staintunerider Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 1 minute ago, staintunerider said: I have heard of someone with really low rate with their lender and let out their property, as sure as onions is onions you can bet they they never got the agreement of the lender. That would be a perfect opportunity for the lender to say yes fine but at a much higher rate so borrower doesn't do it i would wager... I think Spy you have covered this before in part around buy to let where the lenders are much more brutal about breaking the terms. I think there has also been cases where the portfolio which must not slip into negative equity has been forcibly sold i recall a guy on here years ago moaning about that very thing...in a correction this is a whole new can of worms.... Also renting out your house will probably i presume require different insurance ? Do these chancers do that ? Hmmm ? the guy i heard of is unlikely to be alone in breaching the Mortgage Deed i bet they run into the tens of thousands If that's correct they should not be in negative equity as BTL or IO BTL thats just like a margin call where you need to inject funds... Someone argued ah well as long as the mortgages are being paid but the bloke moaning said the lender used it as an excuse to get the loans off it's books....and spy has i believe gone into a lot of detail about lenders wanting IO off their books... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quid Game Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 1 hour ago, spyguy said: https://beckettandkay.co.uk/who-owns-the-house/#:~:text=The position in law is,registered owner of the property. Who owns the house? If you’ve got a mortgage out on your house you probably think of yourself as the owner but, if we look a bit deeper into it, that is arguably not correct as a statement of law. The position in law is that the mortgagee – the lender – has rights which are wholly superior to the rights of the registered owner of the property. The only constraint on those rights is that the lender will have agreed that, as long as the terms of the Mortgage Deed are complied with, he will not seek to exercise those rights. So the lender’s contractual undertakings to the borrower restrain his superior interest. That might seem all rather academic, but it was certainly not academic to Paul Clark and Carol Beech[1]. They failed to comply with the Mortgage Deed. The lender’s rights thereby became paramount. The lender appointed a well-known LPA Receiver (see the article on LPA receivership). The LPA Receiver put the house in auction, and it was sold. The party to whom it was sold (Horsham) inherited the rights of the lender, not of the registered owners, Paul and Carol. That was the situation that arose before the case was decided, and it was decided in favour of the purchaser. Because the purchaser had inherited superior rights from the mortgagee by his purchase, he was able to get possession of the house, as against those who regarded themselves as the owners of the house throughout. There’s a moral there: comply with the Mortgage Deed! Don’t – to take a random example – let the house out in contravention of the Mortgage Deed without the consent of the lender. Cool. So again you’ve posted something that says if you don’t comply with the terms of your loan then your house will be repossessed. As your article spells out, if you make your payments and adhere to your contractual agreements then your rights as an owner supersede that of the lender. In other words, you make your payment and you cannot be evicted. The contract formed when you take out the mortgage carries more weight than that of the lenders interest in then property through the mortgage as your legal statement says. So that seems to support my stance that you are indeed the owner of the property not the bank. Thanks. As to the second part it says the borrowers didn’t adhere to the terms of their deed. So yeah, they got their house taken from them. What’s the news here? The house was given to an LPA receiver who sold it on and no surprises the new purchasers became the owners. I still don’t understand how any of this proves your point that the legal owner of the house with a mortgage is anyone other than that person? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staintunerider Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 On 03/04/2024 at 07:13, spyguy said: Bank has a charge. Car finance has a charge. You are veering into freeman of the land type fkwittery thinking along those lines. If you havent paid for the house or car then you only own the debt. If you like - You have taken a position on a house or car that will be yours when you pay off the loan. Until then, any concept of 'ownership' is very much a pretend. Like the V5 says the registered keeper is not necessarily the legal owner same applies to mortgaged home "occupiers" the deeds and land registration do not mean ownership....so simples a meerkat can understand it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staintunerider Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 Just now, staintunerider said: "I own me own burrow outright with no mortgage" which is more than a mortgaged uk house buyer can say! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quid Game Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 20 minutes ago, staintunerider said: Like the V5 says the registered keeper is not necessarily the legal owner same applies to mortgaged home "occupiers" the deeds and land registration do not mean ownership....so simples a meerkat can understand it... So again, you’re just proving my point. You’re right, it really is ‘Simples’, but not for many on this forum it would appear. The legal owner is exactly that. They own the car. The bank doesn’t own it. Your mate doesn’t own it. The legal owner does. If you have secured a loan against the car then you risk it being repossessed should you not pay, but for the 101st time defaulting on a debt and suffering the repercussions is very different to legal ownership. Here’s a thought experiment for you - I took a loan to buy an Audi last year. Does my V5C have HSBC bank on it or Mr Quid Game? If you are buying something with a loan then you are forming a contract. For me it was pay £xyz a month for four years for your