Ian Narbeth

Registered with Property118.com
Monday 9th September 2013


Latest Comments

Total Number of Property118 Comments: 5

Ian Narbeth

17:15 PM, 9th September 2013
About 6 years ago

Mortgage Express are forcing me to sell my home - HELP!

Reply to the comment left by "Gary Byrne" at "09/09/2013 - 16:39":

Gary
I am not saying you are a criminal. I am sorry you find yourself in the predicament you are in. I am not calling you fraudulent and my comments were addressed as much at some of the rather crass posters as at you. I was issuing a warning that the Fraud Act can apply to some of the things landlords do and to warn borrowers that it is not just a question of their bank taking civil action.

That said, as you acknowledge, you did not get a BTL mortgage. Unfortunately, the fact that you did not do so because you could not afford to does not cut much ice with the courts. Simply cursing bankers for causing the problem will not help. You need to do a reality check. Whilst you may take comfort from supportive words posted on boards like this, you will be even more disappointed in the long run if the bank has legal right on its side. Sorry, but life is sometimes tough like that.

If you cannot afford a solicitor, you might try the Citizens Advice Bureau. They are usually helpful if your home is at risk. If you are in London, I know a retired City property solicitor who works for the CAB and I could put you in touch.... Read More

Ian Narbeth

12:39 PM, 9th September 2013
About 6 years ago

Mortgage Express are forcing me to sell my home - HELP!

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "05/09/2013 - 16:55":

I have no brief for MX and they are now being very hard-nosed but the OP acknowledged that he did not take out a BTL mortgage. It is fairly common knowledge that some landlords take out residential mortgages because the interest rates/fees are lower than for BTL products. The borrower no doubt justifies this in that they are paying the loan off and in their view the lender suffers no loss. Sadly for the borrower, when the lender finds out the truth they are entitled to take action for misrepresentation and/or breach of contract, to declare a default and demand repayment in full.

(Just imagine for a moment if lenders routinely did not take action when they discovered landlords behaving this way: many more landlords would try it on as there would be no adverse conequence for them.) If at that stage the landlord cannot repay he is in trouble and the lender may enforce his security. I cannot see the courts having much sympathy for a borrower who has either lied to the lender about the use of the property or flagrantly breached the terms of the loan agreement by not telling the lender that the property is now rented out.

Two other points to consider. First sections 2 and 3 of the Fraud Act 2006 may apply in certain cases: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2
These make it a CRIMINAL offence to make false representations (e.g. "I am going to live in the house myself") or to fail to disclose information the borrower is under a legal duty to disclose, (e.g. a clause that requires the borrower to notify the lender if he ceases to live there) where the intention is to make a gain (e.g. to get a lower interest rate). Mark, you are right to advise people to be open with the lenders. Some of the comments on the board are from people who seem to think lenders are fair game. They can hardly complain if the courts enforce the lenders' rights. Lenders are not, so far as I am aware using the Fraud Act but it is there and is a very big stick indeed. Crudely put, the Fraud Act catches virtually any dishonesty where someone tries to make a gain or avoid a loss.

Secondly, landlords need to be aware that on a sale of one of a portfolio of properties charged to the same lender, where each property is security for all the loans, the lender does not have to release the charge over the sold property unless the entire loan is redeemed. Whilst the banking relationship is continuing, lenders will almost invariably release on a sale at open market value if they receive the net proceeds of sale after paying reasonable legal and agents' fees. However, they are not obliged to and so the lenders can make it very difficult for borrowers to sell.

So before people get on a high horse about banks being tough they should ask if they have in fact kept to their side of the bargain and been honest with the lender.... Read More

Ian Narbeth

14:41 PM, 10th April 2013
About 6 years ago

Can any Landlords help with the aftermath of Fire

Dear "Jonah"
You have had rotten luck. I haven't had such a loss in over 20 years as a landlord.
There are numerous problems having the freeholder effect LoR insurance, including:
1. He does not suffer loss and so has no insurable interest in your lost rent;
2. You want to be sole loss payee so that you get your hands on the money;
3. Insurance is on unit by unit basis depending on the rentand he freeholder will not want to be bothered to keep up to date;
4. You as the insured need to make disclosure of all material facts, e.g. is there a burglar alarm, smoke detectors, alterations to the flat;
5. Most flat owners won't want to pay for such insurance.

You have been particularly unlucky but many LL will take the risk rather than pay for the insurance every year.... Read More

Ian Narbeth

16:37 PM, 8th April 2013
About 6 years ago

Can any Landlords help with the aftermath of Fire

@Paul Barrett
Is it the case that you are looking to take out RoL insurance where the landlord has effected the buildings on a block of flats (you own a flat and presumably pay towards the premium via an "insurance charge" or perhaps through the service charge)? That is a more complex situation than your earlier remarks revealed. It may well be more difficult to obtain LoR insurance in that case but the OP has a house not a flat.

I suggest you contact the insurers of the block and see if you can tack on a policy with you as named insured. The premium rate should be similar to the rate for buildings insurance, e.g. if your flat is insured for £200,000 and you want £20,000 of LoR cover the premium will be 10% of the premium for the buildings insurance. It is more complicated than that because the flat owners collectively have to pay for the block including common parts to be insured.

In the OP's case, a claim for loss of rent can be included in the damages claim. Her insurers may not bring it unless prompted as they are not indemnifying her for lost rent. I suggest she contacts them and brings a claim against the neighbour.... Read More

Ian Narbeth

10:41 AM, 5th April 2013
About 6 years ago

Can any Landlords help with the aftermath of Fire

@Paul Barrett
Paul, ordinary buildings insurance does not cover loss of rent. However, loss of rent policies do (the clue is in the name!). You seem very forthright for someone who appears not to know the ins and outs of the property world. Your comments are not helpful. I have practised in the property area for 28 years. Let me enlighten you.

It is not illegal to have two insurance policies in place. What you may be thinking about is double insurance where the SAME RISKS are covered by two policies and insurers either apply "average" or try to avoid paying out on the basis that the other insurer will pay. It is perfectly possible, legal and common to have one policy to cover the buildings, another to cover contents and a third to cover loss of rent. The first two are often combined on household policies. The third is more specialist but is definitely available, either as a standalone policy or as part of a buildings insurance policy.

Landlords should check that the policy covers the case where there is no tenant (either because damage occurs during a void or because the tenancy ends before reinstatment is complete) but this is not usually a problem.... Read More