Robert 'Crab Bait' White consents to losing his houses

[noblepa]

Question for those more familiar with British bankruptcy laws than I am: Since the receivers control his rental properties, and collect the rent from the tenants, are they obligated to make mortgage payments while the bankruptcy drags on? Or do they simply accumulate the cash and let the unpaid interest pile up?

[notorial dissent]

I would think, if they had seized them they would have a fiduciary responsibility to make the payments to the lenders. When do they get around to actually starting to sell things off to recover the owed amounts?? It sounds like our little Quail is going to get tossed out of his home nest imminently by NatWest so he won't have that for them to seize and sell off. He may well be getting light on assets at this point. I'd say things are NOT looking too rosy for our little Quail.

[Gregg]

Every month they collect the rent, and they charge a fee for that. Then they pay the interest, and maybe some principle, and they charge a fee for that. They also procure insurance for all of it, for which they charge a fee. Anything left over, they apply to his other debts, and you guessed it, this incurs a fee.

I say drag it out as long as you want, Bob, you're SO WINNING right now!

I can also fondly remember him saying just a year ago that he intended to just ignore them for the year until the bankruptcy automatically timed out, and he was gonna be scot-free. How's that working out for you?

[SteveUK]

He's about to come crashing down to earth with a rather large bang. I can't help think though, that he'll still see that as a win, sticking it to the man, so to speak. A true believer.

[aesmith]

Every month they collect the rent, and they charge a fee for that. Then they pay the interest, and maybe some principle, and they charge a fee for that. They also procure insurance for all of it, for which they charge a fee. Anything left over, they apply to his other debts, and you guessed it, this incurs a fee.

Back in January wasn't there some correspondence from a property management company that had been appointed by the trustee to run the property? So there will be their charges as well.

[notorial dissent]

My suspicion is that if our little Quail was making any money at all off his properties he isn't now, and I am actually kind of surprised they aren't being repossessed as we speak.

[noblepa]

My suspicion is that if our little Quail was making any money at all off his properties he isn't now, and I am actually kind of surprised they aren't being repossessed as we speak.

Again, I'm no expert in British (or US for that matter) bankruptcy laws, but, if, as others have posited, the mortgages (at least the interest) are being paid, then the lender has no grounds to foreclose.

Besides, wouldn't a bankruptcy forestall foreclosure? Even though the loans are secured by the properties, wouldn't the court have to order their sale?

BTW, what are the tenants rights in this situation. It is my understanding that, in US law, if a property is sold and there is a tenant with an unexpired lease, the new owners must honor the lease. If, as in most cases, the lease has expired and the tenants are on a month-to-month basis, then the new owner can order the tenants out at the end of the month. Is British law any different?

[SteveUK]

It is. A tenant gets turfed out into the street here during a repossession resulting from the landlords behaviours. In some cases where a 'binding tenancy' exists the bank becomes the new landlord, but this is the exception rather than the norm.

If crabbie mortgages are all BTL, then the odds on a binding tenancy increase.

[notorial dissent]

What I'm thinking, is that if the Receiver is taking any fees out of the rents, they may not be making the full payment to the mortgage holder, which could put them in to foreclosure. He's already on track for losing house so presumably the Receiver didn't take possession of it.

[aesmith]

Just making wild and ill informed guesses, my take is that the IP is paying the mortgages and management costs of the rental properties in order to preserve the income. Maybe with a view to selling the whole portfolio complete with sitting tenants? He will have put a charge on each of the properties so he gets first dibs on any sale proceeds after the mortgage holder is paid off. Maybe he has right of veto over any sale, to prevent the sort of "sell it to your brother for £1" that the goofies are always suggesting. Can he sell the rental properties without even involving Crabbie?

As for Crabbies own residence, we know the IP has a charge registered as Crabbie posted the letter he received about this. Joint ownership might make it more problematic for the IP to force sale. IP won't be paying the mortgage because why would he, given Crabbies refusal to help manage his affairs. Assuming joint mortgage presumably it's straightforward for the bank to get possession, then the IP can get any surplus. Although we can trust Mr Bait to play up to the extent that any equity is pissed away.

Regarding comments about tenant's rights, repossession by the lender is one of the mandatory grounds for eviction of an assured tenant, subject to certain conditions. Banks normally made conditions about the type of tenancy in either a BTL or consent to let agreement (for example in Scotland our bank required it to be a Short Assured Tenancy no longer than 12 months)

[Hercule Parrot]

Rebel Keith seems to be getting a bit too enthusiastic.

