I Owe Insurance Company £334,000 due to Voided Insurance

DoaM

If there's a mortgage then the mortgage company own the house until it is paid off.

Hermione_Granger

Arklight wrote: »

Oh golly, here we go. All the unqualified internet barristers are dusting off their wigs.

Seriously OP, head to the CAB and get some proper advice.

For someone that has a noticeable disdain for the motoring forum and the people who post on it, you seem to spend an awful lot of time reading and replying to comments posted.

GDB2222

DoaM wrote: »

If there's a mortgage then the mortgage company own the house until it is paid off.

So, I have a house worth £250k, say, with a mortgage of £5k left against it.

You are saying I own nothing? But the day I pay off the last £5k, I suddenly own the £250k house? I don't think all that many people would agree with you.

phill99

Arklight wrote: »

Oh golly, here we go. All the unqualified internet barristers are dusting off their wigs.

Seriously OP, head to the CAB and get some proper advice.

Who better to ask than a barrack room lawyer?????

phill99

DoaM wrote: »

If there's a mortgage then the mortgage company own the house until it is paid off.

Very wrong. Very, very wrong.


The freeholder owns the house. The mortgage company have a charge on the house which gives them the right to repossess for non payment.


If the mortgage company owned it, the 'owner' in this case would be a tenant.

DoaM

phill99 wrote: »

Very wrong. Very, very wrong.


The freeholder owns the house. The mortgage company have a charge on the house which gives them the right to repossess for non payment.


If the mortgage company owned it, the 'owner' in this case would be a tenant.

Yes, you're correct. The end result is still the same though ... if the house sells for £100k and the mortgage value owed is £95k, the "owner" gets £5k not £100k. And if this was an endowment mortgage (unlikely these days, but you never know) then there may be nothing at all left over - in fact the mortgagee may even still owe the mortgage provider.

I apologise for my previous over-simplification - in my defence, you can see to whom I was responding.

AdrianC

fred246 wrote: »

There can't be many 49 year olds without any money at all.

There can be plenty.

Remember, a hell of a lot of people aren't home owners, and don't have any savings.

GDB2222

DoaM wrote: »

Yes, you're correct. The end result is still the same though ... if the house sells for £100k and the mortgage value owed is £95k, the "owner" gets £5k not £100k. And if this was an endowment mortgage (unlikely these days, but you never know) then there may be nothing at all left over - in fact the mortgagee may even still owe the mortgage provider.

I apologise for my previous over-simplification - in my defence, you can see to whom I was responding.

Actually, that's completely wrong. The mortgagee is the lender, not the borrower. (Is there a smart alec icon here somewhere?)

Since everyone gets confused between mortgagee and mortgagor (myself included), I just stick to lender and borrower.

Dr_Crypto

I’m amazed that the FOS allows Insurers to send out waivers at all. Given how protective they generally seem to be to the public (see PPI) why do they permit Insurers to basically get themselves off the hook?

Manxman_in_exile

Dr_Crypto wrote: »

I’m amazed that the FOS allows Insurers to send out waivers at all. Given how protective they generally seem to be to the public (see PPI) why do they permit Insurers to basically get themselves off the hook?

Is the waiver relevant or is it belt and braces? Can't the insurer recover the pay out from the OP anyway?


They aren't really getting off the hook. The OP effectively wasn't insured.


I'm sure they've got no practical hope of recovering £300k though