Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[Tuco]

If he'd been paying the interest they wouldn't even have considered eviction at that point, but Tom didn't take that approach. As you say, anyone in that position who kept paying the interest would probably get no more than an annual reminder that they hadn't paid the capital yet and would they please do something about it.

I fear we are going in circles here. Toms mortgage, as far as I am aware, was an endowment mortgage. All he was paying was interest, he just did not complete the endowment policy therefore the principle was never paid. After 25 years the principle was still outstanding. Hence the property was repossessed.

You are missing the point. We all know the endowment was cancelled back in the early 90'S.

However, after 25 years, Tom stopped paying the interest on the original loan as well. Tom had taken it upon himself to determine that 25 years of interest was more than enough to pay the bank. Unfortunately for Tom, the bank begged to differ.

Had Tom continued to pay the interest, he would still be in the house now. It is because he stopped paying the interest after 25 years that he was evicted, not because he stopped the endowment.

[Forsyth]

Had Tom continued to pay the interest, he would still be in the house now. It is because he stopped paying the interest after 25 years that he was evicted, not because he stopped the endowment.

I seem to recall that this is correct, but it should be clarified that this is not the general rule.

Normally, once the term of the mortgage is up the capital must be repaid and repossession is a risk if this is not done. The Crawfords benefited from a judgement where the building society were granted a possession order which was suspended so long as the interest continued to be paid. I do not know if this was intentionally worded to be so generous, but that was the effect.

[Footloose52]

An interest only mortgage is not open ended. It will be for a specific period of time (the term) and at the end of that term the principal borrowed has to be repaid. That will have been laid out in the agreement (the Facility Letter) that will have been provided to Tom by his lender and which he and Sue will have had to sign to take up the mortgage.

Repayment may be funded in a number of ways, an endowment policy, remortgage, equity release loan, pension commutation or from savings. In the last resort downsizing is also a possibility. At one time the method of repayment was also specified in the Facility Letter.

Other than downsizing or equity release Tom had none of these routes available to him but it seems he still did not conclude discussions with the lender.

[letissier14]

Amanda Pike has warned the trolls



http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ser ... 94346.html

[Burnaby49]

You'll also feel a sense of grief and the realization that you aren't really that bright after all will dawn on you, you'll finally begin to see that you truly are the most sad and repulsive of people

Tell me something new Amanda. I came to terms with that years ago. After all I spent my entire career as an income tax auditor.

[Pox]

Amanda Pike has warned the trolls



http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ser ... 94346.html

OMG!!!!!
Irrefutable proof that all courts are corrupt.
Not to mention the police, the banks, the solicitors.........

[Tuco]

Had Tom continued to pay the interest, he would still be in the house now. It is because he stopped paying the interest after 25 years that he was evicted, not because he stopped the endowment.

I seem to recall that this is correct, but it should be clarified that this is not the general rule.

Normally, once the term of the mortgage is up the capital must be repaid and repossession is a risk if this is not done. The Crawfords benefited from a judgement where the building society were granted a possession order which was suspended so long as the interest continued to be paid. I do not know if this was intentionally worded to be so generous, but that was the effect.

It is quite normal for these interest repayments to continue over their 25 year period, due to under performing endowments.

I would imagine that the suspended possession order would be pretty much the norm. It affords the lender time to address the problem by way of one of the options mentioned above.

Repossessing someone's home really is a last resort and it would need to be demonstrated to the court that every opportunity had been given to the homeowner. If banks and building societies waltzed in and slung families onto the street every time someone was unable to settle after 25 years, there would be chaos.

It should also be remembered that repossession is the least favourable option to the lender. It is costly and the property is usually left in a state requiring repair.

[Bungle]

It's finally happened. Tom's gone completely barking mad. Even Amanda hasn't replied to his latest rambling on EFOB:

Tom Crawford
11 hrs
Hi all,
As you can see by King Charles the 1 own writing he fears the people and rightly so.

The ones today that we let rule over us are in treason to the people maybe they should rethink their plans and note Charles writing, and I for one will not be OBEDIENINT to Tyrants.

KING JAMES I 1566–1625

James Stuart (the sixth king of that name in Scotland, the first in England) had an itch to be writing as well as governing. He wrote a good deal of Scots verse, a denunciation of tobacco, and an essay upholding belief in witches, besides a treatise on government. The True Law of Free Monarchies was composed just five years before he became heir to the English throne, by the death of his cousin Elizabeth Tudor. James’s point in this treatise is clear and simple; he proposes that the king can do absolutely anything he wants, and nobody can criticize him. Naturally, this elegant argument is framed primarily in analogies and metaphors; naturally also, James slips, now and again, from regular English into a locution from his native Scots.

