House renovation being carried out without a co-owners consent/knowledge

AdrianC

freedo25 said:

AdrianC said:

freedo25 said:

...unless she want to just sign over the property to him.

How much equity did she have in the property at the time the relationship failed?

What's her problem with her ex extending his home?

She has 50% equity.

50% of how many ££s of equity back then?

It isn't "his" home, it's shared ownership.

I deliberately used the word "home", to separate residence from ownership.

It is his HOME. He lives there. She does not. Her home is elsewhere.

She wasn't informed about any works and her permission wasn't requested. One glaring issue is her liability as a co-owner. 

Liability for what?

The main issue is clearly his IVA - he cannot remortgage on his own, so ownership cannot be changed to remove her. So there are really only two options - sale of the property or continue as-is.

She is unlikely to get 50% of the equity post-sale, since she has not contributed a penny to mortgage repayments etc over the last decade. So a reasonable starting point for how much she would be owed in the event of a sale is how much equity was in the property at the time she moved out. Value at the time minus mortgage owed, not total value.

canaldumidi

freedo25 said:

This appears to be going off on various tangents.......

The question at hand is how can this level of work be sanctioned without her knowledge or consent as a co-owner of the property?

Sanctioned by who? The only peope who 'sanction' building work are

* the 2 parties to the contract (ie the ex and his builder)

* the planning authorities if a planning application is made (and they look soley at the planning laww, not ownership  - indeed I could make a planning application on your house myself!)

* the Building Control Dept if relevant - and as with Planning, they only look at whether the work complies with Building Regulations

Is there anything she can do about it?

Yes. She could apply to the courts for an injunction to stop the work. She would have to persuade a judge that this was justified. My guess is that as she is not being financially penalised by the work (he's not making her pay), and as she is not resident there, I doubt a judge would grant an injunction unless perhaps it was as part of a larger legal claim eg forcing a sale. But doubtless your solicitor will have better advice. Please let us know!

freedo25

AdrianC said:

freedo25 said:

AdrianC said:

freedo25 said:

...unless she want to just sign over the property to him.

How much equity did she have in the property at the time the relationship failed?

What's her problem with her ex extending his home?

She has 50% equity.

50% of how many ££s of equity back then?

It isn't "his" home, it's shared ownership.

I deliberately used the word "home", to separate residence from ownership.

It is his HOME. He lives there. She does not. Her home is elsewhere.

She wasn't informed about any works and her permission wasn't requested. One glaring issue is her liability as a co-owner. 

Liability for what?

The main issue is clearly his IVA - he cannot remortgage on his own, so ownership cannot be changed to remove her. So there are really only two options - sale of the property or continue as-is.

She is unlikely to get 50% of the equity post-sale, since she has not contributed a penny to mortgage repayments etc over the last decade. So a reasonable starting point for how much she would be owed in the event of a sale is how much equity was in the property at the time she moved out. Value at the time minus mortgage owed, not total value.

She has been trying to resolve this for the last 10 years, he has simply refused to entertain discussing it. His IVA meant she couldn't even sign it over to him for free as the mortgage company saw him as a bad debtor and with her name still on the mortgage, they would have someone to chase. 

Again, back to the main question. Can anybody give any advice on if she has a leg to stand on if major work is being carried out on a property in her name that she has had no knowledge of or and that she hasn't consented to?

SameOldRoundabout

I still don’t know what you’re asking. A leg to stand on for what?! There’s nothing she can do. There’s no “liability” here. Her ex is clearly of the opinion he can do what he likes as she doesn’t put up any sort of legal fight so without following the good advice already given, about legal advice and forcing a sale, no, she has no other options. And he must be paying through the nose in interest if he hasn’t re-mortgaged in the last decade! 

Edited to add if the CMS have a charging order on the house (presumably due to your step children?) all the more reason to find some help/money and apply to the court! She’ll get her equity AND the unpaid maintenance, I really can’t understand why you wouldn’t be doing that. 

lincroft1710

freedo25 said:

 

Can anybody advise or give insight as to where she stands with this please?

She stands as being a part owner of a property in course of renovation and extension

Section62

freedo25 said:

His IVA meant she couldn't even sign it over to him for free as the mortgage company saw him as a bad debtor and with her name still on the mortgage, they would have someone to chase. 

There are reasons why a mortgage company wouldn't be willing to release one person from a mortgage without the other having the means to pay what they owe.

But there is something a bit strange here - the mortgage company would only need 'someone to chase' if the equity in the property is so low that the outstanding mortgage wouldn't be paid off (plus fees and costs) through repossession.

If the property has been owned for some time you'd expect the equity to have increased significantly over that time, unless the property has been remortgaged or further advances have been made, or the property is in an area where prices haven't increased by much.

Which leads to the question, if there's so little equity the mortgage company don't think they will get their money back, then how much is 50% of the equity actually worth?  Is it enough to justify the legal costs involved in trying to claim it?

doodling

Hi,

There are a number of issues here:

