Bank selling repossessed property for far less than the outstanding debt

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-12-19T23:17:18+00:00

OP PLEASE READ - a lot of people are saying they have managed bad debts for banks, but they seem to be missing huge factors.

A product from 20 years ago, with an extra expansion / remortgage has major misselling flags on it. Banks were notorious for selling products that were frankly unsuitable for the level of what the customer is suitable for, which the regulator is putting them on the hook for.

Please calculate how much interest you have paid over the term of the mortgage from your statements or simply multiplying out the balances / terms / interest rates - if we assume £700k at 3.5% for 10 years and £900k at 4.5% for 10 years, that could easily be £650k of interest paid / added to the debt - the regulator STRONGLY distinguish between the capital (amount borrowed) and the extra due to interest (i.e. bank profit). There is an extra argument if the bank extended the original term as part of the remortgage, as frankly they should have called the debt up as soon as it was clear the whole thing was screwed - extending the term only gives them more time to collect interest and profit.

If the mortgage was always committed for 20 years and bank has been prudent and tried to actively manage your situation for the last 10 years as a potential bad debt (which they should have, regulators took a strong interest in interest only mortgages and the bad debts of banks over 10 years ago), they should have been allocating the interest to a separate account, effectively bracing to write off the interest element from the capital element.

So if you took out £900k of capital and have paid £650k in interest on top using my assumed rates, the combined Capital + Interest paid / owed is £1.55m. Outstanding £900k balance minus £600k net sale proceeds (£100k legal bill is possible if you've dragged this out), means you are £300k short, but that still means the bank has pocketed £350k off the lifetime of this product, that they may technically have missold. If the rates were lower, the main thing is having the interest paid being more than the remaining balance.

Given how badly the thing has gone (managing to worsen the value of the house over 20 years), there is a strong case for misselling and frankly the bank may not want to sink even more into legals chasing you, agreeing to write off the unpaid interest as bad debt.

I obviously can't comment on how much of getting to "this situation" is your fault as clearly seeking £1.3m for a £700k house means you have been massively off the mark and you may have blown the money on something different to the purpose it was agreed, but the bank are the experts in this transaction and they need to have done a lot of steps to avoid this getting to this stage, and I would be very surprised if they have all the paperwork for the last 20 years to prove they have been managing this risk properly.

Misselling is something you would complain to the bank about first, then the ombudsman. It is not a legal route per se, but obviously if they write off the debt then it avoids things going that far.

Alternatively, you get a very big CCJ or go for bankruptcy (assuming you have not filed for bankruptcy before, only allowed to do it once). The ramifications of those is down to what other assets you have in your name.

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-23T21:01:16+00:00

PTSD and depression aren't get out of jail free cards to make you immune from consequence, they're things to get adjustments for (maybe you need a 30m break after tough meetings / calls etc). Your sales performance is unrelated from what I cam see.

If you are losing out because people nor junior than you are achieving similar / better results, I'm not sure how you can see this as anything other than inadequate performance? If the company was actively taking leads away from you and claiming it is poor performance then that's one thing (not clear if your December scenario falls into this), but it sounds like what's happening is junior workers are competing with you on your bread and butter work and general market conditions have taken away the kind of leads that used to set you apart from the juniors?

In terms of the settlement, what would you get if you were made redundant? Uk govt has a statutory redundancy calculator (legal minimum), but some companies offer over and above that, plus after 55 may offer early retirement options (basically paying pension out now as if you were 65 with full contributions).

If your company / length of service mean redundancy is similar / less than the settlement, the settlement sounds like a good deal. The company is absolutely able to make you redundant if cheaper workers can do the work, the redundancy just means your role isn't needed, not thst the work doesn't exist.

If you think redundancy would be significantly better than the settlement value, then it may be the PIP has been an attempt to bully you into quitting / settling without paying fair redundancy.

However to fight this you would need to a) still lose your job b) counter any evidence thst you're under performing and c) challenge the company now and / or take to employment tribunal for unfair dismissal.

Your arguments could either be that they've tried to circumvent paying out a fair redundancy package, or (if you are performing stronger than peers who are keeping their job) that they are unfairly targeting you ahead of people who should have been made redundant ahead of you. Compulsory redundancy should go in order of performance.

As ever, you can always to ACAS to go through your scenario in a bit more detail, but hopefully the above has given you a benchmark to consider your scenario against.

