1992 mortgage, repossession mess

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

When you took out your mortgage in 1992, did you not think that this needed to be paid off at the end of its term. You were given an additional 18 months to pay this off. Rightfully the lender has been left with no option but to repossess their property.


In my 27 years of paying a mortgage, I have had illness, unemployment, college and oyther events, yet I have not once got close to getting repossessed!

csgohan4

I think this thread has run it's course, OP is trying to wriggle themselves out of paying once the mortgage term has ended.

A contract is a contract, sell at a lower price or face increased costs from repo. Where the money you get will be significantly less

steampowered

Op, what is your situation for paying off the loan?

Are you able to repay part of it? Or none of it?

Surely you must have had some plan in place to pay off this capital?

t_in_atrance

silvercar wrote: »

So at the point where you threw in the endowment policy, you knew that you didn't have a plan to pay off the mortgage at completion. So it was always on the cards that you would need to sell in 2017. The extension suited you, but that was an unexpected bonu s. Basically you would always have needed to move out in 2017-18, so the fact that the lender was more pushy than you would have liked doesn't alter the situation.

Thanks, yes, however we expected to be back in full time work with regained health, and in a better position, financially & mentally, to plan for the future. Health issues continued however, and events within close family added to the strain - as one crises waned, another arose and so it continued, and it has been difficult to keep going.

We made effforts to establish with the lender the detail of the mortgage, how they were applying and charging interest, arrears, DWp pymts etc but they have n't & won't give the info. This has been ongoing for the last few years (and needed for the sale), and even the SARs brought no detail. At one point the amount they claimed owing was 8,500 more than the original mortgage claimed - that's not peanuts to us. They must have over-charged but cannot prove it without the detail we requested. Being held to ransom like this over a period of time has worsened our health situation. Promises made by them when the extension was agreed, were broken - they knew this would make matters worse. It's not about them being pushy, but secretive and disingenuous, and actively obstructing our efforts.

t_in_atrance

silvercar wrote: »

1. Work with the estate agent to sell up for the max price you can.

2. Find you next home.

3. Sort out whatever else you think you are owed once you have the above done. With ill health you need to prioritise your energy.

Thank you, you are right.

t_in_atrance

davidmcn wrote: »

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?

Any change has be done lawfully in the prescribed manner. But as I said before it's off the issue list as the companies merged.

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.
My Ts&Cs are very different to those the lender says were issued differ substantially.


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.
Uh, not if it suits / benefits them to leave things unrectified. You have far too much faith in these people - like I did in the past. You may be enlightened if you read some other forums / posts on the net.


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.
It's not clear to me what they've actually done to stop you selling it. Health, or lack of, which has been worsened by their actions. Whatever the details of the insurance, they have no reason to with-hold the details, unless they seek to conceal something that we, or the court, ought to know.

Thanks for posting.

TrickyDicky101

Have you raised a complaint with the lender which would give you recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service after the lender's final response/maximum 8 weeks?

I'm not suggesting this would necessarily change any outcome but it might well help you to get the details of interest and charges accumulated from the lender.

minimike2

Just to throw something in which I can't see having been mentioned, but you are incorrect about the "extension" needing to be advised upon. These rules do not apply - Changes to the contract fall outside of MCOB when someone is classed as being in financial difficulty, which you are. A two-year grace period is both common and generous and gave you plenty of time to sell the property, which is what the lender will have expected.

As that has not happened, they have taken possession, as per the contract. It's pretty straightforward.
Hopefully you will find a solution to your housing situation, which is what you should focus your efforts on, not on trying to blame the lender.

t_in_atrance

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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.

Thanks for this.

But the point is, the accusations are not unfounded. For the last few years all correspondence to the lender has been sent by letter with proof of postage (previous experience of 'we didn't receive it' on chasing responses). Any 'unfriendly' tone is because of their refusal to provide clarification, information & documentation which has run on for the last 3 yrs plus.

The contract itself is questionable as although it began life as 'unregulated' it became 'regulated' before its term ended, (the lender has itself been regulated for decades) and the lender has not followed procedures in the handling of the account or of dealing with arrears, or of dealing with customers who may require extra consideration or help, like those with mental health issues, and any that may be considered vulnerable. I have some questions about such contracts but will pick this up in later posts.

t_in_atrance

Broadyx wrote: »

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?

Thank you for this. I think I've covered most of this in other posts (I'm trying to catch up). We got into difficulties in the autum, after DWP stopped mortgage interest support. We couldn't take advantage of the replacement scheme because the original mortgage term had ended - we paid as long as we could.

A question remains as to how much the monthly amount should have been - if they have been over-charging us (mis-applying DWP payments, charging extra interest against these) the amount should have been less. The rates of interest is in connection with the period after the official term ended - if the contract ended, how can the lender change the rate?

I'm glad you've picked up on the unregulated / regulated question though. I have some queries about the subject that you or someone may be able to help with: I've put this out as a separate post.
Thanks again.