Ask a Law Question, Get an Answer ASAP!
Hello. Thank you for the question. It is my pleasure to assist your with this today.
Please bear with me and I will be online and off-line from time to time and therefore, may be delayed getting back to you. You will receive an email when I reply.
Can you give me all the background to this matter in order for me to advise correctly - thanks
I don’t know why you are hung up on providing security for 3 properties as opposed to 1 property because of you are going to pay the loans, it makes no difference.
If you don’t pay the loans, they would go to court, get a judgement and then apply for the charging order against the property is anyway.
On the other hand: If it is a condition of the loan you are obliged to provide security then you are offering that security provided it is sufficient and if it proceeds to court, you can make that point to the judge and asked the court to disallow all the legal costs on the basis that the legal costs have been incurred totally unnecessary.
If they had a charge against the property which was compulsorily purchased, the sale of that property should have paid off their charge so I don’t know why that didn’t happen.
It’s interesting, the bank had security over property that was worth nothing, and in negative equity, and now they are griping that they have lost the security which was worthless.
Your comments about having to refinance the properties is noted although it might be worthwhile looking at that to refinance to get away from this bank you are clearly not as wholesome as they could be.