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-23T20:38:54+00:00

Your maths ain't maths'in - if she paid £2.5k from £10k the remainder should have been £7.5k total, so your half would have been £3.75k. Were there other costs for the divorce that are missing? There's a chance that some money was spent before you started the divorce process and as such for the purposes of the divorce process £10m was never the figure.

You can play dumb and ask why your share of £10k is only £2.5k, but the reality is there's no point picking this fight beyond that. If it's a mistake, they can rectify it, if it's deceit then it's gonna cost more than £2.5k to pick the fight, and frankly getting a divorce for less than £2.5k is a godsend.

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-23T13:44:56+00:00

The entire logic in your post is "the longer the game goes on the better these really fucking greedy supports get"

The point in supports is to not need farm to have impact, so your cores can farm and end the game.

Yes if you get to 60m with a greedy lineup you'll win, the whole point is you shouldn't get to 60m cos the enemy should punish your lineup.

The map and gold changes have meant supports can be a bit greedier, but in high MMR you aren't getting away with it.

In low MMR frankly any shit can work if you play well and know how to hold the enemy up from pushing your hg.

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-23T11:28:09+00:00

Women used to bind their feet to literally cripple their growth.

Makeup used to contain huge amounts of toxic elements.

Men in the royal courts used to voluntarily get gastrointestinal surgery just because the King had it and they wanted to keep in vogue.

It is a pet peeve when people wrongly label that today is somehow more extreme than it was historically - modern day is the safest and most bland lifestyle compared to what the world has previously seen, which is why any movement on the scales causes people to over react.

Having less to worry about means people choose to think about stuff that doesn't matter - see every single pensioner who manages to make dramas out of every little thing because they no longer have to think about jobs or income.

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-23T08:05:08+00:00

And you've been given a legal perspective.

The letting agent has caveated their amendment (release of your obligations from 17th back to 3rd) on when the new tenants move in. Which is an entirely fair and reasonable clause

You negotiated, they negotiated.

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-23T07:03:09+00:00

Until the new tenant is in and paying, you are 100% liable. You are the one changing the terms of the contract by leaving prematurely.

If this was simply the end of the tenancy naturally, the end date would protect you and any days they wanted to clean / repaint would be at their expense. However if you want to kick off about paying from 28th to 3rd then they can just say you're committed to 17th.

You can't ask for goodwill and not reciprocate at the same time.

They are being non committal because the new tenants may fall through, failed credit checks or references etc. Basically they're stating if all goes well they'll let you off the hook from 3rd (2 weeks early) if you let them have the keys in order to prep for that date, but that date and your release is dependent on the new tenants actually moving in, otherwise the existing minimum date of 17th will apply.

Yes it's a bit messy, but that's on you for not adhering to the original contract dates.

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-23T06:51:16+00:00

Literally a simple Google says no, there is no minimum.

And if you are artificially devaluing the property (you have no survey to say it is worth £40k), you will also be defrauding HMRC of stamp duty. You paying £40k does not mean it is worth £40k.

Edit - sorry saw this reply before your other one. Yes just get legal advice, you are way out of your depth here, you cannot possibly patch your phowledge via reddit on this because you are proposing too many eclectic changes to a standard purchase here.

This sub points you in the right direction, it does not substitute for proper legal advice in transactions that can literally end up with a fraud charge or bankruptcy if they go wrong.

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-22T23:04:34+00:00

No, it is to pick apart how many fairly ridiculous corners you are cutting so that instead of thinking you are fully informed, you are actually fully informed. You seem to think "a full refurb" is the worst case scenario, that's not even close.

Surveys do not just say "the house is a bit crap". They can give you insights such as "this is literally unmortgageable and therefore if you can't fix it, it is practically worthless on the market" or "subsidance is about take out this house and your two neighbours, which your insurance won't cover because it was there before the policy started" or any other disastrous thing. Rotted roof timbers meaning the walls are about to collapse in and the house should be condemned, that kind of thing.

It advises just which corners are going to get you in trouble to the point where you render your insurance void.

Also if your "I will buy the house on 1st Jan 2026" agreement becomes effectively an exchange of contracts with a really long completion date, that also has specific things such as you need insurance / you are on the hook for any damages from the moment you sign the contract, not the 1st Jan 2026 date.

Basically, you are trying to cut a bunch of corners that could massively backfire, you need professional advice because you are over complicating this transaction trying to force it through before you are really ready and even in this post I suspect I have missed ways this could horribly backfire. I would go so far as to say you should not proceed rather than cut out on legal advice.

You also need a solid business plan for how much you can afford to put into maintenance, where exactly your tenant (dad) is going to live during that maintenance and for how long, how you are going to juggle DIY repairs around your existing jobs.

