Thank you to the people with helpful replies. As mortgage advisor basically saw my relative coming, getting them to get £20k cash back - £10k went to them, £10k to my relative, dont ask why. So the house now is about £20k negative equity, so selling it isnt possible, unless an unsecured loan is taken out to cover the difference, something relative is unable to do (redundant). The reason behind moving out of mortgage house was because the rent on a small house is less than the mortgage. So the house is rented to DSS tenents which almost covers the mortgage. I can only assume citizenkain doesnt understand the situation - my mum gets no benefit what so ever from the mortgaged house, in fact it costs her £50 a month to have tenants in it, and as i said it was interest only, no capital is built up - do you understand how interst only mortgages work? As selling the house is not possible, what do you suggest? I am sorry I dont understand why moving back in would help as the mortgage costs more than the rented house? It seems like this would be going from bad to worse? I have suggested trying to get the mortgage advisor to return the £10k which I have no idea why they got that much for setting it up and seeing if the lenders will let her sell it at a loss? The only other way I can see it going forward is if they let it by voluntary repossessed? It was originally recommended on the shelter website that if you cant keep up with your mortgage, moving to a cheaper rented house and rented out your mortgaged house is a good idea. Obviously this is very bad advice in hindsight - because you are high and dry if you loose your job. My relative has worked literally all their life, from aged 15! Surprise, thank you for your help - does your daughter happen to know if their is any sort of appeal process? I very much doubt the mortgage advisor will offer any help, as they have changed business name since.

This is not as tricky as it sounds, but it seems impossible to the benefits agency to deal with. A relative moved out of their owned home because they could not afford the mortgage £650 (interest only) - so this house has been rented out to a family for over 2 years, the rent almost covers the rent (my relative has to add about £50 to the mortgage each month) Relative is in negative equity so can not sell. My relative now lives in a private rented house, for £450 Now my relative is unemployeed (made redundant 3 months ago) and they have not recieved a penny in housing and now faces eviction. The wont pay hosing benefit because she owns a house. It seems they only possible way to resolve this in their eyes is the most foolish one - stop paying the mortgage on the owned property, so it is repossessed and the tenents are evicted. My relative really does not want to do this - but what are the options? No one from the authorities seems to have a clue how to deal with this and the latest is that she is not entitled to any housing benefit for the house she lives in whilst she has another rented out - even though she makes no profit on this, and is even renting it out at a loss. Can anyone please help. They have tried citizens advice, but they basically said they can not help with unusual cases such as these.

From what I know about voluntary repossession - I believe you risk being subject to more shortfall on the basis that in this market lenders are accepting very silly offers. For instance a clients property, valued at £260 with no equity, was advised by the estate agent to sell for £235 for a quick sale (in this market) however the lender insisted the house was marketed fromt he start at £190k. The difference here is £45k so besides the owner being subject from the unavoidable mortgage shortfall of £35k, they are now left owing £70k - this is just one example. If for instance you stayed in the property until the "bitter end" you would give yourself more chance to find a buyer - a buyer which ultimately will be buying a repossessed property off the lender, not yourself. But what you gain to some extent is less of a mortgage shortfall. For instance if you have a sale agreed on the property for £235k, it would be illegal for the banks to sell it to someone else for £190k - because there are laws surrounding the sale of repossessed property which means a lender has a duty to sell the property at a fair price. You might want to read this article: Voluntary House Repossession

You really don't want to leave the sale of your house to your lenders, it isn't a good idea in a stable market - but in this very slow market you would be sold on for much less than the market value.

Just because you are self employed it shouldnt prevent you from getting a mortgage. If you have a good credit rating, equity and/or deposit you can 'self cert' your income.

IS your mortgage lender Northern Rock by any chance - they have got very ruthless with repossessions. I wouldnt worry too much about loosing your home - being repossessed for £2k is virtually unheard of. I would write to your bank in the first instance - recorded, with full details of your catch up payments and outline s future catchment payment schedule.

When you say you had a 'straight repossession order' do you mean a 'suspended repossession order' ?

One thing I would say, if you are going to repay the arrears make sure you do not over commit yourselves financially. Think how much you can afford which is reasonable for you and will not cause other financial problems. Although the lenders try to insist the debt is repaid in 3 years, the judge will consider any reasonable amount of time, even the entire time left on the mortgage. So don't sell your self short where the repayment period is concerned!!

