The Second Battle of Crawford's Castle, a Nottingham Farce...

[AndyPandy]

This is a link from shelter regarding costs after repossession, I did have one somewhere more detailed referring to costs for securing the property, I'll dig it out, but it comes under 'looking after the property and repairs/maintenance'

As has already pointed out Tom picks up the bill for this lot.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advic ... age_lender

This is interesting, they can get an Injunction to prevent the sale if you believe it to be undervalued. The problem is the last bit of course where it says 'get advise from a Solicitor' well that's not going to happen !!

Most lenders get at least one valuation of your property to try to make sure they get a fair price. Your lender's main concern is getting back the money you owe as quickly as possible. The amount they sell for may not be as much as you would get if you sold your home yourself.

If the property has been undervalued, you can ask the courts for an injunction to prevent the sale. This can be done at any time before the completion date. Lenders have a legal responsibility to get the best price for the property that can reasonably be obtained.

Get advice from a solicitor if you think your lender has failed to get a fair price. Use the Gov.uk legal adviser finder to find legal help in your area.

[daltontrumbno]

It is assumed that there is going to be a massive shortfall, If there is will this put Sue's mothers house at risk as this seems to be the Crawford's only asset now. Or will B&B/UKAR just write off any shortfall as too much hassal to enforce.

[GH132]

This is a link from shelter regarding costs after repossession, I did have one somewhere more detailed referring to costs for securing the property, I'll dig it out, but it comes under 'looking after the property and repairs/maintenance'

As has already pointed out Tom picks up the bill for this lot.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advic ... age_lender

This is interesting, they can get an Injunction to prevent the sale if you believe it to be undervalued. The problem is the last bit of course where it says 'get advise from a Solicitor' well that's not going to happen !!

Most lenders get at least one valuation of your property to try to make sure they get a fair price. Your lender's main concern is getting back the money you owe as quickly as possible. The amount they sell for may not be as much as you would get if you sold your home yourself.

If the property has been undervalued, you can ask the courts for an injunction to prevent the sale. This can be done at any time before the completion date. Lenders have a legal responsibility to get the best price for the property that can reasonably be obtained.

Get advice from a solicitor if you think your lender has failed to get a fair price. Use the Gov.uk legal adviser finder to find legal help in your area.

Problem is this all goes out of the window when you are dealing with Camp Crawford. To delay the house sale just 8 weeks to try to get a better price and then have someone take an extra 4 weeks above and beyond an opportunist would cost a further £30k in Security Fees, so any offer would have to be at least £30k plus what offer is on the table now to make that work able ... simply not going to happen

[ArthurWankspittle]

This is interesting, they can get an Injunction to prevent the sale if you believe it to be undervalued. The problem is the last bit of course where it says 'get advise from a Solicitor' well that's not going to happen !!

I would suspect you would have to turn up in court with an estate agent or surveyor's opinion and not just say I think it is worth more than that.
Another point from that Shelter doc, any know if Mortgage Indemnity guarantees are time limited?

[JonnyL]

This is interesting, they can get an Injunction to prevent the sale if you believe it to be undervalued. The problem is the last bit of course where it says 'get advise from a Solicitor' well that's not going to happen !!

I would suspect you would have to turn up in court with an estate agent or surveyor's opinion and not just say I think it is worth more than that.
Another point from that Shelter doc, any know if Mortgage Indemnity guarantees are time limited?

Is this what you're after?

13.6.3 If the proceeds of sale are less than the debt

(1) A firm must ensure that, as soon as possible after the sale of a repossessed property, if the proceeds of sale are less than the amount of the customer's debt, the customer is informed in a durable medium of:

(a) the mortgage shortfall debt; and

(b) where relevant, the fact that the mortgage shortfall debt may be pursued by another company (for example, a mortgage indemnity insurer).

(2) If the decision is made to recover the mortgage shortfall debt, the firm must ensure that the customer is notified of this intention.

The notification referred to in (1) must take place within five years of the date of the sale (if the regulated mortgage contract is subject to Scottish law) or within six years (in all other cases).

[daveBeeston]

I think if the Crawfords tried to get an injunctions against the sale it would be refused as UKAR could prove without a shadow of doubt that the price they have sold it for is the best they could due to the actions of the Crawfords and the supporters which has limited buyers.

