Help, my house is up for sale and I haven't been told

poppy10_2

I think it was Dolce Vita who had as his sig that all these sell and rent back companies were scam artists who should be avoided. We're going to be seeing a lot more of this kind of thing going on over the next few months, unfortunately.

Debt_Free_Chick

Clare1985 wrote: »

mums rang them today and the tennancy agreement ends 4th july but they have said thats it a roll over and that there is no need to worry and that they are looking at selling to get a new landlord, they have said they havn't had any interest yet though, i dunno what to think?

That's not good. Either the current or the new LL can simply give her two months notice to quit, after 4 July.

She should "test out" the current LL by asking for a new AST - ask for 12 months and see what they say

There's no guarantee that a new LL will want to offer a new AST.

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

Some people have sold their houses to the Buy & Rent Back companies to release a bit of equity to pay off some debt but haven't been able to clear it all due to only getting 70/75% of it's value.

Some have then gone for a Bankruptcy to clear the remaining debt when they realise they still can't cope.

I was told by a Bancruptcy and Insolvency Practitioner that some of these Buy & Rent Back companies are going to have big problems as they have bought the property at 'under value' and the sale can be reversed as the equity technically belonged to the creditors in the Bancruptcy and it's been given to somebody else.

I'm not a specialist in this area but it's something along these lines.

RHemmings

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax wrote: »

Some people have sold their houses to the Buy & Rent Back companies to release a bit of equity to pay off some debt but haven't been able to clear it all due to only getting 70/75% of it's value.

Some have then gone for a Bankruptcy to clear the remaining debt when they realise they still can't cope.

I was told by a Bancruptcy and Insolvency Practitioner that some of these Buy & Rent Back companies are going to have big problems as they have bought the property at 'under value' and the sale can be reversed as the equity technically belonged to the creditors in the Bancruptcy and it's been given to somebody else.

I'm not a specialist in this area but it's something along these lines.

That's very, very, interesting. I hope you update us on this if you learn any more.

silvercar

There is a thread on singingpig.co.uk about this:

http://www.singingpig.co.uk/forums/thread/372797.aspx

To summarise the thread:
Apparently someone bought at below market value and got trapped by the Official Receiver when their seller then went bankrupt. They tried to argue that they were buying at market value as the market value for a sell-and-rent-back is by definition fixed by the people that offer this service. There is then some discussion on how the Official Receiver can get the money back from the buyer and if the costs in doing so would outweigh the benefit. Someone reported agreeing to make repayments of so much per month to the tax people (a main creditor) in another case. There is also the question of the valuations put on the property in the buyback process. The conclusion is that someone has found insurance to protect against this outcome for the buyer (there has always been insurance for the mortgage lender). The question is how good the insurance will prove to be, if you buy from a desparate seller, you know they are in a severe financial mess so you know there is a possibility of bankruptcy in advance of the insurance purchase.

[For those that don't know singingpig. Apply rose coloured glasses before entry, property is always a good investment. A lot of posters adopt the big-me-up mentality. Getting 10k off a single investment makes you an expert in below market value trading.]

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

People have tried to get away with selling their property to their wife/children/parents in the past to avoid losing it in Bancruptcy. This is the same thing.

Some of the companies have bought at say 70% then sold to BTL Investors with 15% deposit paid (before it was stopped) and so made a quick 15% them selves and shifted the risk onto somebody else.

I believe that both transactions could be reversed.

PasturesNew

Brilliant finds/knowledge from Ian Griffiths/Silvercar.

I'll certainly be adding that info/links into my repertoire of answers/opinions in future. It really does put a new twist on it .... a huge case of caveat emptor, especially if you were trading on the misery of others.

It's one thing to be offered a property from a distressed seller and to buy it to live in, I believe it's another to build a business on targetting them through advertising and leafleting to add to a portfolio. Those sellers might not have investigated all avenues open to them, but might be acting in a knee-jerk reaction.

Captain_Mainwaring_2

PasturesNew wrote: »

Brilliant finds/knowledge from Ian Griffiths/Silvercar.

I'll certainly be adding that info/links into my repertoire of answers/opinions in future. It really does put a new twist on it .... a huge case of caveat emptor, especially if you were trading on the misery of others.

It's one thing to be offered a property from a distressed seller and to buy it to live in, I believe it's another to build a business on targetting them through advertising and leafleting to add to a portfolio. Those sellers might not have investigated all avenues open to them, but might be acting in a knee-jerk reaction.

1st case yes - can be reversed, but I'd doubt it in the second - you could put your house on the market and accept a crazy offer for a quick sale (to the alleged detriment of the creditors) but there is no way an OR would get an order to reverse, in anycase the OR could come out of it worse off in a falling market - in most cases the OR would be better to look for the remains of the equity.

Certainly at auction, once an item is offered and purchased on the open market then in most cases the buyer can never face having to return the goods.

silvercar

PasturesNew wrote: »

Brilliant finds/knowledge from Ian Griffiths/Silvercar.

I'll certainly be adding that info/links into my repertoire of answers/opinions in future. It really does put a new twist on it .... a huge case of caveat emptor, especially if you were trading on the misery of others.

It's one thing to be offered a property from a distressed seller and to buy it to live in, I believe it's another to build a business on targetting them through advertising and leafleting to add to a portfolio. Those sellers might not have investigated all avenues open to them, but might be acting in a knee-jerk reaction.

Totally agree, though we'd never get admission to singingpig clubs.

"trading on the misery of others" SP=showing people in need a solution to their problems

"build a business on targetting them through advertising and leafleting" SP= dedicating yourself to helping others remain in their home

:rotfl: :rotfl:

wisbech_lad

Can your mother now make a BMV offer herself, and buy back the house cheaper than she sold it? Worth trying....