Neverwhere Posted December 6, 2015 Author Share Posted December 6, 2015 Does anyone have a link to the BTL T&Cs for either Mortgage Express or Northern Rock? It would be interesting to see whether they already hold the beneficial interest that the mortgagor would be looking to transfer to a third party under this scheme. I suspect they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted January 6, 2016 Author Share Posted January 6, 2016 Mortgage Express repayment strategy letter – How many times should I ignore? I have received last month a letter from Mortgage Express re my Repayment Strategy for on or before 2032!! I ignored the letter, and now received another letter reminding me to send in the form back all questions answered!ignore They called me last month but I told them I was busy and blocked their number. Has anyone received the same letter? What should I do? I have a few mortgages with them but they seem to be only asking for one of the properties. Should I continue to ignore? Thanks A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCountOfNowhere Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Mortgage Express repayment strategy letter – How many times should I ignore? I have received last month a letter from Mortgage Express re my Repayment Strategy for on or before 2032!! I ignored the letter, and now received another letter reminding me to send in the form back all questions answered!ignore They called me last month but I told them I was busy and blocked their number. Has anyone received the same letter? What should I do? I have a few mortgages with them but they seem to be only asking for one of the properties. Should I continue to ignore? Thanks A Is that for real ? Comedy platinum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled Canadian Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Yeah - ignore your most significant business partner who probably "owns" 75% of your assets. That's what a business person would do, no one with any financial acumen would have a plan to repay such a significant level of indebtedness, obviously! [Please note that this is not advice and that heavy sarcasm is intended] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCountOfNowhere Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Yeah - ignore your most significant business partner who probably "owns" 75% of your assets. That's what a business person would do, no one with any financial acumen would have a plan to repay such a significant level of indebtedness, obviously! [Please note that this is not advice and that heavy sarcasm is intended] I kid you not I know a fella with a few BTLs, he does well out of them ( due to the low mortgage rate ). He told me before christmas that they are all Interest Only hence why he thinks he's doing okay and clears money every month. I asked, how was he going to pay this money back...he says, and I quote..."I'll just refinance, take out another mortgage to pay it back" The sooner this nonsense stops the better.# Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted January 6, 2016 Author Share Posted January 6, 2016 BTL was back at the expense of taxpayers and savers, as the ability of banks to service this relatively new market was undoubtedly saved by the British government's bank bailout. BTL only formally started in 1996. Yet, remarkably, in 2010 I established that 56 per cent of BTL mortgages ever lent in Britain were sitting on the books of bailed-out banks. Roughly half of the outstanding BTL mortgage stock is being nursed by the state in some form. At the time of the bailout, Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock had, between them, BTL mortgage liabilities worth £30 billion, all of which came into government hands. I subsequently found out - from figures that the mortgage industry did not want released - that about 65 per cent of BTL lending in the year after the banking bust was coming from banks that had been bailed out. In the absense of the bailout, little of this business would have been done, and the existing BTL mortgages would have been dealt with far more harshly. Buy-to-let had become a quasi-nationalised industry. - Faisal Islam, The Default Line UKAR Fact Sheet, March 2015 Alison Wallace and Julie Rugg Centre for Housing Policy, Buy-to-let Mortgage Arrears: Understanding the factors that influence landlords' mortgage debt, Spring 2014 Bank of England, Financial Stability Report, December 2015 DJB 30-12-2015,09:15 PM RE: George Osborne Is Spot On (30-12-2015 09:03 PM)paul_barrett Wrote: Yet the little LL maxed out on his deposit is a threat to the economy I think NOT!!! Once upon a time in merry old England, there was a bank called Bradford and Bingley who had a mortgage arm called Mortgage Express. And they took on lots and lots of little LL who maxed out their credit, and were a threat to the economy, and cost the hardworking British taxpayer a bloody fortune. The end. It's as if you've learnt nothing whatsoever from the last crash. MX situations are exactly what the govt need to prevent and these tax changes are a step towards doing so. [snip] Lisa Orme 30-12-2015,09:23 PM RE: George Osborne Is Spot On Once upon a time there was a little bank called Northern Rock that lent lots and lots of money to homebuyers who couldn't afford to repay their loans and this led to big queues down the high street oh yes and a little thing called the biggest financial crisis in UK history. Northern Rock (homeowners) led to the crisis that led to Bradford & Bingley's (homeowners) downfall not MX (B2L) which is still going and actually profitable enough that they're able to sell off parts of it off to make some money for the taxpayers that bailed out B&B not MX! Do keep going - this is fun!! Lisa Orme 30-12-2015,10:21 PM RE: George Osborne Is Spot OnNo one is entitled to anything I'm afraid. That aside do you seriously think this will make it better? If you do that's naive and the basis for your misguided thinking. [snip] And to add to Paul's point; those fraudulently sold securitised mortgages were mostly residential homebuyers not B2L! In fact it's a proven fact time and time again that B2L arrears and defaults are a fraction those of residential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venger Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 What's going on profit-from-others-misery-ers... think of the innocents, and crawl back under your rented stones. Supply and demand, core-voter, HPI forever carriers. 