Reprosessoon and sale house by bank

crossmolinalad

Question about a reprosession of a house
Someone says he bought a house from the bank but the owner knows nothing about a court case or reprosession by the bank
Is that possible the bank selling a property without informing the owner who is behind with his/her payment's
Thought owner had to go to court before the bank could sel anything
Next door is telling everyone he bought it from the bank , took out all of the possessions of the owner and burned it and totally destroyed the house

ohnonotgmail

No, it is not possible. How are they supposed to have removed the owners possessions without them noticing?

nuac

Mod
Owner of next door should consult a solicitor
Leaving open for general discussion subject to forum rules

4ensic15

A receiver can be appointed to a house which is not a family home. It is possible that a receiver was appointed and sold the house. There would be no court case and the owner mightn't know.

Peregrinus

4ensic15 wrote: »

A receiver can be appointed to a house which is not a family home. It is possible that a receiver was appointed and sold the house. There would be no court case and the owner mightn't know.

The owner would at a minimum know that a receiver had been appointed, surely?

4ensic15

Peregrinus wrote: »

The owner would at a minimum know that a receiver had been appointed, surely?

A demand for payment would be posted to the owner and a copy of the deed of appointment. The owner may well have moved to another address and not receive the letters. Not a frequent occurrence but possible with multiple property owners who have high debts and are ducking creditors. If their buy-to-lets are in arrears they are likely to have many other unpaid creditors and may be making themselves scarce by moving around.

Peregrinus

Right. So it's plausible that somebody who is deliberately avoiding contact with the bank might manage to avoid knowing that property which he has mortgaged to the bank has a receiver appointed over it, and is sold by the receiver.

So the owner could, strictly truthfully, say that he :"knows nothing about a court case or reprosession by the bank", but probably ought to clarify that this is because he has gone out of his way to remain ignorant of steps taken by the bank.

4ensic15

Peregrinus wrote: »

Right. So it's plausible that somebody who is deliberately avoiding contact with the bank might manage to avoid knowing that property which he has mortgaged to the bank has a receiver appointed over it, and is sold by the receiver.

So the owner could, strictly truthfully, say that he :"knows nothing about a court case or reprosession by the bank", but probably ought to clarify that this is because he has gone out of his way to remain ignorant of steps taken by the bank.

The owner would clearly know that he had mortgaged the property and that he was in arrears. He would also know that the bank did not have an up to date address for him. The lack of knowledge of the receivership is definitely of his own doing.

Peregrinus

crossmolinalad wrote: »

. . . Next door is telling everyone he bought it from the bank , took out all of the possessions of the owner and burned it and totally destroyed the house

This bit puzzles me. Why would somebody pay good money to buy a house only in order to burn it down?

And, since we're in the legal forum: burning down the house or otherwise destroying it to the point where it is uninhabitable would be a change of user requring planning permission.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

Right. So it's plausible that somebody who is deliberately avoiding contact with the bank might manage to avoid knowing that property which he has mortgaged to the bank has a receiver appointed over it, and is sold by the receiver.

they might not be deliberately avoiding - they might be ill, in prison, etc.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, since we're in the legal forum: burning down the house or otherwise destroying it to the point where it is uninhabitable would be a change of user requring planning permission.

You may find it difficult to obtain planning permission to demolish a house by burning. It's to be noted that changing the use of, substantially altering or demolishing residential property needs planning permission.

Demolishing certain, small non-residential property doesn't need planning permission.

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

they might not be deliberately avoiding - they might be ill, in prison, etc.

Those circumstances might make it difficult for them to deal with the bank but, short of being in an actual coma, they're unlikely to result in the borrower not knowing what is happening. (Indeed, come to think of it, if he's in prison that makes it easier for the bank to find him and send him notices, not harder.)

Victor wrote: »

You may find it difficult to obtain planning permission to demolish a house by burning.

Damn. Another plan foiled.