From The True Law of Free Monarchies [THE NATURAL NECESSITY OF ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE]
* * *
And the agreement of the law of nature in this our ground with the laws and constitutions of God and man already alleged will be two similitudes easily appear. The king towards his people is rightly compared to a father of children, and to a head of a body composed of divers members. For as fathers the good princes and magistrates of the people of God acknowledged themselves to their subjects. And for all other well-ruled commonwealths, the style of Pater patriae (father of his country) was ever and is commonly used to kings.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Normally, once the term of the mortgage is up the capital must be repaid and repossession is a risk if this is not done. The Crawfords benefited from a judgement where the building society were granted a possession order which was suspended so long as the interest continued to be paid. I do not know if this was intentionally worded to be so generous, but that was the effect.

I'm sure it was the intention of the court. Despite what some people think, lenders and courts will lean towards letting the home owner staying in their home so long as they make an effort to keep paying their obligated payments. Where it fails because of lack of payment or stupidity as in Tom's case, then you get repossession.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Hope I've copied it correctly.

You'll also feel a sense of grief and the realisation that you really aren't that bright after all will dawn on you, you'll finally begin to see that you truly are the most repulsive and sad of people.....or.....sadly the point about you not being very bright will comes into its full fruition and you'll still not believe it to be true and continue your pointless crusade totally wasting your life....

Well done Amanda. It will be lost on you and your family but you just summarised your dad's current existence.

[Bones]

Amanda Pike has warned the trolls



http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ser ... 94346.html

There is one little snag with Amanda's claims about fraud in the Court's etc. It has nothing whatsoever to do with her parents losing their home. They had an endowment, which they stopped paying for - it is as simple as that.

Had they continued to pay the endowment, it may or may not have been enough to repay the capital owed, we will never know. However, at worst it would have repaid a large chunk of the capital.

Not only did they stop paying for the endowment, once the 25 year term had completed, Tom stopped paying the interest too.

Some lenders, will let interest only mortgages continue, if interest is paid. This could be done via an agreement or as used to be the case with one lender a DOV (Deed of Variation).

To put it bluntly, Tom dug his own hole by stopping the payments for the endowment policy and then stopping the payments for the interest. Nothing to do with fraud of the courts....

[Bones]

Other than downsizing or equity release Tom had none of these routes available to him but it seems he still did not conclude discussions with the lender.

Equity release may have been an option for him. Indeed, at the time may gave him advice and tried to explain to him that an endowment mortgage was actually an interest mortgage with an endowment policy - so his mortgage had not been changed. However, if went down the rabbit hole of freeman woo woo instead.

I have no sympathy, this entire situation being the lose of his family home is of his own making

[Kay Powell]

There's more than one snag in Amanda's claims. Another huge snag is the fact that (eventually) the fraud was noticed and many of the criminals identified, successfully prosecuted and imprisoned.

[#six]

There's more than one snag in Amanda's claims. Another huge snag is the fact that (eventually) the fraud was noticed and many of the criminals identified, successfully prosecuted and imprisoned.

I think the biggest snag is that in the examples she gave, an individual used the courts system to try bypass the law and make profit to which they were not entitled. Hmmm, much like her father?

[Normal Wisdom]

... They had an endowment, which they stopped paying for - it is as simple as that.

Had they continued to pay the endowment, it may or may not have been enough to repay the capital owed, we will never know. However, at worst it would have repaid a large chunk of the capital.

But Bones you haven't been following closely enough have you. according to Tom:

1) He had an endowment mortgage which was changed to a repayment mortgage without his agreement
2) He had an endowment mortgage that was changed to interest only mortgage without his agreement
3) He had an endowment for which he paid premiums until 1999 when it was "lost" by B&B
4) He had an endowment that was surrendered by B&B in 1992
5) He had an endowment for which it was B&B's responsibility to pay the premiums
6) He was never lent any money in the first place
7) He was lent some money but the debt was sold meaning he doesn't have to repay it
8 ) Money isn't a "thing" anymore
9) He has paid the debt three times over
10) He has paid "enough"
11) Fraud, corruption and stuff
12) He has other "reasons", probably
13) We don't know the "true facts"

[mufc1959]

It is quite normal for these interest repayments to continue over their 25 year period, due to under performing endowments.

I would imagine that the suspended possession order would be pretty much the norm. It affords the lender time to address the problem by way of one of the options mentioned above.

Repossessing someone's home really is a last resort and it would need to be demonstrated to the court that every opportunity had been given to the homeowner. If banks and building societies waltzed in and slung families onto the street every time someone was unable to settle after 25 years, there would be chaos.

