House repossessed 30 years ago but still registered owner?!

moneymadman

Hi, bit of a strange one. My parents have been sent a letter from a solicitors asking them to complete forms for the transfer of the freehold of a property. 

They did live in the house but it was repossessed back in 1991. I have looked on the land registry and they are still listed as the registered owners on the land registry. The property was repossessed from my parents and then sold again a few years later and then sold again around 2004. 

The letter states the current occupiers are leaseholders and my parents still the freeholders

How can my parents still be the registered owners and freeholders when they had the property repossessed? should we just complete the forms sent by the solicitors or get solicitors?

TimSynths

Ask them how much they are willing to pay for the freehold!

fatbelly

Are they asking for the freehold to be transferred to another individual or to a lender?

Either way, I see no rush to sign those documents.

moneymadman

Thanks, they are asking for it to be transferred to the current ocuppier

user1977

They were originally both leaseholders and freeholders, presumably the main value was in the leasehold and only that was ever mortgaged. So that's all the lender repossessed and sold. 

moneymadman

So perhaps they could have bought the freehold separately when they were in possession of the house and then when it has been repossessed, they keep the freehold as it wasn't mortgaged?

fatbelly

Unusual situation. Needs professional advice before signing anything.

I hope they haven't been claiming means-tested benefits for the past 30 years

moneymadman

fatbelly said:

Unusual situation. Needs professional advice before signing anything.

I hope they haven't been claiming means-tested benefits for the past 30 years

No, they were able to get another mortgage around 2001, no benefits, yeah probably needs someone to look into it properly as seems very strange 

silvercar

moneymadman said:

So perhaps they could have bought the freehold separately when they were in possession of the house and then when it has been repossessed, they keep the freehold as it wasn't mortgaged?

That would make sense. In which case they still own the freehold and that has a value. I wouldn’t be too keen on signing that away. 

After repossession the lender would have sold it on, were the proceeds of the sale enough to clear the outstanding mortgage? If so, then I would think that your parents still own the freehold and that has a value. 

user1977

fatbelly said:

I hope they haven't been claiming means-tested benefits for the past 30 years

I wouldn't assume the freehold has a great value. But they should really check that.

I'm guessing the invitation to "complete forms" hasn't come with the offer of a price being paid?

moneymadman

user1977 said:

fatbelly said:

I hope they haven't been claiming means-tested benefits for the past 30 years

I wouldn't assume the freehold has a great value. But they should really check that.

I'm guessing the invitation to "complete forms" hasn't come with the offer of a price being paid?

Ha yes you would be correct to assume that