car. For my house it’s the same deal but a longer time period. Should I break that contract by not paying then the bank will collect on their debt through repossessing my home. Again, look at the language. If they possessed the home in the first place then why on earth would they need to repossess it!? Why would they need to go through a lengthy multi-year legal process ending in bailiffs? If they were the owners then why wouldn’t they just show up and say off you go mate we want our house back now? Why wouldn’t they show up tomorrow night and advise me that they need to put some interns up in my spare rooms for the week? Why doesn’t the branch manager come round and cook his dinner in my kitchen tonight? Why doesn’t Sharon from accounts have her hen party in my front room as after all according to you the house doesn’t belong to me and it’s actually the banks. My god this is getting tedious. Your genuine opinion is that the person(s) listed at the land registry on the deeds of a property is / are not the actual owner(s)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Social Justice League Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 Buying a house in cash is what 'homeowners' do. £400k paid up front is still only £400k. Borrowing £400k with a 30 year mortgage costs, what, £900k?......for the same property. Debtor slaves always grab the sh1t end of the stick........because they are poor and desperate....and our corrupt financial system makes sure they are always poor and desperate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quid Game Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 13 minutes ago, Social Justice League said: Buying a house in cash is what 'homeowners' do. £400k paid up front is still only £400k. Borrowing £400k with a 30 year mortgage costs, what, £900k?......for the same property. Debtor slaves always grab the sh1t end of the stick........because they are poor and desperate....and our corrupt financial system makes sure they are always poor and desperate. Oh look, another completely unrelated and pointless ‘point’. If you have 400k knocking around to buy a house good for you. Most don’t. However Whether you pay upfront or take a mortgage then you are still the legal owner. The economic sense of doing either is an unrelated conversation. What’s your alternative solution then? Give everyone an identical one bed flat on their 18th birthday which they pay for with their standardised state salary for the rest of their life. Give nobody the ability to achieve their true potential in your communist utopia as everyone’s life is planned by the state from birth to death. No thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Social Justice League Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 16 minutes ago, Quid Game said: Oh look, another completely unrelated and pointless ‘point’. If you have 400k knocking around to buy a house good for you. Most don’t. However Whether you pay upfront or take a mortgage then you are still the legal owner. The economic sense of doing either is an unrelated conversation. What’s your alternative solution then? Give everyone an identical one bed flat on their 18th birthday which they pay for with their standardised state salary for the rest of their life. Give nobody the ability to achieve their true potential in your communist utopia as everyone’s life is planned by the state from birth to death. No thanks. All I'm pointing out is that debtors are lowest of the low in our bent financial system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quid Game Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 16 minutes ago, Social Justice League said: All I'm pointing out is that debtors are lowest of the low in our bent financial system. Ok cool story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellow Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 52 minutes ago, Quid Game said: Oh look, another completely unrelated and pointless ‘point’. If you have 400k knocking around to buy a house good for you. Most don’t. However Whether you pay upfront or take a mortgage then you are still the legal owner. The economic sense of doing either is an unrelated conversation. What’s your alternative solution then? Give everyone an identical one bed flat on their 18th birthday which they pay for with their standardised state salary for the rest of their life. Give nobody the ability to achieve their true potential in your communist utopia as everyone’s life is planned by the state from birth to death. No thanks. If everyone was forced to pay cash for a house then houses would cost a fraction of what they do today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Cash Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 41 minutes ago, fellow said: If everyone was forced to pay cash for a house then houses would cost a fraction of what they do today. Nope. There would be loads of renters being ripped off by the rich. History tells you much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotblack42 Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 1 hour ago, Quid Game said: Oh look, another completely unrelated and pointless ‘point’. If you have 400k knocking around to buy a house good for you. Most don’t. However Whether you pay upfront or take a mortgage then you are still the legal owner. The economic sense of doing either is an unrelated conversation. What’s your alternative solution then? Give everyone an identical one bed flat on their 18th birthday which they pay for with their standardised state salary for the rest of their life. Give nobody the ability to achieve their true potential in your communist utopia as everyone’s life is planned by the state from birth to death. No thanks. This is old ground on HPC. A possession bought with credit is encumbered ownership. Agreeing on that would have saved a lot of time to do something less boring 🙂 Back on topic, it’s early days yet, lots of 5 year 2021 fixes won’t expire for another 2 years & lots of those who’ve remortgaged jumbo loans are dead men walking running down their savings / parents savings. Tick tock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staintunerider Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 4 hours ago, Social Justice League said: Buying a house in cash is what 'homeowners' do. £400k paid up front is still only £400k. Borrowing £400k with a 30 year mortgage costs, what, £900k?......for the same property. Debtor slaves always grab the sh1t end of the stick........because they are poor and desperate....and our corrupt financial system makes sure they are always poor and desperate. You are correct but in the past you'd pay 200k for a 3 bed detached in the south east even and sure you're going to pay more than 200k with the rent cough interest payments to the lender...but your housing bet on margin borrowed money pays off handsomely because the property 20 years later is worth 600k....