Ask them to switch you on to an interest only mortgage this should reduce your mortgage payments to about 70%

I think the lender knows that court action would be a waste of money as no judge in the land will grant a possession order if you have already proposed and stuck to a repayment plan!! Just putting the squeeze on for sure. Stick to your guns your doing fine

I think what they have done here is calculate the interest at the beginning of the loan and add it on as a fixed lump sum to the total amount of the loan. For example if you had a loan of £10k, with a 20% APR over say 10 years. it would calculate what this would be equivalent to (in this example the interest would be over £11k) and adds it to the loan at the beginning. (In this example the £10k loan jumps to £21k) Plus as Ell-en said you may have payment insurance on top.

Just an idea, since how you say you could rent your house for less than the mortgage - well have you thoughts about contacting a local investor, see if they are interested in buying your house and renting it to you until you get sorted with somewhere else? most property investors are very happy to do this. The best way to find one is to contact your local LETTINGS agent they will have good contacts. Just a thought....

Strange how they haven't tried to contact you - which lender is it? Most will contact you after just 1 missed payment. Most lenders will accept an informal arrears repayment offer, as long as you stick to it - so make sure you can afford what you are offering. Lenders won't usually instruct their solicitors without first send you a warning letter - but there is always a chance this got lost in the post.

Nice of them isn't it! We, tax payers, bail the bank out to the sum not disimilar to the national debt of a small country and they fob you off with a thanks but no thanks!! You will be pleased to hear, that redemption figure only applies until your current deal runs out - so on the 2nd of June you can transfer your mortgage to someone else without being charged the early repayment charge. Word of caution - there may be other hidden 'admin' charges both Northern Rocks and your new lender. Whilst they may seem small in terms of your mortgage, think of your equity and try to minimise to cost of moving your mortgage as much as possible. It may be worth paying a slightly higher interest rate if you avoid paying Higher Lending Charges (remember, wherever possible the banks will think of a reason to charge you! We pay interest based on what we owe so what is the point of a higher lending charge? these are becoming higher and more common now the 'credit crunch' is settling in... banks eh? don'tch just love'em.

I think the lender is breaking the law by accepting a lower offer that what has been offered. They are legally obliged to take 'resonable' care to ensure they get a fair price for your property. I would apply for a injuction to stop the sale of the property on the grounds that the sale price is grossly under the market value. You would help your case if you good provide offers in writing with your form to back up your reasoning. Some quick cash sale companies, like mine below, do provide such in writing upon request in 24 hours if required. Please do shop around - the cash offer you get will be a 'below market value' offer, but it may well be more than the offer via the mortgage lender, just one case ive dealt with recently, a property valued by 2 x local E.A at 1.3m (yes million) was repossessed and the mortgage lender accepted an offer of £580k which would have left in well in excess of £200k shortfall. Obviously we got this sorted in the end - but it does show just how little effort they put in to getting a reasonable price on your behalf!!!!

As a back up measure why not get a EDIT in writing? That way, if you fail to get a suspended order on the grounds of replaying the arrears you should get one to enable you to sell your house yourself (quickly obviously)

As a back up measure why not get a EDIT in writing? That way, if you fail to get a suspended order on the grounds of replaying the arrears you should get one to enable you to sell your house yourself (quickly obviously)

Great topic, I hope it isn't just centered around people who have negative equity - as I am certainly finding more and more people who have interest only mortgages or 100% - 125% mortgages suffering shortfall, even the low end mortgages of £100k you would have to live and pay off the repayment mortgage for at least 2 years to cover only the cost of selling a house with your equity!! AND that doesn't even include any early replayment charges. No wonder so many people are at risk from repossession...

A similar thing happened to me when I broke up with my ex. I moved out and left the house with him on the grounds he pays the mortgage (he agreed) - BIG MISTAKE. The stupid fool deliberatly let the mortgage run in to arrears, I had no idea until the court summons! I asked him what was going on and he said, he would rather it get repossessed so I can never get another house than sell it. I didnt have a clue what to do at the time - so I seeked legal advice, luckily I got legal aid at the time. Firstly we had to get a court ordering the sale of the property - secondly, I had to find a cash buyer. The house was in a dreadful state so no body was interested really. I was furious, I could not believe someone could be so spiteful. One thing I would say, there are ways to stop a repo and I would strongly advise you look in to getting a quick cash sale instead of a voluntary repo because I know it might seem like less hassle just to have it over and done with but are you certain you wont have any mortgage shortfall (take in to account repo fees, legal fees, selling fees etc) I hate to plug my own website but look in my sig at the repo link. I know how annoyed you must be, but you do have rights to force a sale if the alternative is a repo a judge will help you if you explain this and give you time to get a quick cash sale.

