Commercial Prop Invest. Bank refuse to take off charge

[mf1]

"Even if I could borrow the amount concerned, the rate would be so high compared to the existing, it would be a pointless exercise. "

I believe you have your answer now.

"Re the additional security, the Bank do not know where it is, what the condition of same is and they never inspected it, despite them requesting to do same, but they never showed up. It even can't be seen on Google Maps.

I always used to work on the principle that if the Bank shouted Jump, I'd say how high ? Times have changed and those days are gone. I, like many others have been blamed for their mistakes."


None of this is relevant.

mf

 

[mercman]

It is relevant/ very relevant.

Otherwise why did the Bank insist of taking additional security when they had no clue of what or where it was. Called Bully Boy tactics from my view.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Absolutely no additional benefit was provided to me, other than knowing that I'd be able to keep my assets.

That sounds like a substantial benefit to me.

Just be a bit careful that you don't run up a lot of legal fees letting off steam. It's ok to let off steam on askaboutmoney as it doesn't cost you anything.

Did your "stiff letter" solicitor advise you to give the additional security to the bank back in 2008? Or did he advise you not to give the additional security?

 

[mercman]

The Bank use the same firm of solicitors and therefore are unable to offer impartial advice. I use another firm as well, but as with all professionals, will undertake to do the work as long as they get paid for it.

I'm not letting off steam, but simply trying to invoke Eventual Tax Planning.

Brendan, I do not understand your comment where you state that keeping one's assets is a substantial benefit. Stupid me honoured their wishes without realising that the Bank's had broken their own rules.

We will see who will wear the eventual victory cap.

 

[44brendan]

I disagree with BB in respect of the perception that "keeping the asset" is a benefit. In law it definitely is not so & having been on the opposite side of some cases where the Bank obtained security from clients over and above what was regarded as commercially acceptable I can confirm that this is not the "open & shut" case that some posters think it is. The fact that the Bank asked for additional security and the client supplied same without receiving any commercial benefit or independent legal advice is a significant issue and should definitely be progressed by you. I note that you have now taken legal advice on the matter and a good barrister should be in a better position than any of us to access the merits your case. While I don't subscribe to the general simplistic acceptance that "all clients are good" and "all banks are bad" I do see this case as being one where the Bank appears to have taken advantage of the clients co-operation (again assuming that all of the facts outlined in the posts are correct).

 

[mercman]

assuming that all of the facts outlined in the posts are correct).

Brendan, Thank you for your encouraging post. The facts as outlined are those as they occured. There are no skeletons hanging in the closet in this case or no 'forgot to mention' bitz.