1st [nationwide], 2nd Picture/Webb mortgage, negative equity, what next?

[The Phantom]

True. However, there is still the first charge lender Nat West. I have heard they can block attempts by second charger lenders to repossess if there is no equity and it would mean, they would loose out, too. Especially if they are getting paid.

The property is in negative equity by probably 30 K at the moment. That is if it was sold at a good market value, not an auction. If sold at auction the property would probably loose 50 K or so. Which means Nat West would loose out, too.

So could one not argue a pointless repossession in court ?

[The Phantom]

To be honest before I would let them repossess I would sell myself for as much as I could get to ensure Nat West was covered and Webb can have the rest.

Any shortfall they will have to turn into an unsecured loan as I wouldn't buy property again. Then I would probably have to go bankrupt myself to be rid of them.

[Lea_HTH]

The court considers the right to possess - the first charge can say what they want, but if the 2nd charge have grounds to possess, then the court has to look to that. Nothing is ever as straightforward as people would like it to be. The bottom line is that if the property is in negative equity, both mortgagees interests are better served by simply getting as much money as they can out of you in monthly payments - whether they will apply that logic is debatable.

 

A 'pointless possession' is not a defence.

 

It's not your first step in any case - that is asking if they will accept your proposal.

[The Phantom]

Quite right. I would of course first at all talk to Webb and see what they say.

I have read in other threads here that they are apparently quite approachable and will simply send an income / expenditure form to fill out.

But as I said, that is just based on what others have said in the forum, I have never had any reason to communicate with them so far. Also going by other threads first charge lenders have told customers they would block proposals for repossession in such a case, but that was I think Barclays and not Nat West. I have to find that thread again and read that story again.

[citizenB]

If it is at all possible would Webb be able to reschedule the term of the loan - this would obviously cost you more interest but it might stop you building up arrears.

[The Phantom]

Also a possibility. But it all depends on how much my ex can contribute. If he can afford a certain amount I can foot both mortgages on my own.

But I need to plan ahead and prepare a plan B which is what this is. I have had quite a bit of help here in the past to see through the bankruptcy and so on, so I know the advice here is sound.

I will keep this thread open / alive and when it comes to negotiate with Webb I will post again to see what they have said / are proposing.

Our payment history with both Webb and Nat West is very good, so I hope that Webb will be approachable under the circumstances.

[citizenB]

Well you can only try your best - I hope this works out for you

[The Phantom]

Many thanks ! I will report back, maybe ask for more help if needed

[The Phantom]

Hello again

I have been in contact with WEBB since January with very slow progress, they always try to force me to phone them rather than reply to letters.

 

I had to get the FOS involved to get them to respond in writing.

 

This has been going on since January now.

 

I filled in their Income & expenditure sheet and based on that I offered them £300.- per month (rather than the £554.- due)

 

They have now said they will accept £300.- for two months but they have more questions

and I should phone them to give them his information

(although they have been told I wish to sort this out in writing rather than verbally over the phone).

 

I wrote back to them and asked what additional information they require.

It took them another two weeks now to come up with what their additional questions are.

 

They want to know what my position is with regards to the first mortgage.

 

Whether the first mortgage holder has agreed to reduced payments and whether that account is up to date.

 

Whether I have sought independent advice on my long term options (selling the property / mortgage rescue / help with unsecured

 

Apparently their head office requires this information,

although I already told them in my first letter that I can afford the first mortgage on my own

and that there are no arrears and I intend to keep the first mortgage paid and up to date.

 

I just can't pay both the mortgage and the secured loan together from my wages.

 

I also told them that the property is in negatove equity and cannot be sold in the forseeable future.

 

I asked them whether they could re-schedule the loan to bring the payments down but they never replied to that or addressed that.

 

Any ideas what I could write to them in reply to their questions.

 

They already have the answers to them as I already told them all that in my first letter, but they didn't seem to read it .

 

Any help would be appreciated.

[johntina]

Don't phone Webb as they are unhelpful and rude on the phone and try to bully you into paying what you cannot afford..

 

I am currently paying £60 a month instead of £585 due to my wife getting cancer and being long term sick

and this was not agreed as such as I ended up just telling them in writing this is what I am paying and have done so for the last 6 months.

 

.. There is just about enough equity to pay my main mortgage if they want to reprocess

and it will cost them to do and force us into bankruptcy if they then come but the unsecured balance and they will end up with nothing..