And nope its not me that bought it as i couldn't even get the selling agent to speak to me despite emailing a firm initial offer of £40,000 to them.

[ArthurWankspittle]

It is assumed that there is going to be a massive shortfall, If there is will this put Sue's mothers house at risk as this seems to be the Crawford's only asset now.

We don't know the details of Mrs Crawford's mum's will or even if she made one. So, strictly, we don't know who now owns her house. However, if Sue has inherited it or part of it, it could be used to pay the mortgage shortfall I think.

Or will B&B/UKAR just write off any shortfall as too much hassal to enforce.

Might depend on their internal policy. They could go for a CCJ on each of them and get £5 a week off each of their pensions or something like that. More likely, if it is possible, I think they will get a charge on Sue's mum's house.

[ArthurWankspittle]

jonnyL - no. The Crawfords took out a MIG for 11k when they bought the place. If that MIG is written as good for the next 25 years i.e. the period of the mortgage, they don't pay out, or they don't pay out a lot. If it is open ended they might have to pay out the £11k.

[JonnyL]

jonnyL - no. The Crawfords took out a MIG for 11k when they bought the place. If that MIG is written as good for the next 25 years i.e. the period of the mortgage, they don't pay out, or they don't pay out a lot. If it is open ended they might have to pay out the £11k.

Not what you're looking for, but who's case does this remind you of?

http://www.propertylawuk.net/mortgageindemnity.html

[guilty]

jonnyL - no. The Crawfords took out a MIG for 11k when they bought the place. If that MIG is written as good for the next 25 years i.e. the period of the mortgage, they don't pay out, or they don't pay out a lot. If it is open ended they might have to pay out the £11k.

Not what you're looking for, but who's case does this remind you of?

http://www.propertylawuk.net/mortgageindemnity.html

The point being that it is not the Crawford's insurance policy. It is the banks. The Crawford's have no claim on it.

[Pox]

This is interesting, they can get an Injunction to prevent the sale if you believe it to be undervalued. The problem is the last bit of course where it says 'get advise from a Solicitor' well that's not going to happen !!

I would suspect you would have to turn up in court with an estate agent or surveyor's opinion and not just say I think it is worth more than that.
Another point from that Shelter doc, any know if Mortgage Indemnity guarantees are time limited?

In the past I have done some property valuations, we would generally consider comparables when making a valuation - once many other factors are taken into account we would then consider what comparable properties have sold for.
The surveyor would value the property as it stands and would presumably have no knowledge of a 'hassle factor' when making the valuation. Even so, I can't think of any reason such a factor should devalue on the part of the surveyor, although the buyer may feel otherwise.
The surveyor should not take into account that it is a repo or a distressed sale but may comment as to whether the property is mortgageable or not I.e. Does it have a usable kitchen (just a sink will do) and does it have a bathroom ( arguably, just a loo and a bath/ similar).
As you are all aware, a property that can attract cash purchasers only tends to have a lower value.
IMO, Fearn Chase should be eligible for a mortgage but knowing the background I would keep well away, no matter how below what should be the market value.
However, even if the purchaser paid well over the odds, TC et Al would say it was undersold.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Think I'd read a case like that when I went looking for the details. I now suspect MIG is open ended, so B&B are entitled to up to £11k. This however won't cover the shortfall. I also now realise I am missing something out of my previous estimates, namely that the Crawfords owed £45k about 30 months ago but haven't paid anything since. So that is another 30+ x £300 to add to the bill. There goes that £11k MIG.

[Pox]

I think if the Crawfords tried to get an injunctions against the sale it would be refused as UKAR could prove without a shadow of doubt that the price they have sold it for is the best they could due to the actions of the Crawfords and the supporters which has limited buyers.

And nope its not me that bought it as i couldn't even get the selling agent to speak to me despite emailing a firm initial offer of £40,000 to them.

What I would call a 'cheeky offer' - nice try though and IMO a tad too low to be taken seriously by the agent, but understand where you are coming from.

[YiamCross]

I think if the Crawfords tried to get an injunctions against the sale it would be refused as UKAR could prove without a shadow of doubt that the price they have sold it for is the best they could due to the actions of the Crawfords and the supporters which has limited buyers.