(for now) The problem is now the 400k house you mention that someone buys now ..costs actually 900k over the the 30 year term but you could well find that property gets devalued inside the next 10 years significantly in a major correction by what half ? 70% even inflation adjusted it's not going to be the winner it once was ......sure in 30 years who knows what its going to be worth but get divorced in the midst of the slump and you have the 90's dilemma you are forced to crystalise your loss....this will (and did) cause the market to slump even further..... ANd this is what I see right now buying a house with heavy leverage right now has **** loads of downside risk and virtually no upside although most cannot see this because they are still in the property is a golden goose mindset and even trying to think about fundamentals makes their heads hurt so they don't do it...actually scrap that they don't even think enough to make their heads hurt.... Buying now is like going down the bookies during the phony war in 39 and putting a bet on that it will all blow over and ww2 will not happen...a correction is on it just has to be...the fundamentals lined up to have their way with this market are many and the opposing camp is **** out of ammunition.....Most folk are not going to work this out though until it happens just like in 88/89 folk were paying 60k for a studio flat that lost 80% of its value...Flats as usual not just studios will be massively devalued...there will be a lot of repos there i reckon....when London and the south east go as is always the way it will ripple out to all other regions...same as it ever was.....if someone actually pays cash with already made housing money....so what they still have the property....unless they get their jollies over the price thats the only disappointment....a leveraged buyer is ******** 6 ways from sunday.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staintunerider Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) 3 hours ago, hotblack42 said: This is old ground on HPC. A possession bought with credit is encumbered ownership. Agreeing on that would have saved a lot of time to do something less boring 🙂 Back on topic, it’s early days yet, lots of 5 year 2021 fixes won’t expire for another 2 years & lots of those who’ve remortgaged jumbo loans are dead men walking running down their savings / parents savings. Tick tock. This is the problem Squidly Diddly doesnt want to face up to that fact....in fact i wouldnt even call it encumbered ownership i would call it a form of Hire Purchase...or maybe basically a margin trade.... Yes and unlike in the US with all those 3% 30 year fixes here it's a minefield.....with fluctuating interest rates over the term of the loan you actually don;t really ever know what the price including interest is going to be of the property you buy with your borrowed/newly created money as debt..... If you dont have a huge deposit and i mean hundreds of thousands(that you've already made) now is not the time to buy...renting makes much more sense especially away from London and the South east where its basically extortion... Folk never factor in maintenance and repairs as costs either...and they are significant All these things discussed here(and for some here) are mostly way above the heads of most folk out there in the property market....even the boomers in their paid off houses usually dont have a clue how it works....they think about it as deep as a saucer of milk....they just look at it how it was for them and they got lucky simple as.... I head some grotesque boomer woman sitting on a bar stool talking to another boomer saying and i quote" why would you rent its just wasted money" all based on how it was for them....no idea of the dynamics or fundamentals for folk who have to borrow huge sums to buy her out when she decides she wants to cash out and go and live in a retirement village....what worked for her will not work for a debt jockey buyer today.....those htb leasehold buyers with a flat that will plummet in value , a mortgage and a htb loan that are astronomic will be so deep in negative equity from which there will be no exit...Even the freehold houses in the south east and london are going to likely get a severe caning by the end of this decade! Edited April 4 by staintunerider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staintunerider Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) 4 hours ago, Social Justice League said: All I'm pointing out is that debtors are lowest of the low in our bent financial system. Whether you pay upfront or take a mortgage then you are still the legal owner. The economic sense of doing either is an unrelated conversation. He Doesnt' get it , doesnt want to get it.....NOT THE LEGAL OWNER technically because ownership is encumbered as has been pointed out, that is not true ownership...talk about kidding oneself.......i never considered properties i had a mortgage on to be my property from an ownership perspective....why ? Because I'm a realist not a fantasist.... Edited April 4 by staintunerider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quid Game Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 25 minutes ago, staintunerider said: Whether you pay upfront or take a mortgage then you are still the legal owner. The economic sense of doing either is an unrelated conversation. He Doesnt' get it , doesnt want to get it.....NOT THE LEGAL OWNER technically because ownership is encumbered as has been pointed out, that is not true ownership...talk about kidding oneself.......i never considered properties i had a mortgage on to be my property from an ownership perspective....why ? Because I'm a realist