 

. I Have nothing but contempt for this company as paid back £49,000 of £60,000 and now owe £63,000 with the arrears...

[The Phantom]

Just to bring this thread back to life again.

 

I agreed reduced payments with WEBB for £300.- which were made since June last year.

 

The reduced payment agreement came up for review in April and I increased my monthly payment offer to £500.

- for this month with a view to go back to the contractual repayment from June due to a change / improvement of circumstances.

 

The arrears that have built up over the year I made reduced payments are around £3000.

- , Webb has assured me they have made no charges as the reduced payments were agreed with them

and going by the last statements I have received this would appear to be correct.

 

Now today I have received a letter from a company called Idem Servicing announcing they will be administering the loan from the 1st of June.

 

They say nothing will really change for me apart from the contact telephone number for the customer service department

and the company name that will be taking the direct debit every month.

 

So far so good. Attached with their letter however was a 'tariff of charges' which is a bit worrying.

 

For accounts in arrears (which this one obviously is) they say they will charge £10.-

for every letter issued in relation to the arrears and £12.

- for every telephone call they make in relation to the arrears !!

 

So they could send me a forest of letters at £10.- each and calling me repeatedly during the day at £12.- each.

 

Obviously the reduced payments were agreed with Webb and consequently the arrears.

Now that they have sold the account I am faced with charges that were previously unknown to me

 

and which could accumulate to kingdom come as I have no control over how many letters they will send me

or how many telephone calls they feel are necessary to manage the arrears.

Any help or suggestions ?

[johntina]

Just to bring this thread back to life agavin.

I agreed reduced payments with WEBB for £300.- which were made since June last year. The reduced payment agreement came up for review in April and I increased my monthly payment offer to £500.- for this month with a view to go back to the contractual repayment from June due to a change / improvement of circumstances.

The arrears that have built up over the year I made reduced payments are around £3000.- , Webb has assured me they have made no charges as the reduced payments were agreed with them and going by the last statements I have received this would appear to be correct.

Now today I have received a letter from a company called Idem Servicing announcing they will be administering the loan from the 1st of June. They say nothing will really change for me apart from the contact telephone number for the customer service department and the company name that will be taking the direct debit every month.

So far so good. Attached with their letter however was a 'tariff of charges' which is a bit worrying.

For accounts in arrears (which this one obviously is) they say they will charge £10.- for every letter issued in relation to the arrears and £12.- for every telephone call they make in relation to the arrears !!

So they could send me a forest of letters at £10.- each and calling me repeatedly during the day at £12.- each.

Obviously the reduced payments were agreed with Webb and consequently the arrears. Now that they have sold the account I am faced with charges that were previously unknown to me and which could accumulate to kingdom come as I have no control over how many letters they will send me or how many telephone calls they feel are necessary to manage the arrears.

Any help or suggestions ?

 

 

I got the same letter so not sure where I stand now as reduced payment is suppose to run until October but still cannot pay full amount after

[The Phantom]

They will honour those reduced payments until October then you would have to renegotiate with Idem. I have never heard of them before and will see if I can find something about them here in the Forums, but what we will both have to look out for is their arrears management. I have no intention of paying them £10.- per letter and £12.- per phone call. Who is the judge to say how many are really necessary. They could send us loads all saying the same and each time our debt increases.

We have no control over the amount they send out or their telephone calls. That is what worries me.

[The Phantom]

From a link on the Forum, from the FOs website

 

handling of arrears

 

When we consider a complaint about how a lender dealt with a consumer in arrears, we take into account the relevant rules - such as the Financial Services Authority's Mortgage Conduct of Business Rules - and good industry practice at the time the events complained about took place.

 

In general terms, mortgage lenders must treat customers in arrears fairly. What is fair will normally depend on the individual circumstances of the case.

 

Lenders will normally be expected to:

 

handle matters sympathetically;

make reasonable efforts to reach agreement with the consumer about how the arrears should be paid;

make sure any proposed repayment plan is realistic;

liaise with any third party acting on the consumer's behalf - for example, a Citizens Advice Bureau;

provide the consumer with an explanation, if they do not accept the consumer's own repayment proposals; and

seek possession of the property only as a last resort.