It should also be remembered that repossession is the least favourable option to the lender. It is costly and the property is usually left in a state requiring repair.

From someone on the coalface dealing with a deluge of borrowers at the end of their interest-only mortgages with no repayment vehicles, I have to say, with respect, you are wrong Tuco. The position is exactly as I said the other day. I will reiterate it, if the mortgage comes to the end of the term, the money has to be repaid. As a concession, if the borrower is making efforts to sell, they will be allowed a period of grace while the sale is going through. But after that, the lender is entitled to take possession if the mortgage isn't repaid. As the debt is due immediately, the court has no discretion to make a suspended possession order.

[Footloose52]

Where is the like button?

mufc1959 is absolutely correct. I used, in a previous working life, to draw up the mortgage offer letters and witness borrowers execute the mortgage deed in favour of the bank. The bank never signed those deeds but the borrower did. The bank did sign the offer letters but it would have been an ordinary member of staff authorised to sign on behalf of the bank, usually the branch manager or his deputy. The loan was ALWAYS for a fixed term as I've stated in my post earlier in this thread.

I also used to register the mortgage deeds with the Land Registry. For an endowment mortgage the life policy used to be assigned to the bank (they took a 'mortgage' over the life policy) and as such the proceeds were paid directly to the bank so that they could be used towards repayment of the mortgage.

I agree that times change but the principle of the process is not that different nowadays.

[Tuco]

It is quite normal for these interest repayments to continue over their 25 year period, due to under performing endowments.

I would imagine that the suspended possession order would be pretty much the norm. It affords the lender time to address the problem by way of one of the options mentioned above.

Repossessing someone's home really is a last resort and it would need to be demonstrated to the court that every opportunity had been given to the homeowner. If banks and building societies waltzed in and slung families onto the street every time someone was unable to settle after 25 years, there would be chaos.

It should also be remembered that repossession is the least favourable option to the lender. It is costly and the property is usually left in a state requiring repair.

From someone on the coalface dealing with a deluge of borrowers at the end of their interest-only mortgages with no repayment vehicles, I have to say, with respect, you are wrong Tuco. The position is exactly as I said the other day. I will reiterate it, if the mortgage comes to the end of the term, the money has to be repaid. As a concession, if the borrower is making efforts to sell, they will be allowed a period of grace while the sale is going through. But after that, the lender is entitled to take possession if the mortgage isn't repaid. As the debt is due immediately, the court has no discretion to make a suspended possession order.

Who said anything about no repayment vehicles?

I was referring to endowments that have underperformed. Are you saying that those with an endowment that can satisfy 80 or 90% of their original loan will be kicked out onto the street unless they sell up?

If companies did that, there would be every justification to stop evictions.

[mufc1959]

Who said anything about no repayment vehicles?

I was referring to endowments that have underperformed. Are you saying that those with an endowment that can satisfy 80 or 90% of their original loan will be kicked out onto the street unless they sell up?

If companies did that, there would be every justification to stop evictions.

If there's an outstanding balance after any endowment has paid out, the borrowers will need to pay it off. They'd be given enough time to raise the money, but if they don't take any steps to repay the balance or engage in any way with the lender, it's the same as any other debt and would need to be recovered. Banks aren't benevolent associations or landlords and, as commercial enterprises, their primary duty is to their shareholders.

[Worzel Gummidge]

It is quite normal for these interest repayments to continue over their 25 year period, due to under performing endowments.

I would imagine that the suspended possession order would be pretty much the norm. It affords the lender time to address the problem by way of one of the options mentioned above.

Repossessing someone's home really is a last resort and it would need to be demonstrated to the court that every opportunity had been given to the homeowner. If banks and building societies waltzed in and slung families onto the street every time someone was unable to settle after 25 years, there would be chaos.

It should also be remembered that repossession is the least favourable option to the lender. It is costly and the property is usually left in a state requiring repair.

From someone on the coalface dealing with a deluge of borrowers at the end of their interest-only mortgages with no repayment vehicles, I have to say, with respect, you are wrong Tuco. The position is exactly as I said the other day. I will reiterate it, if the mortgage comes to the end of the term, the money has to be repaid. As a concession, if the borrower is making efforts to sell, they will be allowed a period of grace while the sale is going through. But after that, the lender is entitled to take possession if the mortgage isn't repaid. As the debt is due immediately, the court has no discretion to make a suspended possession order.

Yes indeed. The transfer of land or real property can only be done via the way of the deed in fact.
The agreement prevents the deed via the LPA being executed.
Once the contract is terminated either by running its course or through default, the mortgagee is free to enforce. He cannot restart the agreement and sums due under it need to be paid.