A repossession property as a first time buyer - any advice welcome!

MysteryMe

Was the late husband's gambling debt secured against the house then? 

greatcrested

wattsthethoughts said:

. I know this amount is more than enough to pay the mortgage off as I have already done the Land Registry searches. I guess I’m just wondering whether anyone has had any experience in this kind of situation before and if there is any advice on how to proceed?

The only way you could know this is if the previous purchase price is lower than the current offer, and you assume that the mortgage was not greater than 100%.

The LR Title won't show the mortgage loan amount.

macman

wattsthethoughts said:

macman said:

So you'd be buying a property without vacant possession? Run a mile unless the vendors confirm that you will have vacant possession before exchange. 
She can't have been 'evicted' if she is still in the property two years later. Any possession order granted would presumably now have lapsed, and the eviction process would have to begin again, which will take 9-12 months or more.

This exact issue was raised by a family member too and is something I'll be raising at the second viewing I have booked in later this week. 9-12 months is an awful long time indeed. I shall definitely check that too as the original lender is hoping to complete within 28 days (not set in stone quite like an auction house but still want it done quickly). This is why I posted on here! All of this is so useful - thank you!

Raising it at the 2nd viewing will tell you nothing. The occupier can say she will move out, then just sit tight. If the possession order is no longer valid, she must then be given 6m notice before you can go to court again for possession, and that will take at least 3m more with the current backlog. Then a further 28 days to evict her. So, best case, 9m from date of notice. Worst case, a year or more. 
It's academic anyway, as your conveyancer will not allow you to exchange without vacant possession. This isn't just a minor hitch, it's a fundamental obstacle, unless you want to become an accidental landlord.

newsgroupmonkey_

Just as an aside, any building built in the 90s before is likely to have asbestos in the Artex. It's fairly low by volume and doesn't need to be replaced necessarily. You're not going to get a discount from anyone for that.