my Leasehold/Freehold property and it's issues.

[HP Mum]

HB - yes I agree it is about their paperwork and advice.  I need to be clear in my head what my complaint is.  And what a result looks like for me?

(They should never have placed me with the shark with whom I've had all sorts of issues - but I don't think that's my complaint focus -v-  broker) 

Edited March 19 by HP Mum

[aesmith]

2 hours ago, HP Mum said:

 They all stem really from bad advice by broker. 

Were you tied into that particular broker? I mean if you were confident you should have been able to get better terms, were you prevented from looking elsewhere?

[HP Mum]

That's a good point.   Is one tied in to one broker?  Probably not. 

But I did get a specific email from this particular broker telling me not to use any other broker. 

Assume they all try the same lenders?  This broker wanted the % fee.  

He gave some "explanations" - about 'hard searches' affecting credit score, that lenders would be confused if different brokers being used for same client...  I refrained from using other brokers

If I do contact the fos - what would I reasonably be hoping for as a result of some kind of action - v- broker?

My friend broker originally mentioned full restitution:

for them to put me back to place I was in before they gave 'bad' advice with 'dodgy' paperwork.

Does that sound feasible? Or idealistic?  

The property was repossessed. 

But remains unsold after all these years.

So I guess restitution is possible?  (I mean if I could get it back and get a btl now, I would !)

Altho... maybe there's better solutions given level of interest rates now compared to 2.49% in 16.

Edited March 19 by HP Mum

[honeybee13]

Before you contact the FOS, you need to have made a formal complaint to Savills. If you haven't reached a resolution with them after two months, then you can contact the ombudsman.

I imagine restitution is one option. The FOS have a section on their website where they show previous cases, from memory. You could read those to get an idea.

HB

[HP Mum]

Thanks hb. Will read

Would it be best to re-contact broker even tho I did in 19?

[honeybee13]

Did you make a formal complaint in 2019 and ask them to investigate?

HB

[HP Mum]

I just checked.

I sent them a very simple email requesting specific docs. I didn't label my request as a SAR.

they replied labelling my request for docs as a SAR. 

There were a few emails between us asking/ answering questions.

They then sent a link to a more full response to my request for docs - probably anticipating a claim given they knew they'd not acted correctly. 

They did mention they considered that a final response.  But I hadn't actually made a formal complaint per se.  

As said before - I got swept down a different path and haven't considered reverting to this (making formal complaint/ claim) until now

I think there's a bit of splitting hairs by the broker. 

They treated my simple request for some docs as if it was a complaint - because they knew my gentle request was a precursor to a complaint.  I did not label a letter as formal complaint.

So would I be able to revert to new correspondence entitled 'formal complaint' ?

[BazzaS]

Did they say “final response.”  …..but also as part of their final response  “you can take this to the FOS” ? (And if so, did it mention a time limit in which to do so)?

it’d be worth posting up a pdf of their response (personal info redacted)

Edited March 19 by BazzaS

[HP Mum]

I just checked the last email from them that I printed out. 

It was directing me to a link to files as part of a data SAR (which I never called my request; they did).

The email says the link would expire in 3 months. 

Now my computer crashed later in 19.  I lost a lot of info. I need to check storage for old hard-drives to see if I downloaded and saved whatever info was in the link.  

I have 1 other printed out email from my friend who was a broker.

It was dated apx 6w after my first email to broker. 

Friend was telling me what to include in a letter to compliance dept.  I don't have a printed copy of my letter - so can't remember if was entitled formal complaint - or their reply.  

Will check storage later. 

If I have anything useful I will post

[BazzaS]

You can SAR them again, to check.

