Archive for the 'Mortgage possession' Category

Page 3 of 7

Mortgage rescue schemes and Repos: Facts and models

By Dave on 23/07/2010. 1 Comment

Despite most of our concerned glances at the various mortgage rescue schemes set up by the New Labour government (see NL’s review of Darling’s Keynesian Splurge), Pickles’ decision to review those schemes announced pretty much as soon as he began to warm his seat in DCLoG, the major amount of cash spent on advertising the schemes, etc, we now know courtesy of the inestimable York Centre for Housing Policy and School for the Built Environment at Heriot Watt how many people benefited from these schemes between January 2009 and March 2010.

For the homeowners mortgage support scheme (which subsidises lenders to forebear taking possession), a grand total of, wait … Read the full post

Posted in FLW article, Homeless, Housing law - All and Mortgage possession.

A charge for credit isn’t credit

By NL on 07/07/2010. 0 Comments

Southern Pacific Securities 05-2 Plc v Walker & Anor [2010] UKSC 32

A brief note on this case, which concerned the enforceability of a credit agreement secured on the Walker’s property. Our report on the Court of Appeal decision is here, and there is little to add in this note, because the Supreme Court in Lord Clarke’s lead judgment, agree completely with the Court of Appeal.

The issue was whether a separate charge – here for broker’s fees – on which interest was charged, should have been included in the total amount of credit specified in the agreement. At first instance, the fact that it wasn’t, had meant … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All and Mortgage possession. Tags: , .

Undue influence alive and well

By J on 05/07/2010. 1 Comment

Annulment Funding Company Ltd v Cowey and Cowlam [2010] EWCA Civ 711.

We here at NL often joke that, if any of us were appointed to judicial office then we doubt that anyone would ever get possession orders from us; not only are we able to demonstrate a degree of pedantry that would flummox most claimants* but, frankly, we are (sometimes) attracted to result-focused reasoning.** It is the latter point that – whilst never expressed – I get the distinct impression was what was happening in Annulment Funding Company Ltd v Cowey and Cowlam [2010] EWCA Civ 711. It’s a morally pleasing case and an example of a factual situation that … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All, Mortgage possession and Uncategorized. Tags: , .

In actual occupation but not actually living there.

By NL on 25/04/2010. 0 Comments

Link Lending Ltd v Bustard [2010] EWCA Civ 424

This was an appeal from a mortgage possession case, centred on the issue of whether Ms Bustard could be said to be in actual occupation of the property such that she had an overriding interest under Land Registration Act 2002 (the 2002 Act) s29, schedule 3, paragraph 2 (Land Registration Act 1925 s70(1)(g) as was), which took priority over Link Lending’s charge.

The history is a sorry one and it would be fair to say that Link Lending did not pursue the appeal with an eye to their PR. Ms Bustard was the freeholder and occupant of the property concerned from … Read the full post

Posted in Housing law - All, Mortgage possession and Possession. Tags: .

Tenants of defaulting mortgagees

By J on 08/04/2010. 4 Comments

The CLG website is reporting that the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants) Bill is now an Act, having received Royal Assent on April 8, 2010.

The press release explains that, where a mortgagor (other than one under a buy-to-let mortgage) has granted a tenancy of the property and fallen into arrears on his mortgage, the court will now have power to postpone any possession order obtained by the mortgage company for up to two months, so as to allow the tenant to make alternative housing arrangements.

Whilst I have no reason to doubt CLG, I’ve not been able to find the final text of the Bill/Act online and so can’t … Read the full post

Posted in FLW article and Mortgage possession. Tags: , .

‘There were three people in this mortgage’

By NL on 29/03/2010. 0 Comments

Hewett v First Plus Financial Group Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 312

We are a little late on this one, which the family law bloggers have already noted, but it is a bit irresistible.

Mrs Hewlett was appealing a possession order obtained by First Plus against her home. First Plus had a mortgage against the property agreed by both Mr and Mrs Hewett. By the time of the possession order, the amount outstanding was £47,372.79.

Mr Hewett had played no part in proceedings. Mrs Hewett appealed the first instance Judge’s rejection of her defence that the mortgage had been procured by undue influence and misrepresentation.

Mr H had something of … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All and Mortgage possession. Tags: , .

Admit nothing. Deny everything

By J on 11/03/2010. 1 Comment

Ashcroft v Bradford & Bingley Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 223

Mr Ashcroft purchased a property with the aid of a mortgage from Bradford & Bingley in 1990. He failed to make a single payment and an SPO was obtained in April 1991. He breached the terms of the suspension and the property was subsequently sold by the building society in 1992. The proceeds of sale left a shortfall of c.£30,000.

In 1995 (i.e. 3 years later), the society wrote to Mr Ashcroft to ask how he proposed to pay the shortfall. Mr Ashcroft responded with “indignation at the time it had taken the building society to make the demand” but … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All and Mortgage possession. Tags: , .
row of sheds footer image
7 pages