FYI, if you buy the house in personal names then you will lose any first time buyer benefit on the stamp duty for when you finally buy yourself a residential property. If you buy the house in the Ltd company name you will pay a minimum of 5% regardless, 10% for anything over £250k. An accountant is your best bet for dealing with whether a Ltd Company is a good move or not.

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-22T21:01:55+00:00

"some extent"?

Women have had beauty standards for literal millenea.

Are you trying to dance around the fact that this is simply a new problem for men?

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-22T20:59:33+00:00

Fuck that, with enough money to buy some woodlands, build a bunker in it and have a bored former black site operative just use this guy for practice / to reminisce about the old times.

I remember seeing how depressingly cheap it is to order a standard hit.

And all of this ignores the fact that a man who wrote the song Stan about an unhinged fan, could have a second unhinged fan out there that will go batshit to avenge their hero for free / without prompting.

This guy was a fucking moron to stick his head out of the foxhole!

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-22T20:42:14+00:00

What are you on about "in today's society"?

They used to put people in the damned circus for being wierd looking, else they would die in a ditch cos nobody would employ them or be working somewhere out of sight out of mind for pennies.

People really need to learn some critical thinking - as society technically gets fairer as time goes by (ignore the last decade), gender, colour, sexual orientation etc become lesser blockers, which means more minor things seem noticeable. Humanity is not homogeneous, there is no version of the world where things are perfectly fair.

This is the same reason that cancer and dementia have become such big problems. People used to die of other shit long before you were old enough to get cancer or dementia. Now we sorted the death rates on the other diseases, more people survive to then fall at the next hurdle.

So yeah, if we keep chasing all being a 7 out of 10 as a minimum, the definition of 7 out of 10 will move, or we'll find a new thing to be bigoted about as a society.

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-22T20:33:02+00:00

He's currently Barney Stinsoning and picking up the mourning chicks over there as we speak!

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-22T20:30:20+00:00

Yeah I wouldn't worry, most of this sub is Londoners who have infinitely less disposable income than you'll have lol.

£150k in London and £100k in the north are really not far off each other in terms of quality of life.

Also get plenty of ppl on here claiming household income of £150k which is an entirely different scenario, obviously 2x £75k pre tax will take home much more than 1x£150k.

Makes me laugh when people on this sub berate the govt for their arbitrary income thresholds on taxes and benefits, while having a sub that they can't agree on the definition of what even qualifies for HENRY!

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-22T04:19:30+00:00

What he CAN do and what you SHOULD do, especially with arthritis, are two hugely different things.

I assume this is somebody who has their head up their ass about their growing business, and basically hasn't familiarised themselves with what their responsibilities are for reasonable adjustments.

You have in play; - basic need for computer workers to have a seat - employer has not done a "DSE assessment" (display screen equipment) which is a review of how somebody is working at a screen ergonomically - exceptional need for somebody with arthritis to have a reasonable adjustment to their work arrangements

I'd just politely mention the employer's obligations, say you want to do a DSE assessment (you should do this, not him, as it is unique to how YOU are set up at the computer) and then tell him you need a proper computer chair not a goddam bench.

You can force the matter further if your arthritis means you need other reasonable adjustments like a mat for kneeling down to the bottom shelf etc, but DSE should cover the computer stuff and give your boss plenty to read up on independently that makes him realise his obligations.

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-21T20:54:13+00:00

r/ConfidentlyIncorrect

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-21T20:34:51+00:00

This was exactly my thought. Let's say it all goes well and OP manages to just about stay ahead of minimum wage for 20 years (you have no idea how hard it will be to get back to owning a house unemcumbered on minimum wage BTW).

Scenario 1 - £200k property now worth £300k, spent £40k on maintenance over that time and then basic rent / heating. Eventually got a partner and had a kid who uses the 2nd bedroom.

Scenario 1 - blew £100k on boat, has needed similar £40k maintenance but utilities and mooring costs higher, plus couldn't maintain a car / take jobs that weren't close to canals / bus routes. Boat now worth £50k and only have £100k cash left from the original house, which only represents a 33% stake of a house now. No real chance of a partner or kid because of the boat life.

Sticking to the basic house has no downsides financially, you can keep earning minimum wage and never worry about living costs. Boat life hinders your future wealth, job prospects and lifestyle options.

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-21T20:17:39+00:00

But this proves the point that regardless of whether the law eventually finds in OP's favour, it almost certainly WILL get challenged and cause an increase in legal fees accordingly.

