Has the recession effected you yet?

[scott-atkinson]

Best of luck if you think you'll get anywhere taking on a bank

Rich,

Believe me, the way I feel at the moment I would be prepared to go to prison to get what is rightfully mine...

 

[Rich]

I tried to pursue a bank through the courts many years ago, it dragged on for 8years, my solicitors had over £8,000 in fees before I was finally told by the barrister representing me that the case wasn't worth pursuing

 

[oumahexi]

I tried to pursue a bank through the courts many years ago, it dragged on for 8years, my solicitors had over £8,000 in fees before I was finally told by the barrister representing me that the case wasn't worth pursuing

You'd think they would have warned you at the onset, wouldn't you?

 

[Rich]

You'd think they would have warned you at the onset, wouldn't you?

Solicitors never lose do they, it was buried in the small print somewhere that I might not win. Even more annoying was that once the legal aid funding was withdrawn the case was handed over to a junior clerk

 

[dan-cat]

On the same Estate Agent website another house exactly the same style and size as my house is also for sale for 200k, I bet they are pissed that mine is up for effectly 40k less than theirs

I don't get it. If the bank is trying to recover as much money as possible and knowing that that you don't have any, why are they not placing the property on the market at the going rate? The lower the house price the less they recover surely?

 

[Rabbie]

I don't get it. If the bank is trying to recover as much money as possible and knowing that that you don't have any, why are they not placing the property on the market at the going rate? The lower the house price the less they recover surely?

The bank can get a quicker cash injection by selling the house cheap and then they can claim the rest from Scot unless he makes himself bankrupt.

 

[Alc]

I don't get it. If the bank is trying to recover as much money as possible and knowing that that you don't have any, why are they not placing the property on the market at the going rate? The lower the house price the less they recover surely?

The policy varies from bank to bank (the same here in Canada). Some will try to maximise what they can get out of it, but others only set out to recover what they're owed - partly so thay don't get accused of trying ot profit from people's misfortune and partly so they can get a quicker sale. If the bank is owed, for example, $70,000 but the house is worth $150,000 some will be happy to sell for the $70,000 and get a quick end to things.

A common practise is to auction off the property, with a starting price of whatever is owed.

There are some regulations in price, mainly to protect other people trying to sell in the same area from being undercut by a ridiculous amount.

 

[dan-cat]

The impression I got from Scott is that he owed the majority of the mortgage, 70k less than the current selling price.

Considering that Scott seems to have few assets, it seems odd that the immediate cash injection is more attractive to the bank than maxing the recovery of the debt with the one major asset they have managed to recover.

 

[Alc]

The impression I got from Scott is that he owed the majority of the mortgage, 70k less than the current selling price.

Considering that Scott seems to have few assets, it seems odd that the immediate cash injection is more attractive to the bank than maxing the recovery of the debt with the one major asset they have managed to recover.

a) 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing. If the housing market is slow in that area, for example, why risk not selling at all?

b) If the recent events in the UK proved nothing else, it's safe to say that some British banks aren't staffed by the shrewdest business minds

 

[Rabbie]

The impression I got from Scott is that he owed the majority of the mortgage, 70k less than the current selling price.

Considering that Scott seems to have few assets, it seems odd that the immediate cash injection is more attractive to the bank than maxing the recovery of the debt with the one major asset they have managed to recover.

Then in that case the bank will get all their money and Scot will only get the balance(70k according to your figures). So once again poor Scott is the loser. As Scott said the bank have a duty of care to get as much as possible under these circumstances but they really don't worry about how much scott gets as long as the mortgage debt is paid.

 

[dan-cat]

Then in that case the bank will get all their money and Scot will only get the balance(70k according to your figures). So once again poor Scott is the loser. As Scott said the bank have a duty of care to get as much as possible under these circumstances but they really don't worry about how much scott gets as long as the mortgage debt is paid.

Sorry I got that wrong. They are selling at 70k less than the mortgage balance, I think. Scott will obviously have to confirm.

The impression I got from Scott is that he owed the majority of the mortgage, 70k less than the current selling price.

should read

The impression I got from Scott is that he owed the majority of the mortgage, 70k more than the current selling price.

 

[dan-cat]

a) 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing. If the housing market is slow in that area, for example, why risk not selling at all?

Well I don't see much risk of attempting to sell at the current market value. If it doesn't sell then drop the price at a later date. I suspect that Rabbie's original point is closer, that the banks are so strapped for cash that the immediate cash injection is more attractive.

b) If the recent events in the UK proved nothing else, it's safe to say that some British banks aren't staffed by the shrewdest business minds

That's a global phenomenon to be sure.

 

[Rich]

the banks are so strapped for cash that the immediate cash injection is more attractive.

They've had massive injections of cash from the taxpayer

 

[Rabbie]

They've had massive injections of cash from the taxpayer

But how much of that has been spent on paying large bonuses to the people who got them into this mess

 

[JamesLast99]

Well I don't see much risk of attempting to sell at the current market value. If it doesn't sell then drop the price at a later date. I suspect that Rabbie's original point is closer, that the banks are so strapped for cash that the immediate cash injection is more attractive.



That's a global phenomenon to be sure.

Its always been like this - even when they admitted to be rolling in it.

 

[Rich]

But how much of that has been spent on paying large bonuses to the people who got them into this mess

Yes, the government should have protected savers, pensions etc. and then told the banks to get stuffed

 

[scott-atkinson]

Sorry I got that wrong. They are selling at 70k less than the mortgage balance, I think. Scott will obviously have to confirm.



should read

Hi all,

Just to clear up the confusion, I bought the property for £230k, with a 110% mortgage.

So as they are selling the property for £70k less than the asking price I am responsible for the shortfall to which as you have pointed out I cannot pay.

Therefore I have written to the mortgage company informing them of their duty of care to me and that they should be marketing the property at a more reasonable asking price to maximise their asset, and to offset the majority of my debt.

If they fail to take action, and sell the property for the current price or less then I can appeal at first to the mortgage company, and then to the Financial Services Authority that they are in breach of their duty of care to me, to which if I lose the appeal I am no worse off as the appeal process is free and I will still owe the shortfall in mortgage anyway, but if I win then I can get the balance from the house sale price to what is considered a reasonable sale price written off my debt.

Either way I will still owe, although I am then going to petition that as I am a Tax Payer that I want to invoke that the deficit be included in the Governments Toxic Debt initiative, again funded by the Tax Payer.

 

[oumahexi]

Yes, the government should have protected savers, pensions etc. and then told the banks to get stuffed

Absolutely! And they should have stepped in way back when the mortgage lenders first started lending 100% + loans! So irresponsible of lenders. I know a lot of people think the onus should be on the borrower, but how was the average Joe to know that he was being advised by an idiot?

 

[statsman]

Scot:

Start doing a little research on bankruptcy.
If the mortgage company sells the house then turns around and says you owe us 70K

THATS the time to declare.

 

[scott-atkinson]

Scot:

Start doing a little research on bankruptcy.
If the mortgage company sells the house then turns around and says you owe us 70K

THATS the time to declare.

I have been given tonnes of advise on the how's and when's of Bankruptcy, hoping not to have to go down that route but instead apply for an IVA (Individual Voluntary Agreement), it usually lasts for around 5 years, is less restrictive than Bankruptcy and allows me the pride of at least trying to pay back some of my debt, what is left owing after the 5th year is then written off.