Firstplus Barclays repossesion actio

[ajg36]

Hi

Not sure if this is posted to correct area however, just wondering if anyone can give me any advice.

I have a court date at the end of the month for repossesion with Firstplus, I have without success tried to get onto a Mortgage Rescue Scheme as I can no longer afford to keep up with my mortgage and second charge due to a divorce the loan is no in arrears and have a court date to attend.

The property is in major negative equity and under no circumstance will Firstplus stand to gain anything in any scenario, can anyone tell me what i can expect to happen at court will they still repossess even tho there is no financial gain and that Firstplus wont allow me to go thru mortgage rescue nor sell the property on the housing market?

I have been straight fromt he start and tried to negotiate with Firstplus but they seem hellbent on just putting me and my 2 children on the streets, i realise its their right under teh contract but surely it doesnt make any sense given there is no financial gain for them.

Any help would be appreciated:beagle:

[labman]

Re: Firstplus Barclays repossesion actio

I've moved this to the property section, and sent a message to someone who should hopefully be able to help you.

[PlanB]

Re: Firstplus Barclays repossesion actio

I have a court date at the end of the month for repossesion with Firstplus, I have without success tried to get onto a Mortgage Rescue Scheme as I can no longer afford to keep up with my mortgage and second charge due to a divorce the loan is no in arrears and have a court date to attend.

The property is in major negative equity and under no circumstance will Firstplus stand to gain anything in any scenario, can anyone tell me what i can expect to happen at court will they still repossess even tho there is no financial gain and that Firstplus wont allow me to go thru mortgage rescue nor sell the property on the housing market?

ajg36.

I've had a quick look at your other two threads which I didn't see at the time you first posted (May) Can you update a few things on this thread to clarify the situation.

If you've not got any arrears why is your lender seeking repossession, is it on some other grounds such as a breach of the Terms & Conditions? In your other thread you had arrears so have these now either been paid off or did you reach an Arrangement to Pay which you may be struggling to manage?

You say that the property is in negative equity which is presumably why you have failed to get help on the Mortgage Rescue Scheme because you need 20% - 25% equity in the property to be eligible. Is this why that deal hasn't worked for you or is it another reason? I'm guessing no one would buy into a property if there is no equity Here's a bit of information about how the two schemes work if that helps you to see why this option may not be available to you or whether you can still pursue this:

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_ad..._rescue_scheme

Who has the first mortgage and who has the second charge secured loan? Which one of these is going for repossession?

The lender will take the view that even if they have nothing to gain by taking possession of your home they will also have no more to lose if the property is not increasing in value and the arrears are increasing making the debt bigger day by day (but you're not in arrears?).

You've asked on another thread whether the lender has insurance for the shortfall if the property is sold with negative equity. The answer to that question is probably Yes. High LTV loans were normally sold with a Mortgage Indemnity Guarantee (MIG) this is a policy where the insurer pays out to the lender in the event of a shortfall after repossession and then the insurer chases the borrower to recover the loss. You will know if the lender has one of these policies because it will have been identified in the Key Facts Illustration (KFI) when you took out the mortgage. You will have paid for it at the time although the cost will have been added to the loan.

Finally, are you in work or in receipt of benefits? There are other ways to get Government help with mortgage payments besides the MRS route.

Courts are reluctant to throw people out of their homes but you need to give them a reason not to. Let's see what we can come up with when you get back with the full picture

[ajg36]

Re: Firstplus Barclays repossesion actio

Hi

Firstly thankyou for you quick response.

This is quite a complex case but will try and explain as best i can just to see if you can advise me.

My Husband left my family and home 18mths ago, I have my 2 children and am still for now in the family home in question.

We have a mortgage to Santander, 2nd secured loan to Firstplus and an interlocking IVA arrangement.

1st mortgage balance apprx 99k
2nd charge loan approx 54k
House todays value approx 105k

As you can see major negative equity, loan was taken out in 2005 120% ltv irresponsible lending maybe then again i suppose irresponsible borrowing, as an informal agreement between myself and ex husband I have been paying the first morg to Santander and IVA and he was responsible for Firstplus however, after a while i received a phonecall advising me the loan was in 7mths arrears. I immediately sought advice from Shelter who advised me to apply for Mortgage Rescue.

With that in mind we wrote to both lenders with rough figures to gain their agreements in principle, BOTH lenders agreed in principle to the MRS going ahead but both required me to fill in shortfall applications, there is also a potential buyer for the property the MRS was approved pending lenders agreement.

On completion of Santanders application they agreed and also agreeing that 27k of shortfall debt could be written in our IVA, Firstplus on other hand rejected the shortfall application based not the fact they would stand to lose 100% of their loan but affordability and the property valuations. They stated that jointly between myself and ex husband the affordability was there to pay the 2 liabilities. This was a complete shock to both myself and adviser at shelter who did my Financial Statements as both mine adn ex husbands were both - at end of the month, on questioning why it came to light that Firstplus had in fact manipulated figures by removing their loan repayments making it look like we had the funds to repay them all.

