Redress for loss of investment property and lost tracker

P

PFS7979

Registered User
Messages
244
Hi,

Will appreciate an opinion on following scenario:

House originally owner occupied and only property owned by the effected person. Full engagement from Borrower and rents remitted to Bank; interest paid but slipped into arrears for principal element of repayments initially. Bank turned down requests for restructuring and asked for voluntary sale. House vacated... no payments made over a c. 6 month period of marketing then closing sale. This added further to the final arrears figure.

Compensation amounted to c. 53% of the selling price and no account taken of the enforced rental void to facilitate the sale.

If correct rate of interest applied.. probability based on improved rental market (rents 40% higher now than last rent achieved back in c 2013) the Borrower could have afforded full c & i repayments and would own house unencumbered from their mid-late 50's.

my question is: does 53% of the sale price in a depressed market reflect fair compensation as compared to the situation they would otherwise be in ( unencumbered house with rental income in c. 15 years time )
 
Hi PFS

You need to provide more detail. If you would, it could provide a very good case study for the evaluation of the loss from the surrender/voluntary sale of an investment property.

Lenders were and are very flexible with restructuring, so if they refused you a restructuring of an SVR mortgage, it would be unusual.

Which lender?

When did you buy the house?
How much was the mortgage?

When did you start renting the house?

Did you own another house as your family home?

What were the monthly repayments supposed to be and how much were you paying?

What date did the bank suggest a voluntary sale?

Did you appeal the decision?

What were the terms of the voluntary surrender? How much was the balance on the mortgage? How much was the house sold for? How was the shortfall treated?


How much arrears were you in when you surrendered the house?

How much were you overcharged?

Brendan
 
PFS7979 said:
Hi,

Will appreciate an opinion on following scenario:

House originally owner occupied and only property owned by the effected person. Full engagement from Borrower and rents remitted to Bank; interest paid but slipped into arrears for principal element of repayments initially. Bank turned down requests for restructuring and asked for voluntary sale. House vacated... no payments made over a c. 6 month period of marketing then closing sale. This added further to the final arrears figure.

Compensation amounted to c. 53% of the selling price and no account taken of the enforced rental void to facilitate the sale.

If correct rate of interest applied.. probability based on improved rental market (rents 40% higher now than last rent achieved back in c 2013) the Borrower could have afforded full c & i repayments and would own house unencumbered from their mid-late 50's.

my question is: does 53% of the sale price in a depressed market reflect fair compensation as compared to the situation they would otherwise be in ( unencumbered house with rental income in c. 15 years time )
Click to expand...


Meet and Negotiate hard with the bank - yet another 'Fire Sale' by the sounds of it.

Pity it wasn't an Interest Only mortgage - then had sale proceeds been lodged to the account - the account may be paid ahead of time - as has been pointed out in some cases by Master of High Court.

To anyone on Interest only Mortgages - who have had to 'Fire Sale' ; Check your contracts!!
 
PFS7979 said:
Hi,

Will appreciate an opinion on following scenario:

House originally owner occupied and only property owned by the effected person. Full engagement from Borrower and rents remitted to Bank; interest paid but slipped into arrears for principal element of repayments initially. Bank turned down requests for restructuring and asked for voluntary sale. House vacated... no payments made over a c. 6 month period of marketing then closing sale. This added further to the final arrears figure.

Compensation amounted to c. 53% of the selling price and no account taken of the enforced rental void to facilitate the sale.

If correct rate of interest applied.. probability based on improved rental market (rents 40% higher now than last rent achieved back in c 2013) the Borrower could have afforded full c & i repayments and would own house unencumbered from their mid-late 50's.

my question is: does 53% of the sale price in a depressed market reflect fair compensation as compared to the situation they would otherwise be in ( unencumbered house with rental income in c. 15 years time )
Click to expand...

are you a solicitor or barrister?
 
Lone Star...

am far from a Barrister!! lol.

thats why am asking people's opinion on whether redress payment ( compensation ) of 53% of sales price is a fair resolution? the alternative assuming correct rate applied would be ownership of a house debt free from c age 55....
 
Hi Bronte,

I am seeking a general opinion really..My professional advisor will compile the appeal. I feel reluctant to go into the level of detail Brendan has sought in such a public forum ( and noted some fairly unsympathetic and sharp commentary when others have shared such details )
 
The idea of compensation is to put you back where you would have been if the bank hadn't gotten it wrong.

You start by asking for enough money to buy a similar house and the lost rental income.

How far you have to climb down from there is a matter of negotiation.

If you can show that the sale was entirely the banks fault then you shouldn't have to climb down at all. However if you would have been unable to make the correct payments, then there is fault on your side also. You cannot expect to get back to a position you couldn't have had even if the bank had done no wrong.

If you had arrears of principal then obviously it was not the incorrect interest rate that caused the sale.
 
PFS7979 said:
I feel reluctant to go into the level of detail Brendan has sought in such a public forum ( and noted some fairly unsympathetic and sharp commentary when others have shared such details )
Click to expand...



The Appeals Panel will apply the same clear, unemotional analysis that I would do.

The Ombudsman or the High Court would do the same.

But if you just want to get it off your chest by ranting about banks without any logical argument, that is fair enough. It won't progress your case, but you will feel better for a while. And I am sure many people will sympathise with you which will make you feel justified.

Brendan
 
Brendan,

Your quite right regarding appeals panel/ombudsman/high court. I agree with you.

I cannot see any ranting about Banks on my part nor is sympathy or justification being sought.

Cremeegg has more or less articulated my view on the situation and in many ways the final redress outcome will potentially be more preferable to the alternative had the overcharging not applied.

In my opinion, people effected by the issue have a right to feel annoyed/angry/rant about the issue as the overcharging did cause stress and anxiety. In such cases people need to do there bestvto remain realistic and pragmatic in the appeal process also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top