And nope its not me that bought it as i couldn't even get the selling agent to speak to me despite emailing a firm initial offer of £40,000 to them.

What I would call a 'cheeky offer' - nice try though and IMO a tad too low to be taken seriously by the agent, but understand where you are coming from.

I don't know. I doubt anything on that plot is going to be worth much more than 100K after all the fuss and with everything that will have to be disclosed in a sale. £60k doesn't build much house even if you own a construction company and if you have to take on the risk of malicious vandalism your chances of making a profit are greatly reduced.

Personally I'd say 40K was top money for this plot.

[Pox]

I think if the Crawfords tried to get an injunctions against the sale it would be refused as UKAR could prove without a shadow of doubt that the price they have sold it for is the best they could due to the actions of the Crawfords and the supporters which has limited buyers.

And nope its not me that bought it as i couldn't even get the selling agent to speak to me despite emailing a firm initial offer of £40,000 to them.

What I would call a 'cheeky offer' - nice try though and IMO a tad too low to be taken seriously by the agent, but understand where you are coming from.

I don't know. I doubt anything on that plot is going to be worth much more than 100K after all the fuss and with everything that will have to be disclosed in a sale. £60k doesn't build much house even if you own a construction company and if you have to take on the risk of malicious vandalism your chances of making a profit are greatly reduced.

Personally I'd say 40K was top money for this plot.

The valuation would have been based on the property as it stands, with a reinstatement value, generally based on a square foot/metre basis included.
If the property was being offered as a plot only, demolition costs may or may not be taken into account by the surveyor ( if it was me I wouldn't include this on the valuation as I don't think it is relevant in this case),
I very much doubt that the property will be demolished

[NG3]

I don't know. I doubt anything on that plot is going to be worth much more than 100K after all the fuss and with everything that will have to be disclosed in a sale. £60k doesn't build much house even if you own a construction company and if you have to take on the risk of malicious vandalism your chances of making a profit are greatly reduced.

Personally I'd say 40K was top money for this plot.

That's why I really can't see it being demolished, it's a tight plot and you wouldn't get planning permission for anything other than another 2 bed bungalow of the same size, so I see no profit in it.

Tart it up and let it, or sell it and you might make a very nice profit. Knock it down and spend £60k on a rebuild and you'd be lucky to break even.

[JonnyL]

Is this the Grand Jury that overturned Tom's victory, I mean defeat?

https://video-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hvide ... e=55BE810A

[arayder]

It is assumed that there is going to be a massive shortfall, If there is will this put Sue's mothers house at risk as this seems to be the Crawford's only asset now. Or will B&B/UKAR just write off any shortfall as too much hassal to enforce.

So let me ask the experts here if I am understanding this whole thing.

Tom is still is debt to the bank for the unpaid mortgage as well as the costs of security since the eviction and the repair of the bungalow after the antics of the rooftop six.

If the sale of the property doesn't cover Tom's debt the bank can still come after him for the remaining debt, right?

This means the bank could put a lien on Sue's mothers house, right?

So the more Tom and his crew mess with the property, the bank and potential buyers more the value of the bungalow falls and the risk to the only house he has increases, right?

[Pox]

It is assumed that there is going to be a massive shortfall, If there is will this put Sue's mothers house at risk as this seems to be the Crawford's only asset now. Or will B&B/UKAR just write off any shortfall as too much hassal to enforce.

So let me ask the experts here if I am understanding this whole thing.

Tom is still is debt to the bank for the unpaid mortgage as well as the costs of security since the eviction and the repair of the bungalow after the antics of the rooftop six.

If the sale of the property doesn't cover Tom's debt the bank can still come after him for the remaining debt, right?

This means the bank could put a lien on Sue's mothers house, right?

So the more Tom and his crew mess with the property, the bank and potential buyers more the value of the bungalow falls and the risk to the only house he has increases, right?

I am no expert so maybe shouldn't comment?
However I cannot see why TC should be liable for any costs accrued after he was repossessed - such costs should be the responsibility on the possessor IMO - not trying to defend his actions, just trying to be logical.

[Normal Wisdom]

Second video attempt. This time with chickens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0Dbv2JVYQI