Groups

    See what you make of this.

    A news story from BBC, click the link in the following post and click on 'Kent couple 'facing eviction'

    Any opinions?

    15 Comments

    That's a very sad story. I wonder if they signed any agreement (between themselves and the company that bought it) to say that they were allowed to stay there for the rest of their lives?

    Banned

    Ive heard of this happening before. Bang out of order - and it seems they have been allowed to get away with it with the governments blessing (going by that interview.)

    Makes me laugh "not regulated by the FSA". So what. That organisation is the banks friend anyway.

    Can someone give me a link to the text story or something - Its not working for me even though I have WMP11

    So sad - these things should be regulated and if they are not the goverment should be held accountable

    It's about time stricter regs were put in place. How awful.
    P.s - is you on this video somewhere Shengis ... is that your secondary reason for the link?

    Original Poster

    Sheriff Waffles;1834663

    P.s - is you on this video somewhere Shengis ... is that your secondary … P.s - is you on this video somewhere Shengis ... is that your secondary reason for the link?



    No, just posted it because it's local:thumbsup:

    Anyway, while I agree with the comments above.

    The fact is they SOLD their house for cash (which I can only assume they received), and a tenancy agreement so they could stay on. Now bearing that in mind, why should they really expect to be treated differently to any other tenant? While I can sympathise with their plight, they have no legal right to stay in the house (apart from a dodgy tenancy agreement). If they, and the rest of their family wanted it forever then quite simply, they shouldn't have sold it. It just seems to come across to me that they somehow thought they still owned the place. As for the company that bought, I can only assume they got into financial difficulties which is why the building society now wants possession.

    Thoughts?

    Absolutely agree, bet they werent moaning when spending the cash!!! They sold it , bottom line, the new owner can do what he likes basically.

    Shengis;1835188

    No, just posted it because it's local:thumbsup:Anyway, while I agree with … No, just posted it because it's local:thumbsup:Anyway, while I agree with the comments above.The fact is they SOLD their house for cash (which I can only assume they received), and a tenancy agreement so they could stay on. Now bearing that in mind, why should they really expect to be treated differently to any other tenant? While I can sympathise with their plight, they have no legal right to stay in the house (apart from a dodgy tenancy agreement). If they, and the rest of their family wanted it forever then quite simply, they shouldn't have sold it. It just seems to come across to me that they somehow thought they still owned the place. As for the company that bought, I can only assume they got into financial difficulties which is why the building society now wants possession.Thoughts?



    I agree with you. It's a shame that this old couple didn't look into the situation more carefully, or their son could have done so, but what profit -making company is going to give you money for nothing. They sold their house. It was silly of them. The company went bust. They should have had some sort of buy-back clause. I do feel sorry for them, though

    Banned

    Yes they would have got cash for it, but not at its market value and the company have agreed to rent it back for as long as they are alive at a reduced rate. If they pegged it tomorrow, the company can do what it likes (ie sell it). Personally I think that contract should still be honoured. The house presumably wasnt sold before it went bust ('cos I would think that breaks the contract) and after they have, there are strings attached to the property as it has tennants.

    Thing is there are so many companies out there doing the same thing - and this is not the first time this has happened. So the big question... why hasn't this government put steps in place to ensure this sort of thing cannot happen again?

    Banned

    kungfu;1835232

    Absolutely agree, bet they werent moaning when spending the cash!!! They … Absolutely agree, bet they werent moaning when spending the cash!!! They sold it , bottom line, the new owner can do what he likes basically.



    You can't possibly say that without knowing the T&Cs under which the contract was drawn up. I would think that is precisely what they couldnt do. Where this has gone belly up is the agreement is between these tennants and "nasty company" - who no longer exist - voiding the contract. At least that is the way it looks.

    So the obvious thing to be learnt here, is if going into this sort of deal to release the house equity, that something is in place to ensure companies going under will not affect the T&Cs under which the "sale" was made.

    Original Poster

    guv;1835352

    Where this has gone belly up is the agreement is between these tennants … Where this has gone belly up is the agreement is between these tennants and "nasty company" - who no longer exist - voiding the contract.



    But it's the building society that wants to chuck them out, not the company they had the agreement with. Would be the same situation in a normal rented house. I would have thought there would be some sort of legislation to protect the 'sitting tenants' though. I suppose it all boils down to the fact they have no direct contract with the 'real' owners, the building society:thinking:

    Banned

    Shengis;1835455

    But it's the building society that wants to chuck them out, not the … But it's the building society that wants to chuck them out, not the company they had the agreement with. Would be the same situation in a normal rented house. I would have thought there would be some sort of legislation to protect the 'sitting tenants' though. I suppose it all boils down to the fact they have no direct contract with the 'real' owners, the building society:thinking:



    The building society wants to kick them out because they leant the money to the company to pay this family. ie The company shouldn't have been allowed to have got the mortgage in the first place probably. I wonder if they told them when they took the mortgage - or the arrangement they had agreed with the tenants? Are they not resposible for doing checks?

    I can understand from the BS perspective if they were oblivious - and if they were this company owners need locking up. Now the silly thing here, is the excess from the sale is likey to be paid back to the company. The same company who hoodwinked a cheap purchase and then tore up the contract.

    Original Poster

    Well that's what i'm unclear about. I would image the mortgage would have been on a 'buy to rent' basis. You can't just get a mortgage and then rent the house without the lenders permission. All a bit of a mess really.

    Banned

    Shengis;1835643

    Well that's what i'm unclear about. I would image the mortgage would have … Well that's what i'm unclear about. I would image the mortgage would have been on a 'buy to rent' basis. You can't just get a mortgage and then rent the house without the lenders permission. All a bit of a mess really.



    Agreed - and thats why I think it all smells. If the BS lent the money knowing this contract existed, then they did so with strings attached. If they didnt ask the right questions, then they are still culperable IMHO. If they did and they lied, then the sale money (for the mortage they defaulted on) should not be handed over to them.

    The family obvious sold on the cheap, but knowing they (should) be safe to live their life out in it and have no house to pass on because its already gone. No doubt much of the money has already gone (ie early inheritance to the kids etc), so this family will be faced with no home and a council viewpoint they intentionally made themselves homeless. Not a nice thought at any time - let alone at their time of life. And all awhile, these b*st****s knew the game they were playing and are laughing all the way from the bank.
    Post a comment
    Avatar
    @
      Text
      Top Discussions
      1. Are these two things distinctly different to you?33
      2. Show us your Photos 2017. August's Theme - Animals30384
      3. PlayStation Hacked Again?44
      4. USS Indianapolis wreckage to be considered as a war memorial1217

      See more discussions