Jump to content


Is 'independent legal advice for secured lending' necessary?


baptiste
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2418 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

We are looking to take out a bank loan secured against our property, we have been advised by the bank that we need to obtain 'independent legal advice for secured lending against a property for debt consolidation'.

 

I've just spoken to a solicitor who basically said that the purpose of this is just to take the responsibility away from the bank, and that that it's largely for their benefit.

 

Is this the case, should we get it anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
We are looking to take out a bank loan secured against our property, we have been advised by the bank that we need to obtain 'independent legal advice for secured lending against a property for debt consolidation'.

 

I've just spoken to a solicitor who basically said that the purpose of this is just to take the responsibility away from the bank, and that that it's largely for their benefit.

 

Is this the case, should we get it anyway?

 

Is the bank loan for a business?

 

Typically this arises when Person A asks Person B to take a mortgage secured on a property which Person B has equity / an interest in, to support Person A's business.

 

If the business folds, the bank will want the property it is secured on. If Person B can demonstrate they were placed under "undue influence" then rescission of the mortgage can be imposed : the mortgagee is left pursuing Person A only, with no rights to the property the mortgage had been secured on (and for an unsecured loan only against Person A, rather than one with any security)

This is why "it is for the bank's benefit"!, and why they will likely insist on it ......

 

(The technicalities are in RBS v Etridge (No. 2), a House of Lords case from 2002, where if the transaction "cries out for explanation" the bank needs to show all parties were aware of the nature of the mortgage and its risks ..... The bank explaining the risks might be seen as not adequate, so "independent legal advice" gives the presumption that the risks were adequately explained)

 

"Independent" also means "not acting for Person A" as well as "not acting for the bank", so they only have Person B's interests in mind, and they may insist on Person A and the bank's staff not being present when the independent advisor speaks to Person B.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.

 

The loan is not for a business, it's for renovation and clearing our overdrafts.

 

But you are "Person A", and there is a "Person B" whose equity in property would be at risk?.

 

The same principle applies. They are ensuring recession due to claims of undue influence (claims by Person B of undue influence over them) can't be invoked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...