unfortunately no we missed a few payments following the new payment in march. but overall no more than four payments. we had a problem with an adjacent property(not ours) that was basically a drug den and we lost alot of tenants hence the cash flow problems last year. but we have since filled all vacancies and have the money to service all the loans including this one.
yes we have a total of three tmb mortgages and one halifax one.
there have been problems on these but they are all currently being serviced and we have proper agreed arrangements in place.
i appreciate what you are saying but if they effectively created a tacit agreement by giving us new repayment figures in march and we paid the new amount then have they created a tacit agreement.
if it was deemed we only had three or four months arrears then they probably wouldnt have appointed receivers as they havent on the next door property? it is crucial to our argument.
we also have another property with £9000 arrears with them and they havent appointed receivers on that!
we just need to know if legally is it correct that if we perform on the new figures have we created a contract because we have effectively been paying some of the arrears off?
we took the actions to put tenant back in because all of our properties are on the same street and it looked really bad boarded up and we have passed on the rent to them as well and made mortgage payment in jan.
they left the boiler and property exposed to damp and frost by taking out the glass!!
we do intend selling the properties anyway when we could but they have neg equity. if they sell this one then we are worried about the rest as you say. and we have 6 other properties which would put them all at risk. it is our only income as well.
i think you are missing the point. they are saying they will return the property to us but onkly if we repay the arrears in full. its obviously fundamental to us if those arrears are deemed to be £3000 or £15000!
i have had receivers appointed 3 times on properties and have never co-operated with them and every time the properties have been returned to my control.
its irrelevant if we defaulted on the new scheduled payments. if they effectively created a new agreement by stating that the new payments included arrears prior to that date then surely if we made only one payment then we have performed on that new agreement and it is binding upon them?
they told us their legal person was going to call us but he never did surprisingly they have just kept denying everything which they obviously will.
its effectively repossession through the back door and is entirely immoral. if they got a court order then i could stomach that but they dont need to. we sure arnt going to lie down and take it.
the receivers are taking liberties too. they have added £2500 of costs on to the loan for bogus bills they have invented. just had a breakdown and its laughable. no wonder they said the letting is unviable
what i am trying to say is that if legally they have given me a new payment amount which includes an element of repayment on the arrears then they have effectively put those arrears on the mortgage.
for example if you had a loan and you missed three payments and then the loan company said your new payment is x and this included interest and capital on those three payments you/they have effectively made an arrangement to repay the arrears? which is what they did.
my point being that because they are saying the arrears are the higher figure and not just the payments missed since march the LPA department are taking the view that it is all of the money needed not just the £3000 since march.
by changing the monthly payment figure have they not created a new contract and by making payments have i not performed on this therefore making it binding on us both? eg i couldnt turn round and say no i'm not paying the higher figure because i have effectively agreed to it by paying it!
as you say this is in its simplest form a commercial loan so surely standard contract law applies.
i think a court may well give me the benefit of the doubt in this instance.