1. Whether he can carry out works on the house?  The practical answer is that yes, he can.
2. Whether she can stop those works being carried out?  The practical answer is that she probably can by throwing the relevant workers out of the house.  Unless there are legal measures in place to prevent her, there is nothing to stop her turning up, withdrawing permission for them to be there and insisting they leave (just as anyone can insist that trespassers leave their property).  That doesn't stop him carrying out works personally of course, or inviting the workers back when she has gone.
3. Whether it is a good idea to stop those works being carried out?  My view it is absolutely not a good idea.  There is a risk that if she gets involved then work will come to a stand and what then?  She will be left part owning a wreck of a house rather than a (hopefully) nicely refurbished one - that doesn't sound like a win to me.
4. Whether she should force a sale through the courts?  I think she should, but I would wait until the refurbishments are complete before that is attempted for the same reason as outlined in (3) - work might stop and then what?
5. Any issue of "liability".  Liability for what?  If she hasn't arranged the works, wasn't aware of them and isn't paying for them then I don't see what she could be liable for.  The only liability she might have would be to the mortgage company for failing to notify them of the works (now she knows about them) if they are as major as you imply.  To be honest, she is probably better off not knowing about the works (and therefore not being liable) than raising the issue with the mortgage company for the same reason as in (3).
6. Ownership - the ownership is unclear.  What was the original ownership and how has that been modified by the courts?  Note that if she isn't an owner (e.g. she only has a charge on the property) then the possibility in (2) isn't open to her.
7. Is any charge or ownership of a proportion of the property or of a specific financial sum?  Obviously ownership of a proportion would benefit from any improvements whilst being entitled to a specific sum wouldn't (but you need to make sure there is enough equity for a specific sum to be paid to her on sale!).

Overall I can understand the frustration at being unable to get hold of the money and of being tied to a mortgage that is of no benefit, but I think that worrying about the work being done is pointless.  As noted above, there are risks in making waves when the property is in pieces, better to wait until the work has been completed.  Of course if this is something that appears to be taking years then a different approach might be appropriate...

The only thing that would prompt me to act with any urgency is if the works are likely to significantly devalue the property.  I would have thought that unlikely.

Be careful to make sure that the concern about the works doesn't come across as an attempt to control her ex.  Focus on what is legally possible, taking into account the risk that interfering now might stop works which need to be completed before a sale can take place.

Mojisola

freedo25 said:

The deeds remain the same.

Which is?

If they own the property as 'joint tenants' then if one owner dies, the other automatically becomes the sole owner of the whole property.

If they are 'tenants in common', then the owners can leave their share to someone other than the second owner.

doodling

Hi,

Section62 said:

freedo25 said:

His IVA meant she couldn't even sign it over to him for free as the mortgage company saw him as a bad debtor and with her name still on the mortgage, they would have someone to chase. 

There are reasons why a mortgage company wouldn't be willing to release one person from a mortgage without the other having the means to pay what they owe.

But there is something a bit strange here - the mortgage company would only need 'someone to chase' if the equity in the property is so low that the outstanding mortgage wouldn't be paid off (plus fees and costs) through repossession.

If the property has been owned for some time you'd expect the equity to have increased significantly over that time, unless the property has been remortgaged or further advances have been made, or the property is in an area where prices haven't increased by much.

Which leads to the question, if there's so little equity the mortgage company don't think they will get their money back, then how much is 50% of the equity actually worth?  Is it enough to justify the legal costs involved in trying to claim it?

I don't think this chain of thought has lead to the right conclusion.  The simple fact is that (to my admittedly imperfect knowledge) it is extremely rare for a mortgage company to remove anyone from a mortgage (i.e. vary an existing mortgage deed).

What normally happens is that the person who wants to be the sole mortgagor obtains their own mortgage and pays off the existing mortgage.  In this case, that person has recently been in an IVA and I can imagine that they would find difficulty in finding someone to give them a mortgage.

Lenders do not work solely on the basis that they can always get the money back by repossessing and selling the property - doing so is expensive and makes them look bad.  Their first question will always be "will this person pay me back?", only if the answer to that is yes will they ask the second question "if they didn't pay me back, could I sell the house and get the money that way?".

As a result we can't infer how much equity is in the property.  Having said that, it might be helpful to understand the sums involved - spending £10k to force a sale so as to receive £5k back may be a difficult pill to swallow (but still might be worth it if she gets released from the mortgage).

Section62

doodling said:

I don't think this chain of thought has lead to the right conclusion.

It actually led to a question, two in fact, not a conclusion.

doodling said:

The simple fact is that (to my admittedly imperfect knowledge) it is extremely rare for a mortgage company to remove anyone from a mortgage (i.e. vary an existing mortgage deed).

I generally agree with this.  But the point wasn't about whether or not the mortgage company might remove someone from a mortgage, the question is about the reason given why they hadn't agreed - in the circumstances having someone "to chase" doesn't make a great deal of sense, unless there is very little equity.

doodling said:

What normally happens is that the person who wants to be the sole mortgagor obtains their own mortgage and pays off the existing mortgage.  In this case, that person has recently been in an IVA and I can imagine that they would find difficulty in finding someone to give them a mortgage.

I agree, but the ex has a new partner and children also living in this property as their home.  There could be options around the new partner being the sole mortgagor, or a joint mortgage involving them - rather than sticking with an existing joint mortgagor who has no interest in the property other than a share of the equity.

In which case the amount of equity is of crucial importance - why would the OP's partner bother paying for someone else's home if the equity they have is small and it will cost most of that to force a sale and realise that value?

doodling said:

Lenders do not work solely on the basis that they can always get the money back by repossessing and selling the property - doing so is expensive and makes them look bad.  Their first question will always be "will this person pay me back?", only if the answer to that is yes will they ask the second question "if they didn't pay me back, could I sell the house and get the money that way?".

So there's a third question - number two in that order - which is "Is this other person who doesn't live in the house more likely to pay me back than the one(s) living there?"

doodling said:

As a result we can't infer how much equity is in the property.  Having said that, it might be helpful to understand the sums involved - spending £10k to force a sale so as to receive £5k back may be a difficult pill to swallow (but still might be worth it if she gets released from the mortgage).

I agree.