 

If:

a) they dealt with it as a complaint,

b) stated that their response was a final response,

c) noted that you could escalate it to FOS (and had 6 months in which to do so), and

d) Didn’t say “we will waive our right to have to grant permission after 6 months” 

Them : you can still take it to FOS but FOS would have to obtain their permission to review it outside of the 6 months (and that seems unlikely) 

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/resolving-complaint/before-get-involved#:~:text=These time limits are%3A,they had cause to complain)

 

[HP Mum]

Thanks. Will check info later

[aesmith]

18 hours ago, HP Mum said:

My friend broker originally mentioned full restitution: for them to put me back to place I was in before they gave 'bad' advice with 'dodgy' paperwork. Does that sound feasible? Or idealistic?

At that point you didn't have finance, so wouldn't have been able to buy the property. Do you really want to unwind that far?

What sort of values are we speaking about, property value, loan required?

[HP Mum]

Hi. Sorry for the misunderstanding I already owned the property - had done for a very long time.

The refinance was tied into a s.42 extension.  I had had an old very flexible and accommodating BTL loan - as in the bank lent btl money on a short lease property which had been empty for 2 decades+ and was dilapidated and which they knew couldn't be rented out for ages!  The banks stopped loans like that a long time ago.   Took a couple years to renovate whilst living on the building site. Then rented it to a family for a while whilst went away.  Then moved back in and ad hoc rented it (enough to pay mortgage, bills, live well and pay the tax) / lived in it as a family home for well more than a decade. We stayed somewhere else for free when it was rented out/ or went traveling.

The extension cost a lot more than expected. But I still wanted a btl and to keep it not sell it.  Ltv was very low. The extension cost made it higher. But there was still tons of equity.  The historic rentals proved it was a good rental property.  The renowned professional broker should have been able to get me a btl.  It was high value; a lovely property. 

I get I made mistakes. But I got royally screwed on the refinance.  And everything kinda unraveled thereafter.  When I look through the paperwork now in hindsight I am horrified at the amount of money I was charged by alleged professionals.  It's all such a racket.  (The extension process, the valuation, the broker - all money for old rope for these companies).  In my defence my mistakes boiled down to losing my partner and being not right in the head for ages and ages.  (This horrid repo process has also contributed to me not being right in the head - but I'm not blind anymore).  I'm not sure what I want to do now? Or what I could even begin to hope for as a result?  I just feel that I may well have an issue against the broker - because they didn't follow their industry strict protocol.

[aesmith]

If you're considering a claim against the broker there a couple of points to bear in mind.  Firstly the background. I am more than ever sure this will be classed as business to business, rather than consumer lending. If that's the case you will be seen as an experienced landlord with a history of BTL borrowing. That's the background against which the broker will be judged.

Secondly in terms of claim, the claimant in general has an obligation to mitigate their loss. That should be taken into account when trying to quantify any claim. Did signing up with that 12% bridging loan irrevocably set you on the path you described, or could you have paid it off after finding a better deal? I would expect anything called "bridging" to be short term in nature, quite likely no penalty for paying it off at any time.

So you could make claim based on your loss as a result of having to pay that bridging finance for say the couple of months it would have taken to find a longer term BTL mortgage. I don't know what chance that would have. But i don't think there is any chance of a claim for two years of interest and the loss of the property.

However we're still relying on second hand information and maybe I'm wrong about the broker. On what terms was he engaged, was it to find this specific finance, or was he your long term financial adviser with ongoing duties beyond that?

I note in the loan terms and conditions you declare that you have obtained legal advice. Was that from the broker, or was there also a lawyer acting for you at the time.

Really I think a lot turns on the question "is BTL finance considered business or consumer" and i hope others will give their view. I may be completely wrong.

Edited March 21 by aesmith

[HP Mum]

It was a debate with the broker at the time.  the property was classed as a family home, with additional rental history - not business. 

In the year the broker found a btl lender at 2.49%  I did have a tenant for some months and I was located - on/off - in a different part of the country for work and into the next year too - in company paid -for accommodation.  With the increase of loan I would have had to full-time rent out the property and live elsewhere.  But that was fine. (I had plans) The problem was that the broker put me with a bridge that prohibited rentals - so I couldn't rent/ had to sell.  And then I had no income.    Rules changed - to get a btl I needed a tenant in situ, but I couldn't because of the bridge.  catch22.