Keith Jones What i really like about it is that the new laws will be enforced by bailiffs and the defendants are businesses, and businesses MUST have open doors.... you know what an open door means to a bailiff right? yes consent or joinder, once they have gained entry they can come and go as they please, what does this mean?.... it means that enforcement on all defendants is a certainty to be a success

"it means that enforcement on all defendants is a certainty to be a success" , yup, let us know how that goes with your daily phone call.

It's the reference to "the new laws will be enforced by bailiffs" which tickled me. As if any registered bailiff is going to accept or enforce any order from the Fisher Price My First Court playset.

[longdog]

Rebel Keith seems to be getting a bit too enthusiastic.

Keith Jones What i really like about it is that the new laws will be enforced by bailiffs and the defendants are businesses, and businesses MUST have open doors.... you know what an open door means to a bailiff right? yes consent or joinder, once they have gained entry they can come and go as they please, what does this mean?.... it means that enforcement on all defendants is a certainty to be a success

"it means that enforcement on all defendants is a certainty to be a success" , yup, let us know how that goes with your daily phone call.

It's the reference to "the new laws will be enforced by bailiffs" which tickled me. As if any registered bailiff is going to accept or enforce any order from the Fisher Price My First Court playset.

I assume the Fisher Price Play Court™ will be appointing their own Action Man Bailff™ with Short Arms Long Pockets™ and Real Unwashed Hair In a Ratty Ponytail™.

Touring the country in a small plastic tank fully tooled up with, bus pass, begging bowl, a length of rope and a copy of the Magna Carta, Action Man Bailff™ will bring Common Law justice to the traitors and scoundrels... They can run and they can hide but they can't escape Action Man Bailff™.

[longdog]

So it seems Booby's court case has been re-listed for 25th June... Quicker than I expected to be honest...

Robert White

I've sent them this reply.

Thank you for your quick response.
The relisted date for the hearing is not acceptable as we are both on holiday and out of the country on this date.
The court will have to come up with a date that is acceptable to both of us, we are not happy for your alleged court to go ahead with this case without us being present.
The court has wasted enough of our time already and we will not be leaving it at this, we will be looking at a counter claim for incompetence on the courts behalf.

Well I can pretty much guess the response to that one...

Dear sir.

Please supply a list of dates when you are available to attend court. If you do not respond within 14 days the case will be listed at the court's earliest convenience and you will have to make arrangements to attend if you so desire.

If you fail to attend the case will be heard in your absence.

Yours..

Mr Stickthatinyourpipeansmokeit.

I wonder why he's suddenly changed his mind about attending their 'fake courts'? Does he really think his Fisher Price Play Court™ judgements are going to help?

[Burnaby49]

He'd better sue them through his pretend court because real courts are immune to lawsuits.

[Dr. Caligari]

The relisted date for the hearing is not acceptable as we are both on holiday and out of the country on this date.

How is he paying for a foreign holiday if he's bankrupt?

[notorial dissent]

The relisted date for the hearing is not acceptable as we are both on holiday and out of the country on this date.

How is he paying for a foreign holiday if he's bankrupt?

There you go, asking those inconvenient reasonable, rational questions again.

Somehow, I can't imagine the judge, the trustee, or anyone else for that matter will really give a royal rat's heinie.

[Gregg]

Who here really thinks he's out of the UK? He's telling them "you're not the boss of me" and "I ain't gonna come, and you asking me if I object gives me an opportunity to kick it down the road".

Honestly, the guy's just FOS and will object to any date within the next 80 years of so.

[noblepa]

The relisted date for the hearing is not acceptable as we are both on holiday and out of the country on this date.

How is he paying for a foreign holiday if he's bankrupt?

Good question. As Gregg points out, he is probably just lying through his teeth and isn't going anywhere.

I would think that a bankruptcy, especially an involuntary one, would instantly destroy any credit he had, so he couldn't pay for such a vacation with credit cards.

If he has enough cash laying around (where would he keep it? I thought the banks had all closed his accounts), wouldn't that be considered hiding assets from the court, which is a serious offence in bankruptcy? So didn't he just confess to an crime?

[Pottapaug1938]

He's about to come crashing down to earth with a rather large bang. I can't help think though, that he'll still see that as a win, sticking it to the man, so to speak. A true believer.

Right. The Man has everything, and Bobby-Boy has diddly-squat. Some "sticking".

[SteveUK]

Well, this is PLD Fantasy land after all