House repossessed 30 years ago but still registered owner?!

silvercar

First things first, how long is the leasehold? If under 80 years it will have a value, if in the region of 999 years then less so.

It does sound like the repossession was only on the leasehold and your parents retained the freehold. I don't know whether that was because the mortgage charge should have been registered on both the freehold and leasehold but wasn't, or that the lender was only interested in registering the charge on the leasehold as that where the value lies. Or alternatively, at some prior date the leasehold should have been cancelled and the freehold of the house become the only title.

Any advice from @Land_Registry?

Land_Registry

silvercar said:

First things first, how long is the leasehold? If under 80 years it will have a value, if in the region of 999 years then less so.

It does sound like the repossession was only on the leasehold and your parents retained the freehold. I don't know whether that was because the mortgage charge should have been registered on both the freehold and leasehold but wasn't, or that the lender was only interested in registering the charge on the leasehold as that where the value lies. Or alternatively, at some prior date the leasehold should have been cancelled and the freehold of the house become the only title.

Any advice from @Land_Registry?

Not really as they’re still registered as the freeholder so if that needs transferring then they’d need to do it. 

Freeholds can be ‘missed’ when the leasehold is sold on by the same owner but I’ve not come across that happening with a repossession before. 

There can be reasons why a leasehold is kept going even when in the same ownership but it’s down to the buyer/their conveyancer to check and must admit most would at least do that re who the freeholder is etc at the time. They don’t have to though. 

Only comment I’d make is do they really want to still own the freehold? 

moneymadman

Thanks guys, no I mean that house was done with and long forgotten and they aren't looking to profit here at all seeing as it was our understanding that everything was repossessed 30 years ago...Ill probably ring the solicitors who sent the letter and see what their take on it is then take it from there

user1977

moneymadman said:

Thanks guys, no I mean that house was done with and long forgotten and they aren't looking to profit here at all seeing as it was our understanding that everything was repossessed 30 years ago

But not everything was repossessed - only the leasehold was repossessed.

I'll probably ring the solicitors who sent the letter and see what their take on it is

Bear in mind they're unlikely to talk to you - it's your parents they're trying to contact.

Your parents should in any event seek independent advice, not "advice" from the solicitors who are trying to get them to give up their property interest (which will certainly be worth something) for nothing.

fatbelly

I'm with @user1977 on this...

tifo

moneymadman said:

I mean that house was done with and long forgotten and they aren't looking to profit here at all seeing as it was our understanding that everything was repossessed 30 years ago.

They lost the house so why not gain a bit now?

The mortgage provider didn't let them off anything.

GDB2222

I would prepare a reply for your parents to sign as follows:

1. Very happy to consider this further, but you will need advice from a solicitor.
2. You need an undertaking that the people writing to you will pay the costs of the advice, regardless of the outcome. 

cymruchris

GDB2222 said:

I would prepare a reply for your parents to sign as follows:

1. Very happy to consider this further, but you will need advice from a solicitor.
2. You need an undertaking that the people writing to you will pay the costs of the advice, regardless of the outcome. 

That sounds very sensible - in a recent case of my own, the other party paid the costs of advice from my own chosen solicitor - so it's certainly an option.