Broker was appointed to find a btl.  He then passed me to a colleague to fix a bridge.  I didn't want a bridge.  Even when I was 'forced' to take the bridge I wanted broker to help me switch immediately to a btl.  The trouble is that I then discovered lenders don't like to lend to someone on a bridge. And the broker avoided all my calls.  I have records of this.  For example, his work colleague told me he was out the office all day.  Yet a kid was put straight through to the broker. Kid handed phone over to me and I was then able to speak (very awkward for broker).  But he/ the firm still did nothing.  The problem was that the bridge had created a barrier to any other lender and was monthly increasing the loan by a huge sum.   Its been a disaster.  I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't. The property was repossessed; the lender hasn't sold.  That's >7y on a short-term bridge - for which the lender is still holding me accountable.

The broker's t&cs showed they had 'advised me' - but they didn't follow the strict protocol to have been able to advise me.  The broker filled in the application form on my behalf. I never saw it.  He just emailed me the signature page. He did not carry out checks on my income or affordability etc.

I had a lawyer who had handled the lease extension.  I asked them to handle the refinance because I needed a lawyer.    I think the focus of any potential complaint is about the lack of advice the broker gave when their paperwork stated they gave it.  I do have legal issues with the lender's subsequent behaviour - but that is separate. 

Edited March 21 by HP Mum
typo

[aesmith]

I'm not sure it's relevant what the property was classed as. Property rented to residential tenant is classed as rssidential property, same as if it was owner occupied. 

More relevant is the fact that the property had been rented, you intended to continue to do so, and you weren't going to live there. I presume that was the reason for specifically seeking BTL finance rather than a residential mortgage.

I'm puzzled why you entered into a loan that didn't permit you to rent. Was that not included in the terms and conditions? And you say you were forced in some way to take it.

You found it impossible to sell, was that literally impossible or rather you couldn't sell it at the price you wanted? 

[HP Mum]

the rental prohibition was because the broker added the 'exit strategy' was sale.  He knew I wanted a btl.  He rushed the bridge through and I agreed. It solved a pressing issue of possible repo from existing lender - but actually made the situation worse.

The broker then abandoned me. No btl.  Forced to sell.  And just couldn't.  Price?   Had 1 offer in 1y.  Had various interest in 2nd year - but no-one proceeded to exchange.  Had firm commitment at good good price in 3rd year - but that fell away due to repo.  The lender has failed to sell in the last 5y.  They had an immediate opportunity - but chose to follow a different path - which has led to it still unsold after a further 5y+ (and a host of legal claims to boot)

This is an aside comment - is probs a distraction from my broker focus - but when I got the 1st offer I approached the bridge lender, and related the difficulties in selling.  They failed to believe it was so difficult to attract a buyer for a nice property. 

They told me to "invite offers at £x-£y" because they had "extensive research that showed it would achieve between £x-£y".  Which was sad laughable because the agents could not invite anyone to offer any amount.   

This will seem contrary to my other comments but 6y ago I offered the lender the same sum the 1st buyer offered as a f&f for my debt - on the basis friend private finance would settle the sum.  lender refused.  They insisted the property was worth much more.  Of course post-repo they were proved wrong.

 I meant f&f for loan

Edited March 21 by HP Mum

[honeybee13]

If you want to go after the broker after all this time, are you able to prove what you're saying about them? You said you have documents in storage?

HB

[aesmith]

1 hour ago, HP Mum said:

the rental prohibition was because the broker added the 'exit strategy' was sale. 

It would have been an interest only loan so the lender would want to know how the principal would be paid off. Bridging would only expect to be short term to fill a gap until "something" that would mean it's no longer needed. That wouldn't preclude paying off the bridging loan if you'd been able to find an alternative.

