Mortgage Express / UKAR calling in instant remortgages
I am aware of two Mortgage Express / UKAR borrowers who received a letter this weekend calling in their loans, an extract of the letters, which are both identical, can be found below. In both cases the properties had been purchased using instant remortgages, i.e. the property had been purchased for cash or with bridging finance and instantly remortgaged based on opem market value to Mortgage Express.
These are the first cases I have seen where Mortgage Express have called in performing loans on these grounds. However, I have acted as a professional witness on a number of occasions in Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunals and in cases where Mortgage Express have commenced litigation against solicitors, both scenarios relating to instant remortgages. In all cases I have been involved in so far the Solicitors Regulatory Authority have ruled the solicitors were acting in accordance with accepted protocols at the time and none of the litigation cases I have provided witness statements regarding instant remortgages have progressed to Court.
I will be working as a private consultant alongside Cotswold Barristers and https://www.litigationwarranty.co.uk/ in the role professional witness regarding Mortgage Express practices relating to instant remortages (AKA same day remortgages) where required.
If you have received a similar letter to the one above please get in touch using the enquiry form below.
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
Previous Article
Mixed Use Property Legal StatusNext Article
Multiple tenants on a single AST
Member Since August 2013 - Comments: 21
7:32 PM, 21st June 2015, About 11 years ago
Good to have you watching our backs Mark.
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 357
8:07 PM, 21st June 2015, About 11 years ago
That amazes me as the banks knew this was a practice that was being implemented and in my opinion encouraged it. The banks have short memories.
When I took out my first three BLT’S I was informed the could offer me £100.000.00.
Member Since June 2015 - Comments: 2
10:02 AM, 22nd June 2015, About 11 years ago
Rather surprising that UKAR did not complete its own due-diligence with a simple Land Registry check to ensure that the person asking for a “re-mortgage” was the owner.
Member Since May 2015 - Comments: 8
2:25 PM, 22nd June 2015, About 11 years ago
If they call in all performing mortgages it will flood the market & possibly result in large numbers of mortgagors becoming distressed (depending on the time given to redeem) even though they have equity with LTVs sub 85%.
Is this how ukar want to close their books – stinks!
Member Since January 2011 - Comments: 12209 - Articles: 1406
9:10 PM, 23rd June 2015, About 11 years ago
Huge discussion on this topic over on Facebook, see >>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/UKProperryTraders/1628869440691325/
.
Member Since August 2013 - Comments: 44
7:09 PM, 27th June 2015, About 11 years ago
Doesn’t it depend upon a legal definition of re-mortgage? If it means re-finance then the LL is right. If it means moving from one mortgage to another then ME are perhaps right although it isn’t a purchase as such if it was bought with cash or bridging. Interesting debate. Does bridging count as a mortgage?
Member Since May 2015 - Comments: 8
1:55 PM, 2nd July 2015, About 11 years ago
Hi Mark. If mx calls in the loans, are they likely to give the owner a ‘reasonable’ amount of time to sell? This will probably involve ending a tenancy.
Surely ii makes sense for them to give a reasonable window, thereby enabling the owner to sell at a reasonable price & repay the debt (assuming they’re not in negative equity).
Member Since January 2011 - Comments: 12209 - Articles: 1406
3:16 PM, 2nd July 2015, About 11 years ago
Reply to the comment left by “Richard Elderfield” at “02/07/2015 – 13:55“:
I agree with the point you are making but sadly it’s 30 days notice and then into the hands of LPA receivers
.
Member Since May 2015 - Comments: 8
3:37 PM, 2nd July 2015, About 11 years ago
ok thanks Mark.
Would you agree that unlike the dark days of 2008-09, receivers seem to be more commercial thesedays ie, not flooding the market, clearing the bank’s shortfall (on the back of strong rental market) & leaving a surplus before disposal, etc.
In someways, this may be preferable for the owner as opposed to a 30 day fire sale?
Member Since January 2011 - Comments: 12209 - Articles: 1406
9:50 AM, 4th July 2015, About 11 years ago
Reply to the comment left by “Richard Elderfield” at “02/07/2015 – 15:37“:
When you say more “commercial” do you mean better at getting a return for the banks? If so then yes I would agree with you. There are more opportunities now for them to hold an asset than there were a few years ago too and that obviously extends their appointment and hence fees so I think “commercial” is a good word to describe that too. If you are asking me whether borrowers get a better deal in When they are in LPA receivership that’s far more subjective. I don’t meet very many borrowers who feel that LPA receiverships are a good thing.
.
.