06/09/2013Most buy to let landlords would happily refinance if their loans were discounted by far less than that. I’d certainly consider moving for a 25% to 30% write off of debt. Not every borrower would want or be in a position to go for such a deal but if only half did so, the remaining book, which I suspect would include a lot of toxic dent and low value assets due to negative equity, could still be shifted. They may only get 40 pence in the pound for these assets as a block sale but those extra 10% to 15% figures they would get from borrowers taking up their offers directly could well make up the balance.http://www.property118.com/mortgage-express-or-mortgage-distress/43258/ BTLers logic? Debt write downs all around for the priority BTLers. DS says:07/09/2013 at 10:23I am experiencing Mortgage Express’s exit strategy first hand and I welcome these blogs as a chance to get the facts out in the open.I had 6 BTL motgages with MEX and four with other lenders. Early in 2011 I was in arrears with my payments and MEX passed 2 properties to the LPA receivers. They were making a healthy profit and the arrears were soon cleared. Naively I expected my properties to be returned into my care but instead they kept them. My portfolio manager is someone I always found helpful and he convinced me this was a positive situation. But, their agents were hopeless at dealing with my Polish tenants and I stepped in regularly to help. Then late in 2012 one tenant left and the ‘let’ strategy turned into a ‘sell’ strategy. When my portfolio manager suggested he was confident he could overturn the situation I welcomed his suggestion of a review. I was completely honest with him about my financial situation and he agreed with me on many points. We visited the empty property which the tenants had left spotless and in good decorative order. He agreed with me that a couple of hundred pounds would replace the misted glazed unit and fix the fence, and a new tenant could be in within a week. Alarm bells rang when MEX said it would need £8000 to put the place right and they had a valuation of £52,000 even though a property nearby had just sold for £70,000. (I am in South Yorkshire so not expensive here). They sold this property and I am £20K down on the mortgage. The other LPA property had an excellent long standing tenant with whom I had become good friends. They issued a section 21 notice to quit and she had no choice but to leave. This is now on the market and I stand to lose another £30K.I haven’t the means to employ a solicitor, I went to the Financial Ombudsman who looked into my case. Even after an appeal, they concluded that MEX ‘were entitled to make these business decisions’ and they ‘had done nothing legally wrong’I haven’t much equity in my remaining properties – according to MEX they would probably be negative – but I do have some in my residence. This concerns me and I am at a loss what to do to keep it. I have my adult disabled daughter living with me and we live in a bungalow to suit her needs. The property portfolio was developed because of her – so I would have the time to ‘be there’ when she needed me, and to have security should I die first. In my early 60s I now have to work another plan.My observation is, there are other ‘villains’ who are party to all this with whom we can claim redress. The LPA rexeivers, their agents and the valuers all, in my opinion, are making wildly inaccurate decisions and charging hugely inflated fees, simply because they can get away with it. Obviously they are collaborating with MEX and our money is going to make a lot of individuals in these industries very wealthy. When I complain to MEX they just say they are the experts and they have to go with their opinions. Of course. But they do also say that the LPA is work in for me, on my behalf. As I am very unhappy with the ‘service’ they provide me, have I not grounds to object and seek compensation?Sorry, I didn’t intend this post to be so long, believe me, it could have been so much longer.http://www.property118.com/mortgage-express-or-mortgage-distress/43258/#comment-27445--DS says:07/09/2013 at 13:28Reply to the comment left by “Mark Alexander” at “07/09/2013 – 12:36“:Thanks for your response Mark. I will contact a solicitor. There was no court order to repossess the properties. To quote a letter from MX re. the now sold property:-“The LPA receiver has notified us that they have secured vacant possession of the property and have recommended that it should be handed back to us by the way of voluntary possession to allow it to be sold.We have therefore instructed an Asset Manager to proceed to sell the property. The property will be valued, and the asset manager will sell the property for the best price that might reasonably be paid.Once the property has sold, the net proceeds of sale less any reasonable costs will be applied to your mortgage.If the property is sold for less than the mortgage debt then we will hold you responsible for the shortfall, and may choose to pursue you for it”What is ‘voluntary possession? I certainly didn’t volunteer!I was in arrears by 2 months when the LPA receivers were appointed.