When you say you made a Full and Final offer, i assume that was less than the sum outstanding. The lender wouldn't have been obliged to accept that.

These issues with lenders and with ability to sell makes me wonder if the property was in fact well overvalued. Did you have a surveyor give an independent valuation?

In terms of your claim against the agent. What would have happened back then if youd not been offered that bridging loan? If the broker had said "sorry I can't find anything for you". If the answer is yyou'd have had to sell right away, or the previous lender would have taken possession, then could the broker argue that the bridging at least gavecyou a breathing space to find other finance or to sell on your terms.

I don't think you'll get anywhere claiming the broker should have offered anything different, without some evidence that it was available at the time.  

Edited March 21 by aesmith

[HP Mum]

Hb - I have enough evidence to verify what broker did wrong

Ae - I was told by friend broker that the broker ought to have been able with their experience to obtain a btl on low interest. That's the issue. Ought. But didnt

 Valuation - that's an interesting point.

Borrowers have no choice but have to pay for the report.

I'd used a firm before (for diff poss lender) and the broker/ lender advised to use same valuation firm.  T

he valuer did not do another site visit. He rewrote an earlier one. He used the same valuation figure for writing the earlier report as a potential FH tenure but changed the tenure to LH (which is what the charge was to be for).  That turned out to be an issue - as the next valuation the lender did post repo was 30% lower.  

Its all a huge minefield.

The valuer before drawdown said it was worth £x.  Ironically I argued it should be worth more.  Then couldn't sell. 

Post repo the next prof valuation was 30% lower.  Then the immediate offer post repo was 32% lower.  Lender did not accept. 

In the following year everyone saw it was sticking, so any potential buyer interest was at 40% lower.  Lender then agreed to sell - contracts out.  But they then walked from the sale. 

All sorts of other stuff then happened to here we are now, still unsold. 

The other stuff is a distraction from my broker issue - but included the lender pretty much bull-dozing the property instead of selling it - which obviously then involved legal action.  The lender alleged they had 'added value'  but that falls flat when it remains unsold.

Its hard to explain all that has happened (its so much)  But I believe it does all stem from being given wrong advice by a professional broker. 

I may have possibly ended up with other problems down the line via a btl  (who knows) but - with a proper lender - I doubt i would have had the problems I have had with this bridge lender.   

As there have been so many legal actions - with evidence disclosed - I have had unique access to docs and emails that one would not normally be privy to see. 

The whole shebang is supposed to head to trial (soon)  I'm pretty sure the otherside don't want any of this coming in to the public domain - the evidence of their bad behaviour is so damning!  They've asked to adjourn

[honeybee13]

So where does this leave us on you wanting to complain to the broker if you have a case?

HB

[HP Mum]

HB -Yes - I want to assess how I make a claim v broker.   

I have found a letter I wrote to the broker which was entitled 'formal complaint'. 

What I havent found yet is their reply. 

If I can't find it then I will send in another SAR as advised above

Depending on what I find or alternatively what they send I guess I have to assess what I expect as a result?

Its the FOS dates I'm concerned about. 

Its within 6y But beyond 3y since I made my 1st complaint.

I do have mitigating circs but I don;'t know how strict their rules are? 

If strict - am I better off just side-stepping the FOS and making a claim through the court?

[HP Mum]

I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue.

Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do:

The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating.

The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial.

The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver? 

Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?

Edited April 18 by HP Mum

[aesmith]

How was the "receiver" appointed and what is their role? Appointed by the lender under the terms of their security on the loan (sometimes referred to as "LPA Receiver")?

Or are they acting for you in insolveny?

What's the current role of the agent?

[HP Mum]

LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times).

Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh). 

There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.

  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time.

In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me.

Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?) 

 I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value.

Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides). 

Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works. 

Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.  

The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest).

Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?   

Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender).

I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations.

If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?

I have had a secondary thought. 

I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale. 

I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?