-9 months to tart-up the property & sell it. But no they had to act like a bunch of bat wheelding boot-boys and frustrate our attempts

You had months after the original end date of May 2017 to tart up the property, though you could have done so in early 2017.

Also, I don't know how much extra the property would fetch by a bot of tarting up. Generally, a property may sell a bit quicker if it is tarted up. Unless you are going to spend large sums of money, it would be unusual for the value to increase by much.

Brock_and_Roll

On a more general note, the OP mentions that illness etc and no doubt regardless of the rights and wrongs, all these shenanigans must be causing a huge amount of stress.

Frankly, for the sake of the OPs mental & physical health, it might best just to bang the place through auction "as is", pay off the bank and then move on with life.

AnotherJoe

I would say not auction unless its in a shocking state.

Although 6-9 months to "tart up" perhaps speaks to that?

iquit

I would assume the bank informed OP of their intention to repossess (a process I believe takes time). Will those legal costs not also need to be recouped from the sale price?

AnotherJoe

Yep which is why everyone is saying just get on and sell it and avoid those costs.

Its possible its beyond that now unfortunately.

Broadyx

OP - sorry if this has already been covered, but I am seriously confused.

Why are they repossessing the property? Have you not been maintaining the interest payments since they granted the extension in the property? Or is it because they are unwilling to extend any further & you won't sell?

Have you been through any product changes during your mortgage term? Your mortgage, if unregulated, was probably recontracted at that point? If you have stayed on the variable rate, then no wonder your interest rate has increased during your mortgage term - it has probably decreased at times too.

If the lender has agreed you a term extension, that wouldn't become a separate mortgage or loan, your current one would just continue.

What are you actually accusing the mortgage company of doing? Hassling you at the end of the term because you're unable to repay their loan? What do you want from them?

Exodi

I think you're all wasting your time, OP is clearly delusional and has ingrained the belief that he is the victim to such an extent, I don't think anyone will change his mind.

Personally I'm sympathetic towards the lender...