not a fantasist.... So all you’ve done is use another term (encumbered ownership) to say exactly the same thing - if you fail to make your payments then the bank repossesses your home. I’m not sure how many times I can say yes, I know! However again, encumbered with a mortgage or not you are the legal owner of the property. You are named on the land registry, you are the legal owner. I go back to the above - can the bank just turn up and enter my mortgaged home? Can they send some interns around for a sleep over this weekend? Do they have a legal right to enter the property or to sell it without cause? No. They are not the owners. There’s little point in carrying this on. I suspect there’s a large number of people on this thread clutching at any straw possible to be able to say haha silly home buyers and I sure am glad I’m not you. Either choosing to not understand the nature of mortgages for effect or being unable to is beyond my ability to explain it would appear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 12 hours ago, Nick Cash said: Nope. There would be loads of renters being ripped off by the rich. History tells you much. Interesting, so if credit ever became much tighter and if policies were not put into place to dissinsentivise the purchase of excess land and buildings by UK individuals, non residents or other entities that could well happen.......those that can would buy up as much as could knowing many would no longer have access to debt or enough debt to buy anything so would have to rent from them, the few?.......can work it to discourage hoarding land and buildings for profit.😉 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lagarde's Drift Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 9 hours ago, Quid Game said: So all you’ve done is use another term (encumbered ownership) to say exactly the same thing - if you fail to make your payments then the bank repossesses your home. I’m not sure how many times I can say yes, I know! However again, encumbered with a mortgage or not you are the legal owner of the property. You are named on the land registry, you are the legal owner. I go back to the above - can the bank just turn up and enter my mortgaged home? Can they send some interns around for a sleep over this weekend? Do they have a legal right to enter the property or to sell it without cause? No. They are not the owners. There’s little point in carrying this on. I suspect there’s a large number of people on this thread clutching at any straw possible to be able to say haha silly home buyers and I sure am glad I’m not you. Either choosing to not understand the nature of mortgages for effect or being unable to is beyond my ability to explain it would appear. I agree with both sides it's just how one interprets "ownership" which means many different things in law and in life. I prefer to just follow the power (or money if you prefer). When a home is sold, which entity is the first to get paid? Is it the occupier or is it the bank? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sackboii Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 1 hour ago, winkie said: 😉 Why have you changed your winkie ? 😏 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sell2rent Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 “First charge” seems simple enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 3 minutes ago, Sackboii said: Why have you changed your winkie ? 😏 Which one do you prefer?.......all the same to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sackboii Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 Just now, winkie said: Ah that's what I'm used to.. 🙂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quid Game Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 2 hours ago, Lagarde's Drift said: I agree with both sides it's just how one interprets "ownership" which means many different things in law and in life. I prefer to just follow the power (or money if you prefer). When a home is sold, which entity is the first to get paid? Is it the occupier or is it the bank? Which is fine if this is how you want to interpret it ‘in life’ as it were. Again, again, again this has no bearing on who legally owns the house. Of course the lender gets their money back before you get anything. This doesn’t mean that you aren’t or weren’t the property owner. That is the legal perspective, and is far more black and white than the shades of grey on display here about well you owe money so you’re kind of sort of not really the owner so ha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartelbe Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 We are looking at something new, the slow motion crash because of long fixed mortgages. Everyone expected an early 90's style crash but that was a very different world. Interest rates aren't coming down and mortgage offers based on that assumption are being pulled. When you look at market activity it is way down. People are sitting the market out hoping that house price inflation will return. This is skewing the figures. As more and more people get switched onto high mortgage rates, distress levels will agree, as will the number of forced sales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staintunerider Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 On 04/04/2024 at 22:26, staintunerider said: ..if someone actually pays cash with already made housing money....so what they still have the property....unless they get their jollies over the price thats the only disappointment....a leveraged buyer is ******** 6 ways from sunday.... I wanted to add...that leveraged buyer is on the hook as SLJ said for. what 900k over 30 years for something sold for 400k, if we get massive real estate deflation.....can you imagine the negative equity on a loan of 400k but that hides the true cost of 900k for an asset that may sink to very low values....relationship goes south and thats when people throw in the towel and that puts additional downward pressure when you have tens of thousand in that situation... Very few marriages go the distance and if you add financial armageddon well as the saying goes " when money walks out the door, love flies out the window.... We're going back to the 90;s but on steroids! 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.