Repo Iva Couple Unhappy With Valuation

[cool_hand]

thank god for liar loans, great find, plenty more to come.

[Little Professor]

There are some irregularities here though, the house is 8 Adams Avenue, Tunstall ST6 5PE, but no sale data for the house exists in the LR to match the owners' claim they paid £130,000 in late 2008(this is far above any sold price in the street on the LR).

Title absolute

1 (16.01.2008) PROPRIETOR: JAMIE ANTHONY BARLOW and JENNIFER BARLOW

of 8 Adams Avenue, Tunstall, Stoke-On-Trent ST6 5PE.

2 (16.01.2008) The price stated to have been paid on 7 December 2007

was £127,950.

3 (16.01.2008) RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registered estate

by the proprietor of the registered estate or by the proprietor of

any registered charge is to be registered without a written

consent signed by the proprietor for the time being of the Charge

dated 7 December 2007 in favour of The Royal Bank of Scotland plc

referred to in the Charges Register.

4 (16.01.2008) RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registered estate

by the proprietor of the registered estate is to be registered

without a written consent signed by the proprietor for the time

being of the Charge dated 7 December 2007 in favour of FirstPlus

Financial Group PLC referred to in the Charges Register.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Little Professor

[Si1]

It will be mainstream news in Staffordshire, this is going to freak a lot ot the stupids out.

f*ck me - you're supposed to be a nurse aren't ya - supposed to care about the f*ckers !?!??

(tongue embedded in cheek)

[ingermany]

Title absolute

1 (16.01.2008) PROPRIETOR: JAMIE ANTHONY BARLOW and JENNIFER BARLOW

of 8 Adams Avenue, Tunstall, Stoke-On-Trent ST6 5PE.

2 (16.01.2008) The price stated to have been paid on 7 December 2007

was £127,950.

3 (16.01.2008) RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registered estate

by the proprietor of the registered estate or by the proprietor of

any registered charge is to be registered without a written

consent signed by the proprietor for the time being of the Charge

dated 7 December 2007 in favour of The Royal Bank of Scotland plc

referred to in the Charges Register.

4 (16.01.2008) RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registered estate

by the proprietor of the registered estate is to be registered

without a written consent signed by the proprietor for the time

being of the Charge dated 7 December 2007 in favour of FirstPlus

Financial Group PLC referred to in the Charges Register.

So RBS valued it at £130,000 but the astute buyer managed to purchase at the bargain price of £127,950. Result.

I see the point about the valuation in 2007 being suspect, but I guess RBS will say they just value property at the price someone is likely to pay at the time of valuation, and in this particular case they have evidence on their side because a buyer paid 98.5% of their estimate.

We need more cases like this hitting the news. I suspect that banks, EAs, media VIs and government will do their best to suppress them.

[leftiebeard]

Wonderful bear food. Painful digestion for the couple concerned, but has to be good sustenance for many many more.

[Beggar Thy Children]

Indeed. This whole sorry situation reminded me of a blog post from 2008. Not for the easily offended.

http://www.oldholborn.net/2008/09/dear-labour-voters.html

I like that little rant there.

Trouble is, it didn't come true did it.

The feckless overborrowed got looked after and everyone else had to, and continues to, eat shit.

[thecrashingisles]

Just as Oliver Letwin and his Tory Toff mates want northerners (and presumably midlanders too) to be kettled in their home regions

Sounds a bit like "fog in the channel - continent isolated"

[The Knimbies who say No]

Title absolute

1 (16.01.2008) PROPRIETOR: JAMIE ANTHONY BARLOW and JENNIFER BARLOW

of 8 Adams Avenue, Tunstall, Stoke-On-Trent ST6 5PE.

2 (16.01.2008) The price stated to have been paid on 7 December 2007

was £127,950.

3 (16.01.2008) RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registered estate

by the proprietor of the registered estate or by the proprietor of

any registered charge is to be registered without a written

consent signed by the proprietor for the time being of the Charge

dated 7 December 2007 in favour of The Royal Bank of Scotland plc

referred to in the Charges Register.

4 (16.01.2008) RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registered estate

by the proprietor of the registered estate is to be registered

without a written consent signed by the proprietor for the time

being of the Charge dated 7 December 2007 in favour of FirstPlus

Financial Group PLC referred to in the Charges Register.

Interesting thanks, no entry in the free LR data for some reason. I've never seen a 'title absolute' before, does this means that they MEWed with FP on the day they moved in? What I don't understand is why FP would lend them secured borrowings on a house which was mortgaged to the hilt. Especially in late 2007. I may be reading that wrong though.

[Little Professor]

Interesting thanks, no entry in the free LR data for some reason. I've never seen a 'title absolute' before, does this means that they MEWed with FP on the day they moved in? What I don't understand is why FP would lend them secured borrowings on a house which was mortgaged to the hilt. Especially in late 2007. I may be reading that wrong though.