-- DS says:17/10/2013 at 09:10Txa Little, it seems more hopeless the more you look into the situation with MX. They are doing nothing legally wrong, apparently there is a clause in all mortgage agreements that allows them to foreclose at will. They are no longer in charge anyway, UK Asset Resolution Limited are apparently employing over 2000 people to do exactly what they are doing to you and me, and what they intend to do with tens of thousands of other MX borrowers. Have a look at their nice website :-http://www.ukar.co.uk/linksI hope ‘the taxpayer’ is aware of what they are really paying for. They will realise soon when there are so few private landlords left that there is a major housing crisis.-- DS says:17/10/2013 at 09:52Reply to the comment left by “Mark Alexander” at “17/10/2013 – 09:34“:Mark, the Financial Ombudsman looked into the case, I furnished them with all the evidence I have, and even after an appeal the found that MX had done nothing legally wrong and they were entitled to make these ‘business decisions’. They could only look at MX, however, not the receivers or their agents who I had much to complain about, I didnt ask about UKAR but I don’t suppose they would tackle them either.I have a very good solicitor who specialises in property litigation, he also is at a loss to help at the moment, he says I have already done everything possible at this stage. MX have yet to approach me with a demand for the shortfall, he will step in at that point to help.-- Txa Little says:18/10/2013 at 14:00Reply to the comment left by “Mark Alexander” at “17/10/2013 – 09:34“:We are seeking a lawyer to take up the case for the debt along with another lost property. i have searched the internet for similar cases and expected to find a group case bought against MX and BTL gone wrong. i know there is a process for mis sold mortgage under bad advise and we do fall in to the catorgory of being offered the money to buy two properties, without other avenues being put to us.. .and we have found a company to start athe process but it seems a big deal to bring about with MX because its like sueing the government, but we have to try. the process can try to . . “return you to the position you were in before the advice” we are pushing for how this could apply to us.thank you for you reply or response, you can feel invisible on forums when you chip in . also i do note that your post say what should MX customers do . . i say stand together and go public anyone up for a march on white hall. . .im ready !-- Mark Alexander - Property118 says: 18/10/2013 at 14:11Reply to the comment left by “Txa Little” at “18/10/2013 – 14:00“:A legal argument based on mis-selling will get you nowhere I can assure you.What you should be asking your lawyer to challenge is UKAR’s rights to sell your property, without your consent, despite having cleared your mortgage arrears.I you need a referral to a good lawyer please let me know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted January 25, 2016 Author Share Posted January 25, 2016 What's going on profit-from-others-misery-ers... think of the innocents, and crawl back under your rented stones. Supply and demand, core-voter, HPI forever carriers. BTLers logic? Debt write downs all around for the priority BTLers. I hope these kinds of stories get more publicity in the coming years. I don't agree with the BTLers' ideas about who is to blame for the investment decisions that they made of their own free will, or the morally bankrupt and overly entitled greediness of the already property rich arguing for taxpayer funded write-downs on their already taxpayer subsidised debt, but what would be useful is if the general public rightly started to view aggressively leveraged BTL as a significantly risky investment decision that can have serious negative consequences and carries little to no consumer protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted August 11, 2016 Author Share Posted August 11, 2016 LPA receivers called in for just over 2 months arrears? Mortgage Express have passed my property on to LPA receivers. The mortgage is £254 a month and I owed £546 when they passed it to them. The receivers have not payed a penny and the arrears are now over £1300. The tenant has told me she didn’t like the agents attitude and she felt intimidated so I think she will end up moving. I have put a complaint in, but had no response and I’ve told the ombudsman. I have another property with Mortgage Express and I’m worried they’ll make me sell the other one and don’t know what to do. Darren Neil Patterson 08/08/2016 at 10:57 Hi Darren, This does obviously seem very harsh, but I have given up being surprised by how and why Mortgage Express call in LPA receivers. We have so many readers questions/articles on the subject of cases it may help to know you are not alone if you want to do a Article search using the Search Articles box on the left. We do however have a Property118 member (Peter Fisher) who is a Lawyer and specialises in helping readers fight unfair Mortgage Express and LPA tactics. If you want to make contact with Peter please see his profile >> https://www.property118.com/member/?id=10845 Luke P 08/08/2016 at 14:27 Darren, Are you perhaps a landlord who is not aware of what Mortgage Express have been up to in recent times and maybe figured that a couple of months mortgage arrears is nothing too much to get uptight about (as would likely be the case with the majority of other lenders)? If so, you will be in for a surprise when you start researching! Not that what MX are doing is right, but if I had any of their products, I would make sure my half of the bargain was squeaky-clean to give them as little ammo as possible. Joan Keeley 08/08/2016 at 17:21 Unfortunately you are one of literally thousands of people who have been brought down not only by MX but by many other banks (including mine) who are using TOTALLY UNREGULATED LPA Receivers to do their dirty work. My advice is to apply to court to sell the property yourself that is in LPA Receivership and to either re mortgage the other one or sell that as well ASAP. Trust