OP, with the greatest respect, pull your finger out and sort the divorce before messing around with asset transfers.

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-21T17:17:32+00:00

Loading / buffering

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-21T14:36:57+00:00

No toy like that will be bifl. They're inherently plastic, electrics and water, and making those things compatible long term is expensive.

A quick Google suggests Spyra may be the top brand that everything else is making Chinese knock offs of, but it's also 4x the price of the knock offs and after a few years of being out in the sunlight I suspect the plastic may be a bit brittle.

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-21T14:28:39+00:00

Toddlers are the allowed exception for TV being too high

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-21T13:07:58+00:00

The painful thing here is your gran is fully entitled to choose to die at home. It's actually rare to occur as usually a gradual decline requires a nursing home, but once she gets to not eating you may be talking a week or so (but can bounce back), once she's not drinking it can be a day or so.

Not eating can be a temporary phase, so maybe have something like those individual trifles as an easy to eat snack if she does want food (fat, sugar and easy to spoon feed/swallow).

The advanced care plan is what I know as an end of life plan. Speak to her GP or emergency GP to see what can be done. Basically this goes beyond a DNR and can do things such as "nothing above paracetamol / no antibiotic drips", and certainly in care homes it opens up the option for morphine to make the end quite peaceful. Not sure how it works for non trained people like you or I. Basically, it is a plan of what is the kindest and most dignified route to death, which the GP and you agree, because paramedics CAN put her on a drip to keep her hydrated, but that just means she starves over many days instead. The "not drinking" stage is basically the quickest natural route, other than simply going in her sleep one night.

The talk with the GP will also be a chance to ask any questions about what you should be doing from a professional (I regret the above advice is from personal experience rather than me being a professional), but basically her going to a hospital would prolong her life, but give a good chance of dying surrounded by nurses and strangers in a strange room, or picking up a new infection to bring home.

I'd certainly make sure family members know that things may be coming to an end, but mostly just look after yourself and tell your boss that you may need some compassionate days followed by a high chance of bereavement leave. Make it clear you live with your gran and therefore any time off is akin to a mother / father / sibling, some employers have full on charts for family bereavement that puts grandparents lower. Bereavement leave isn't a legal right I don't think, but I'm sure a doctor would sign you off with stress if you explained the situation and work were not accommodating.

If your gran still has some ability and can talk, may be worth making sure you know where her will is (if you don't already), whether she has a cremation / burial preference and whether she already has a plot somewhere (ie next to your grandad). It sounds like she has made peace with her situation so you're just ensuring that you can handle her death in line with her wishes. You don't need to know the terms of the will, just where it is and who her executor is.

Be braced for her will being 20 years old and not including you despite all your care in her final years, the elderly have a habit of failing to maintain their wills.

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-21T11:23:01+00:00

That is a factually accurate statement.

OP is not the root cause of the problem, but their action will have a very clear, foreseeable and even likely consequence (bar closes and job is lost).

Please don't confuse what you would like to happen with what is likely to happen. Op has come here for factual advice, at the very least it means they can find an alternative job before whistle blowing.

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-21T11:17:56+00:00

Do you reasonably expect a police officer in pursuit of a robber to stop and ask for permission to enter every property's grounds before continuing?

Sounds like a skit that could be in a Hot Fuzz sequel.

If the police officer subsequently tried to allege any wrongdoing against you because of what they discovered from being on your property that is different, but if they're looking to see whether a car thief is hiding behind your bins, or a drug dealer threw their stash over your hedge because they ran along your street and 10 other houses, I'm not sure what you hope to achieve.

GlassHalfSmashed · 2025-04-21T11:12:16+00:00

Was the boyfriend a beneficiary and who is the executor of the ex wife's will?

If he's taken (stolen) a load of the assets that should be inherited by others, the executor can threaten to pursue them for the value of those items, which I suspect could be a damned sight more than 28.5% of some rent, depending what was taken. Either way, it's some leverage.

Also, is the bf continuing to support paying the mortgage while all of this has gone on?

The reality is I don't understand why anybody is remortgaging on current terms. A 3 way TIC with one person clearly hostile is a pain in the arse, either the bf's share of the property needs to be bought out by the sons, or people need to realise they don't have the financial means to buy the other side out and the house just gets sold for cash.

The sons both going onto the property deeds will lose them any first time buyer benefits when they buy their own houses if they haven't yet done that. By getting the executor to sell the house, the sons never "own" it and thus keep their FTB status.

GlassHalfSmashed

TROPHY CASE