Steps that a lender might take as part of treating the consumer fairly might include, for example:

 

adding the arrears to the mortgage balance (sometimes called capitalisation);

extending the term of the mortgage;

accepting interest-only repayments for a period of time;

accepting part-repayments for a period of time; and

allowing a "payment holiday" to tide the consumer over a short-term problem.

Consumers often tell us that they have difficulty getting information from the lender about what is happening on their mortgage account - or cannot get a proper response from the lender to their proposals. We would look to see whether the lender had communicated effectively with the consumer, providing information when requested to do so and responding promptly and appropriately to payment proposals made by the consumer.

 

We have upheld complaints where we found the lender had acted unfairly or unreasonably, for example by:

 

refusing to agree a payment arrangement without a suspended order for possession;

refusing to consider a repayment proposal that falls outside its "standard" requirements;

at a payment arrangement review, insisting on an increase in the rate of repayment of the arrears - even though the consumer's financial circumstances have not changed;

repeatedly applying unpaid payment charges where it is clear that a payment arrangement is needed; or

refusing to deal with a third party adviser.

top of page

 

arrears charges

 

Consumers sometimes find information about charges difficult to understand and ask us to tell them whether the charges are correct. Consumers also worry that the lender might be profiting from their difficulties by increasing their indebtedness with charges.

 

When considering complaints about arrears charges, we take into account, for example:

 

the terms of the mortgage agreement;

any relevant law (for example, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations); and

whether the lender has acted fairly in applying the charges in the particular circumstances of the case (for example, were the charges such that the consumer would never realistically be able to clear the arrears).

Some examples of cases where we decided it was not fair for the lender to apply arrears charges include:

 

where the consumer had fallen into arrears after developing a debilitating illness, with no prospect of returning to work; and

where the consumer had kept to the agreed repayment arrangement each month, but the lender had still continued to apply monthly arrears charges.

We have also seen some cases where we found that arrears administration work had been unfairly duplicated - for example, where a lender makes it own administration charge and also applies a charge for administration by its solicitors. In that situation, we would find that the consumer should not be made to pay for the duplication.

[The Phantom]

Have had my first letter from Idem , dated less than a week from when they took over the debt

pointing out that there are arrears on the account and I should contact them immediately on certain phone numbers.

 

As I normally do not deal with these companies over the phone I wrote them a letter.

 

Arrears are around 3 K ,

I am now making normal contractual payments again so it is just about clearing the arrears.

I have asked for capitalisation or extending the term of the loan in the first instance.

I also asked not to be contacted by phone but to keep everything in writing. So they phoned me today.

 

They said my contractual payments won't cover the arrears etc etc.

I asked them whether they read my letter which the guy on the phone obviously hadn't

but he managed to find it on his screen against the account.

 

He said he would send me an income and expenditure sheet.

I told him I asked about capitalisation or extending the loan term to cover the arrears.

 

I also asked him to reply in writing which he said they would.

 

Now I have to wait and see. I have some savings so if they won't reschedule the loan I could offer a lumpsum payment of maybe 50%

of the arrears although this wouldn't be my preferred option as this would financially clear me out.

 

I have also asked them on clarification on their interest rate which is still at just under 10%

 

Historically with Picture and Webb the rate has always gone up but never down, but a variable rate should go up and down.

But as this contract was signed in 2004 I am not covered under the CCA so can't challenge under the Unfair Terms type clause.

 

However, I have read somewhere on the site ( I cannot find it anymore though) that you could still challenge

it under a different aspect as a misleading term or something like that as it was sold as a variable rate

but has proven to be only variable upwards.

Does anybody have any info on this ?

 

So would appreciate some input or suggestions on how to handle this further or what my best options are.

[The Phantom]

**bump***

[The Phantom]

Got a reply from Idem,

they have declined to capitalize the arrears and also declined to extend the term of the loan as apparently it is not their policy to do so.

 

According to information on the FOS site allowing one of those options would be considered fair, not sure what declining both options is.

 

Idem said it was their final response in this matter and I could take it to a Financial Letting or Leasing Association for review.

 

They don't mention the FOS, but I have checked with the FOS and they will cover problems with IDEM.

 

So thinking about lodging a complaint with the FOS.

 

Not sure if anybody here has got any other suggestions or ideas ?

[dx100uk]

I think its time you sent an sar to them

 

and get all the statements?

 

I bet you have £1000's in penalty fees and debt management fees to reclaim.