Well, following a letter from the ICO saying Abbey are in breech of the DPA using their microfiche excuse I thought it was about time I got my claim in. I was going to wait till my barclays one was settled but my court date for that isn't until FEB 07!!! So I want to get my Abbey one going. Anyway, main probs - I dont have all my statements so Im not sure how to word it in my particulars of claim. - can someone have a check, its the blue bit. Second qu, how to you word the bit about interest rate? I'm trying to word it in a way I want the judge to decide. For 2 reasons, firstly I believe if its not the standard 8% you must include it in your claim total which takes it over 5k, and second im really not sure how to word it any other way. (all the bits ive read about interest relate to the county court act which specifically states 8%) - this is the red bit. If someone doesnt mind giving it a once over before I submit it would be much appreciated as I can't find this in the library section and I didnt need to estimate my barclays one. Thank you 1. The Claimant held a bank account with the Defendant since 1996. Between the dates of June 2000 and June 2006 the Defendant applied numerous default charges to the Claimant’s account. 2. The charges applied are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. They constitute an unfair penalty under paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2, which states: “a term is unfair if it requires any consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation”. The amount charged does not reflect the true cost of the breach. 3. Furthermore, under the law of penalties, the charges are unlawful as they are an ‘extravagant’ penalty. Referring back to the case of 1896, Wilson v Love, a charge is a penalty if it does not relate to the true cost of an item. 4. Despite numerous written requests made by the Claimant to the Defendant the Defendant has failed to pay the said sum. 4. As outlined in the County Courts Act 1984, the claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date they were first deprived of the money to the date of this claim. This amounts to a total sum of £1,018.35, continuing to accrue at the statutory rate until judgment or earlier payment, the daily rate being 0.021%. 5. The claimant therefore asks the court to enter judgment in their favour for the sum of £3,180.62 plus interest, amounting to a total of £4,198.97 6. As I have an interest rate specified in my contact with Abbey National PLC of 16.9% for authorised borrowing and 28.7% for unauthorised borrowing I request for the judge to advice me which should apply to this dept if any in place of the 8% I am entitled. If 16.9% - £5,664.23 If 28.7% - £8,360.53 7. Due to the failure by Abbey National to comply with the Data Protection Act subject access requests on the 26th May, 26 June, 14 July and 21 July 06 the schedule of charges includes some estimates. I have a letter from the ICO which informs me that Abbey's reason for not supplying the relevant documents is not valid.

No it makes no difference at all, even if they do find him it will still make no difference. Each person named on the bill is fully responsible for the debt, which means either can be made to pay the full amount. It isn't likely to be split 50/50. Bascially the council want the money, they don't care who pay it and they will go after the most likely person they think is capable of paying. If however its causing difficulty you should be able to set up an arrange to pay back the debt at a set amount each week?

Go in the main forum index Consumer Action Group, and near the top there is a forum called bank template letters. The spreadsheets are in there.

Yeah you did Vorpal! I got fed up of waiting so im sueing for an estimate Did you ever go overdrawn with Abbey? If so you can claim the interest charges back too (a few quid a month really adds up ya know!), on the technicality that "if they hadn't taken all these charges over the years I wouldn't have gone overdrawn" they could argue you would have spent the money on other things, but they have no way of proving this.

For you first letters you send your claim to include charges, plus the overdraft you where charged (the reason being, if they hadn't taken so many charges, you wouldn't be overdrawn, either within your agreed limit, or over your agreed limit). If they don't reply positively, then you send them the LBA 'Letter Before (court) Action' on this letter you tell them you plan to claim 8% interest on all the debt. This is what the court allows on all cases unless a specific % has been agreed. So then once it goes to court, your claim is for the full amount plus 8%, plus your court cost. There is no point demanding the 8% until you send the letter intending court action, as without court action its not enforceable, and they will know that. It is agrueable at the moment whether you can claim the interest rate they charge you, which is somewhere usually between 16% and 20% Have a look in the general forum, there are few threads in there discussing it.

yes