After challenging this they finally took responsibility and amended the figures, but still maintained that the valuations that had been given were too low, which again were all done properly and Santander even sent one out for themselves and agreed with the price given by the Local Authority, needless to say Firstplus have never sent anyone out to value the property just gone on Zoopla and the likes and said under a repossesion the property would fetch 100k even when full market value would probably fetch 105k, this being totally pointless also as even if/when repossesed they wouldnt get much of a return.

I have since this written to the Commercial Director to try and get him to overturn the decision as i now need to be able to stand independent of my ex husband, he has no interest in this property as hes moved on and so getting him to commit or even afford to help is pointless, the case has now been sent to the FOS for him to look at as i feel very trapped that in any eventuality Firstplus stand to gain and i stand to lose my home.

I am now in court at the end of the month and very interested in the possible outcome, in answer to your question yes the loan is in approx £5500 arrears but i cannot commit to repaying anything as i would be lieing to myself and Firstplus, my ex partner wont commit either and it would be pointless in Firstplus seeking possesion as it wouldnt benefit them financially so we are at stale mate really.

What if any advice of the possible outcome would be really grateful, as far as im aware on reading my paperwork there is no indemnity insurance/higher lending fees mentioned.

Any advice would be great as i am becoming quite worried as i have adverse credit and so getting myself somewhere to rent is going to prove difficult also.

THanks

[Halifax71]

Re: Firstplus Barclays repossesion actio

For info, a recent court judgement found that FirstPlus' Clause 7 (the variation clause with the inferred link to FHBR) was unfair under 5(1) of the UTCCR. The ruling reverted the loan to a fixed rate as at inception.

Firstplus have not appealed the decision as of yet - probably for fear of making it precedent setting, but anyone who is up for repossesion should make reference to it. Details on the Firstplus complaints website.

Our merry band of complainers on our own site have formally asked the OFT / FCA what they intend to do about it as the same clause is in another 50,000+ loan contracts. In my case for example it would reduce my repayments by £8,000, so if i'm typical then to revert all to fixed would cost them £400m.

In my mind, if it can be ruled unfair for all, then under contra proferentum (the clause would presumably be deemed ambiguous by default) then the basis going forward should be the one that benefits the customer best, i.e. a tracker.

We'll see what the OFT have to say anyway - not got much hope with them, they're still withholding the reasons for the 2010 reprimand as the details would harm Firstplus. Shocking - fingers crossed the FCA have more teeth / competence.

[Halifax71]

Re: Firstplus Barclays repossesion actio

Back in December I wrote to Firstplus regarding this. Their reply, amongst other things, was ""the presiding judge did not find that Firstplus had breached any regulations".

Now I know for a fact that the wording in court was
"this clause does heavily favour the lender. It creates a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations, and it is clearly to the detriment of the consumer. Sofor those reasons I have concluded that it is unfair within regulation 5.1."

I'm still waiting for Firstplus' clarification as to what they meant by this. Does anyone know if breaches of 5.1 do not constitute a regulation breach?

[Amethyst]

Re: Firstplus Barclays repossesion actio

Might be an idea to start dedicated thread on the cc ruling last year and subsequent actions and link to the FP group

Unfair Terms

5. (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

[Halifax71]

Re: Firstplus Barclays repossesion actio

Might do Amethyst - will wait until I get my decision from the PHSO as I'll know where I stand then. I'm also still bound by privacy whilst that continues.

Re the above I got a reply from Firstplus

Firstplus say the judge found: -

· "the clause to be in plain intelligible language" - I accept that, although don't agree.

· "the clause gives reasons for a variation (*in line with FSA guidance in force at the time)". They omit the fact that the judge said, in the same sentence "in my judgment they are very widely drafted." This gives the statement an entirely different context. *The "in line with FSA guidance in force at the time" was not quoted by the judge.

· "the clause provides a form of built in protection for customers." Again they omit the fact that the judge said, again in the same sentence , "but in my judgment it is of a limited nature." Once again this gives the statement an entirely different context.

· They apologise for "not making it entirely clear" in their December letter. In that letter Firstplus stated "the presiding judge did not find that Firstplus had breached any regulations." I'm not sure how clearer they could have been.

· Finally they say "the relevant interest rate variation clause has not been changed or altered by the county court decision." It's unclear what is meant by this. The ruling states that the clause is not longer binding on the party. The only reason it is still in force for other customers is due to the judgement not being precedent setting.

In my opinion this reply is intentionally deceptive. Worthwhile enquiry as it adds to my evidence