house repossession when mortgage not in arrears

[surfydude007]

The house was repossessed by the mortgage lender. The mortgage was up to date (although it had been in arrears in the past). The mortgage lender repossessed in May when the next mortgage payment was not due until June and nothing was outstanding.

They then forced through a sale and are taking us to court to pay the shortfall.

They basically told our solicitor that this could not be stopped and they were entitled to repossess.

Surely they were not allowed to take the house - should they "give it back"?

We are really struggling with finding any case which has gone to court where this has happened - any case references would be really helpful.

Thanks

[Ethel]

Surely it went to court for a Repossession Order? They couldn't repossess with out it.

And they can't give it back if it is sold - was it repossessed last year?

[surfydude007]

It apparently was repossessed with a Court Order - we are yet to see a copy of it though and would like to know why we were not informed of the matter going to Court.

I realise they cannot give the house back as people now live in it but surely as we were prevented from living in it and had to find alternative accommodation there should be some form of redress?

This actually happened a few years ago - it is only now getting to the court stage.

[Ethel]

What are you going to court for now?

You've only given a little bit of the info - so it is impossible to answer.

Have you got a solicitor?

[surfydude007]

The sale of the house was forced through leaving a mortgage shortfall which the mortgage lender is taking us to court for.

They failed to turn up at the last hearing and the judge's summing up said that unless we were lying (we have proof that we were not) then their claim fell at the first hurdle.

It has now been reschedule for August but our Solicitor knows of no other case where a house has been repossessed under these circumstances - i.e. when there are no arrears on the mortgage (there were no loans secured on the house either)

Strange one this - eh?

[Ethel]

The puzzle is why you didn't sue them at the time for compensation after wrongfully repossessing your house.

[factor-fiction]

I'm trying to understand what happened.

Was this the sequence of events:
You were you behind with your payments; then the mortgage lender successfully gained a repossession order ; then you paid the arrears but it was too late.

If the court repossesion order has already gone through , what is the forthcoming court date for- is that because they are trying to recover some costs from you?

[surfydude007]

Sequence of events:

The house got into arrears - presumably this was when the Court Order was acquired (yet to be seen though).

The arrears were paid to date as was the current month's mortgage payment.

The house was repossessed mid-month - before the next payment was due.

It was then sold and we are being chased for the shortfall.

We have not taken any action against the mortgage lender as it is only coming to light now that we might be able to.

There were no other loans secured on the house.

[Ethel]

As I understand it, factor, this was a few years ago

The mortgage was in arrears
The mortgage company started proceedings for repossession;
Surfy paid the arrears;
They weren't informed of the court hearing and the Repossession Order was granted even though the mortgage was fully paid up to date and the next payment wasn't due for a few weeks;
Surfy was evicted, house sold.


Now the mortgage company is trying to recover the difference between the amount surfy owed and the amount the mortgage company got from the sale.

In my experience the only times I have heard of anything similar happening is when the husband/wife is hiding the mail so their partner doesn't know of debts, court hearings and so on, then the partner lies and says the debts were all paid. Usually to fund a drug/gambling or other habit.

So the mortgage company has acted perfectly properly, but the partner has been deceived. I'm not suggesting this is the case here, but there are not enough facts.

[surfydude007]

Not quite

The mortgage company contact the husband (now separated) to see what he wanted to do about paying the arrears as it appears in the five months after Mr & Mrs separated (although she was receiving funds to pay the mortgage) she chose not to pay the mortgage (not really relevant here though).

The mortgage lender contacted him to say the mortgage was in arrears (no mention of a court order at this time). He went to the branch along with his mother and arranged that he should pay off the arrears and the current month's mortgage payment, which he did.

It was about a week after everything was up to date the mortgage lender proceeded with a "court order". We think they must have made an error because I don't see any judge granting a repossession order when the mortgage is not in arrears and as they have always had surfydude's address (he also banks with them), they always had the capacity to contact him.

Alternatively, a Court order had been made and suspended in the past (we still have no evidence from the mortgage lender to confirm this yet) and the mortgage lender used this to repossess the house (they just went in, changed the locks and would not allow surfydude access even to collect his personal effects).

We just don't see how they can be allowed to take possession of a house when the mortgage was not in arrears.

We needed the mortgage lender to make the first move towards taking surfydude to court as it is easier to defend than to persue one of our country's largest lenders.

The first hearing (to which the claiment did not show) was very positive.

More than anything else I am desperate to find cases where something similar as happened.

[Uzoma]

This seems like a very unique case. It is a bit more difficult as the house has already been repossessed. However, I think that the most important thing to do would be to provide evidence that the mortgage was up to date before the time of repossession. They normally cannot repossess before that time but as I said before, it's now medicine after death. However, my understanding of the law is that the (former) home owners are liable for the full debt and so the lenders could still come after it. I just don't think that they ought to have repossessed the property.