 

dx

[The Phantom]

I have lodged a complaint with the FOS,

 

according to their website refusing to let a customer capitalize arrears or extending the loan may be considered unfair, so thought will give it a try.

 

Idem obviously don't want to do this as they are only in it for a quick profit rather than longterm maintenance of the account.

 

It wouldn't suprise me if they intend to only keep my debt for so long and then flog it on again,

 

so any longterm customer friendly solutions are obviously not on their agenda.

 

Will see how they respond to a FOS investigation.

[sgianthebard]

I understand that loan companies who go bust can sell on your debt for 1/10 of the value

and the buying company can make a massive profit from this.

 

But when a loan has been sold on to different companies four or five times,

 

surely this is a kind of 'old cronies' system?

 

If the loan was to be sold at 1/10th of the value,

 

why is the debtor never contacted to see if he or she would like to buy the loan at 1/10th of the value?

 

Does anyone know if there ever been a precedent in a court case using this concept?

[The Phantom]

You are quite right ,

the debt buying company will only pay a fraction of the original value of the debt and will cash in massively.

 

Don't forget the charges they levy on top of it to cover all their 'admin' work.

 

It's a Bonanza.

 

My secured loan was passed to Webb when Picture went under,

Webb then flogged it to Idem and

I think they only bought it due to the lucrativity of arrears on the account

which means they can pressurize the debtor to pay back the arrears

on top of the outstanding debt plus a raft of charges for arrears management.

 

This on top of an interest rate of 10% with even LIBOR hovering around the 1% mark.

 

It is nothing short of a rip off, but I am not aware of a court case to challenge this concept of trading

with peoples debts and lives as such.

 

Maybe someone else reading this can give some insight from the CAG site team.

 

I had a new letter from Idem yesterday sending me an income and expenditure sheet,

also stating (after initially refusing this option) that it would cost me £37.- a month more to capitalize the arrears

and they thought it was 'of little benefit' for me hence they didn't offer it in their first letter.

 

Not sure what they mean by 'of little benefit to me',

 

I suppose it would be of little benefit to them as they most likely only bought the debt

to make a quick buck on the arrears hoping they could force me into repaying it within a year

or in a one off payment if they threatened and bullied me enough only to then sell the debt on again.

Edited August 14, 2014 by The Phantom
typo

[sgianthebard]

I've been paying a loan originally from Picture,

 

then Picture's second incarnation after the first went bust (a ltd company legal [problem] if you ask me),

 

then Target,

 

then Webb,

 

now Idem.

 

There may even have been some other company in between.

 

Who's to say that this isn't just one bunch of city blokes passing around my debt between them all to make a fast buck

and keep me as an eternal source of income?

 

I've been paying off a 10 year loan for 9 years,

and because I had difficulties a number of times over the past 9 years (divorce, etc)

and accrued arrears,

 

I still owe (according to the latest figures) as much as I did 9 years ago

 

.I think that the when Idem decide that they're not going to make a fast buck off of me

and they decide to sell off the debt at 10p in the pound,

 

I should be contacted to see if I want to buy it.

 

Why am I excluded?

 

Do I need some kind of special licence to be able to buy someone's debt at 10p in the pound?

 

This systems stinks of corruption and if there isn't yet a precedent in the courts to stop it,

 

some young feisty lawyer should go about making his name with this one.

[The Phantom]

I totally agree.

When I was reading in another thread a pink pop up window came up referring to something called 'estoppel', in the pop up menue it said this could be used

as a defence also when a creditor sells a debt to a debt collector.

I have been trying to get a bit more information about this point and have been searching around the site. The relevant thread has been closed, but maybe I can dig up a bit more. Not sure if it is relevant to our situation at all, but nothing ventured nothing gained.

I will do a bit more looking around.

As for your question , they all just want to make money from this debt. They don't want it paid off hence adding charges on top of charges and on top of charges again, then sky high interest rates on top of that. They make no money when it's paid off hence they wouldn't offer it to you to buy

They will keep it in the debt pot as long as they can to milk it for as long as possible.

[The Phantom]

estoppel

[The Phantom]

the pop up should come up when hovering with the mouse on the estoppel link.

would be interesting to find out a bit more about this and how it relates to the statement

 

You can also use estoppel as a defence where, for example, you have an instalment agreement with your creditor but they the go on to sell your debt to a debt collector.