Seems odd to me too, normally you wouldn't expect to see a second charge on a property from the initial purchase date

[The Knimbies who say No]

Seems odd to me too, normally you wouldn't expect to see a second charge on a property from the initial purchase date

Thanks for the reply, and glad to know that the entry is not 'usual'. If RBS valued it at £130k, then I guess that means they would have been happy to stump up the mortgage at the purchase price.

I suppose the purchase date is noted as December 2007 though, maybe in the time it took to draw up a new title they'd MEWed for X-mas. I must say it's is astonishing profligacy, both on behalf of the couple and First Plus who must have known they were lending on ~zero equity, unless of course they were lied to regarding the size of the mortgage/LTV and had no other way of finding out(which I'd find surprising)

[silver surfer]

The public haven't yet come to terms with the fact property value is determined by what people are willing to pay and not what a bank is willing to lend.

I disagree.

People are prepared to pay whatever the bank is willing to lend. That's the central lesson from the easy credit years of 1995 to 2008.

[Caveat Mortgagor]

I disagree.

People are prepared restricted to only paying whatever the bank is willing to lend. That's the central lesson from the not so easy credit years of 2008 to date.

Updated.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Caveat Mortgagor

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

People are were prepared to pay whatever the bank is was willing to lend. That's the central lesson from the easy credit years of 1995 to 2008.

Edited April 20, 2011 by The Ayatollah Buggeri

[GinAndPlatonic]

What I don't understand is why FP would lend them secured borrowings on a house which was mortgaged to the hilt. Especially in late 2007.

Northern Rock were doing it right up to the end..their rather quaint together loans

Edited April 20, 2011 by GinAndPlatonic

[arrgee1991]

People were prepared to pay whatever the bank was willing to lend. That's the central lesson from the easy credit years of 1995 to 2008.

+1

Never understood why anyone has to spend the entire mortgage offer. I was offered more than twice what I needed for my last house move, but the repayments I was going to pay were enough at about 40% of the offer. People lose all sense when it comes to mortgages.

[Si1]

What I don't understand is why FP would lend them secured borrowings on a house which was mortgaged to the hilt. Especially in late 2007.

Northern Rock were doing it right up to the end..their rather quaint together loans

and Bradford and Bingley carried on for a while even after the end!?!

[erranta]

<br />they are still the owner.<br /><br />I am surprised the bank hasnt sold it to a shell firm for £200K, handed the young couple £50K for their trouble and having the shell charge £1400 pcm to a renter.<br />

True but the banks have a 'dead'line to recapitalise with 10% daily operating cash in their 'coffers'

(which they are desparately trying to get the Govt/BOE to put back another 6months+)

[CviewUK]

Lots of folks have FirstPlus secured loans. Most of them stay away from the media.

"Stay on top of your finances"

http://www.tellyads.com/show_movie.php?filename=TA1781

[arrgee1991]

Lots of folks have FirstPlus secured loans. Most of them stay away from the media.

"Stay on top of your finances"

http://www.tellyads.com/show_movie.php?filename=TA1781

Well I guess if maths whizz Vorderman says they are OK, then.....

[silver surfer]

People were prepared to pay whatever the bank was willing to lend. That's the central lesson from the easy credit years of 1995 to 2008.

No, they still are prepared to pay whatever the bank is willing to lend. Agreed, the bank isn't prepared to lend that much any more, but when making an offer most people still don't look beyond their own capacity to accumulate debt.

[arrgee1991]

No, they still are prepared to pay whatever the bank is willing to lend. Agreed, the bank isn't prepared to lend that much any more, but when making an offer most people still don't look beyond their own capacity to accumulate debt.

If people are maximising their debt then they will experience maximum grief. If that is the case, then large numbers who bought houses in recent years will be wiped out when interest rates rise and prices fall.

[Driver]

<snip>. I've never seen a 'title absolute' before, <snip>

Most registered titles would be expected to be title absolute, anything less is eh, less.

Seems odd to me too, normally you wouldn't expect to see a second charge on a property from the initial purchase date

Agreed

Thanks for the reply, and glad to know that the entry is not 'usual'. If RBS valued it at £130k, then I guess that means they would have been happy to stump up the mortgage at the purchase price.

I suppose the purchase date is noted as December 2007 though, maybe in the time it took to draw up a new title they'd MEWed for X-mas. I must say it's is astonishing profligacy, both on behalf of the couple and First Plus who must have known they were lending on ~zero equity, unless of course they were lied to regarding the size of the mortgage/LTV and had no other way of finding out(which I'd find surprising)

If the house had already been built and registered there is no "new title" to draw up, the old details get deleted and the new details added. As little Prof intimated, it appears that they bought with the assistance of and additional loan.