9:04 AM, 12th December 2018, About 5 years ago 55
A few of my houses are coming to their end of term and the lenders want their money back.
They knew my exit strategy was refinance or sale, but now they don’t seem to recognise any responsibility for the negative equity.
When the banking crisis occurred it followed naturally that house prices dropped dramatically as lenders either folded (albeit bailed out by the government) or sold their book to others. (Not necessarily even lenders).
The banking crisis was caused by reckless lending and the banks ran out of money and were unable to continue their business. The bankers have apologised unreservedly for their error of judgement. Great! But now when some areas are still struggling with negative equity they should (in my opinion) extend the mortgage for a lifetime. Or if they want to recoup their capital reduce the amount owing to an amount that would enable refinancing.
The FCA do not regulate buy to let mortgages, however, the mortgage is a contract. In contract “every contract has an implied contract term that the lender will perform the contract with care and skill”. Surely lending recklessly and being unable to sustain your business, which then has the knock on effect of destroying the value of my investment, is lacking in the performance of care and skill?
There is so much more I can add to this argument but would like to hear a reasonable response that says I’m wrong. I just cannot see it any other way.
But would appreciate your comments.
Previous ArticleManchester’s temporary accommodation up nearly 500% in 5 years
Next ArticleLocal Authority victory for Tenants and Landlords