me……you won’t beat them. Get out of the situation as soon as you can. It’s the only way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted August 11, 2016 Author Share Posted August 11, 2016 BTL repossession by NRAM NRAM is repossessing our BTL property, because we have exceeded the term! My wife and I purchased a BTL property in June 2007 unfortunately despite telling our advisor this was a long term plan to pay off our residential mortgage and for retirement he advised an interest only mortgage for 7 years. When I asked what we were supposed to do after 7 years he said just get another mortgage! I was declared bankrupt in 2011 and although we have maintained the mortgage payments NRAM are now repossessing the property. Due to my bankruptcy (discharged in July 2013) we have been unable to arrange another mortgage. NRAM state that since they were bailed out they are unable to offer additional lending and therefore cannot extend the term for us although NRAM’s website states they can offer additional lending in exceptional circumstances nobody seems to be able to say what they class as exceptional circumstances! The mortgage is for approximately 50% of the value of the property so the bank will have no problem recouping their money, but we will end up losing the property which was bought with the intention of repaying our home which is on an interest only mortgage also with NRAM. We now face the prospect in 12 years time when our mortgage ends of losing our home and also I face the prospect of having no money for retirement. The advisors who arranged the mortgage deny arranging it even though I provided them with a letter from NRAM stating it was they who arranged the mortgage. I have contacted the FSA and the Financial Ombudsman all to no avail. Dene Neil Patterson 11/08/2016 at 14:54 Hi Dene, If it was an advised mortgage sale, regulated by the FSA (now FCA), as opposed to an unregulated unadvised commercial BTL transaction there is no way the FCA regulated advisor, his firm or his Network can deny the transaction. You will have the following paper work of the advice give: Full Fact Find KFI (Key features indicator) Trigold or similar search results showing the most appropriate mortgage available Suitability Letter stating why the mortgage you took was the most suitable option in your circumstances. If you do not have or have never had all of the above it was unlikely to be a regulated sale. However you should contact the Network the firm belongs to as they will know if mortgage transactions at that time were undertaken on an advised basis or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted August 11, 2016 Author Share Posted August 11, 2016 Not exactly porfolio landlords (at least not the OPs) but I just thought the deals and attitudes were interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 The mortgage is for approximately 50% of the value of the property so the bank will have no problem recouping their money, but we will end up losing the property which was bought with the intention of repaying our home which is on an interest only mortgage also with NRAM. We now face the prospect in 12 years time when our mortgage ends of losing our home and also I face the prospect of having no money for retirement. The advisors who arranged the mortgage deny arranging it even though I provided them with a letter from NRAM stating it was they who arranged the mortgage." Made me laugh. This is also part of the Io cohort running out of track before 2030. Secular house price falls for the next 15 years imho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavalas Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 So as I understand it in return for a 50% deposit on a buy to let this guy was hoping for enough yield to fund his retirement and enough capital gain to pay not only for the other 50% but also his own home too. Then, despite going bankrupt and having no actual plan to pay off the balance, he's blaming the lender for lending to him without having a plan to pay off the balance. So foolish in its simplicity I really feel like I must be missing something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 (edited) I'm sure this comes out of the Brown boom's get rich quick fantasy economy. I recall property porn programmes implying (no, stating) you could buy one property on high leverage in order to pay for another. This chaps fantasy finance is simply a component of the wider dinner party mindset at the time. Edited August 12, 2016 by Si1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted August 12, 2016 Author Share Posted August 12, 2016 The current LTV is 50%, but the LTV at origination could have been anything, really. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these deals were on 100% LTVs. The whole thing is a mad one-way bet on house prices that assumes that they will not only keep on going up indefinitely, but that they will definitely do so at such a clip that the original debt becomes essentially meaningless. Bonkers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted August 12, 2016 Author Share Posted August 12, 2016 The mortgage is for approximately 50% of the value of the property so the bank will have no problem recouping their money, but we will end up losing the property which was bought with the intention of repaying our home which is on an interest only mortgage also with NRAM. We now face the prospect in 12 years time when our mortgage ends of losing our home and also I face the prospect of having no money for retirement. The advisors who arranged the mortgage deny arranging it even though I provided them with a letter from NRAM stating it was they who arranged the mortgage." Made me laugh. This is also part of the Io cohort running out of track before 2030. Secular house price falls for the next 15 years imho. I'm with you on that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.