Help and advice please (Mortgage)

Hi John

I doubt it because a standard part of the process is for the lender to place a restriction (ie the property can't be sold without the lenders permission, which won't be granted until the mortgage is paid off) on the whole property. Why should the other 2 owners accept this ? Until the estate is settled you will not be registered at the Land Registry (the central register of property for all land transactions over the past few years) as owner.

Yet more links so that you have an idea of what's going on ! -

It should appear on the LR list once it's been re-registered. It can be registered to the executor as trustee and then on the beneficiaries, or straight to the beneficiaries. It only costs £2 so check what the current status is.

If you're not registered, to protect you interest it would be a good idea to place a Unilateral Notice (See Section 3) on the property. Cost about £40 - call them to check. Form UN1 . This means that the property can't easily be sold without you being kept fully informed of what's going on and the sale price. You may be called upon to prove your eligibility once the notice is in place, so a copy of the will would be good. Getting it might be the difficulty !

You won't get one without income. They generally lend 4 times your annual salary. Read the onward links from here - and post again once you know the basics.

hth

Daytona

No - but as I have told you before you could rent somewhere in the meantime. You would likely get a small loan of 1-2k to tide you over in rental for a few months.

Is this the value of your share or of the whole house? I take it the house is un mortgaged.

I don't think they will bore us, we thrive on gossip. They will probably help us understand your position better, because frankly what you're saying is so mixed up that it's apt to be misunderstood. Not knowing anything abount mortgages, as you admit, is OK, but not knowing the difference between lend and borrow is a bit more serious.

The trouble here is that you are using the word "secure" in what I think is a naive and innocent way, unaware that it is a technical term. A mortgage, you see, is an instrument for securing a loan against a property. Saying what you did, makes it sound like you want to secure a loan against the old house, borrowing against its equity. No, you can't do that without the co-owners consenting, and it would be a daft thing to do with the house about to be sold.

Yes of course you could. Provided your income is enough to justify that size of loan, and provided you don't go for a discount deal which ties you into an early redemption penalty, then there is no problem with borrowing 100k and reducing the loan to 30-50k after just a few months -- if that's what you mean.

But you would have more and better options if you could time the purchase to coincide with, or happen after, the sale, since then you'd only need to borrow 30-50k. Also, as you would not be borrowing 100% of the value, there are better deals available.

So there are three of you owning equal shares, the other two don't live there, but you do, presumably having looked after your mother who was also living there. You don't really want to move out, at least not in a hurry, but they either want to sell and get their hands on their shares of the cash, or they want to move in and buy you out, and are basically "outvoting" you because it's two against one.

Hmm. If they just want the money, and if you think you can afford a £100k loan, what if you offered to buy them out? Getting a £100k loan secured against a £150k house would be a bit easier than a £100k loan against a £100k house -- assuming, of course, your income will support so high a loan. This could buy you some time, too, if you wanted to trade down from a £150k house with a £100 loan to a £100k house with a £50k loan at a later stage.

Thank god for people who don't snip

John, why do you have X-No-Archive set ?

Daytona

Serves me right for not reading uk.legal any more. :-(

Daytona wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Hello again! :)

I see.

Will do, didnt someone say that if I was on the deeds then I could say here?

I know for a fact that my house isnt registered.

I am forever in your debt!

John

"Zoe Brown" wrote in news:clu4ig$a10$ snipped-for-privacy@titan.btinternet.com:

According to the solicitor he is happy for me to stay here until the house is sold and then I can move like normal people do (however that is).

John

Ronald Raygun wrote in news:1Fxgd.2186$ snipped-for-privacy@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:

Let me first explain. When I originally posted I was under the impression that I was to be evicted from my home but this seems to be not the case for now, I guess as long as I am happy for them to sell my home. So at least for now the panic is over and I should be able to approach this in a normal way.

Frankly, I havent the foggiest idea about lending money or mortgages. Someone could tell me anything and I wouldnt know right from wrong.

On the nail!

Im only working part time right now but I am desperately trying to get a full time job. I earn 90 pw so a mortgage is out of the question. I can earn in the short term about 13,000 to 15,000 per year if I get a full time job, so again my guess is that I am going to be limited on the size of the loan I can get (??).

Many thanks

John

For rent, which would be best - find somewhere, sign contracts, give yourself a few days overlap to move, then move.

Daytona (Landlord & tenant, not a lawyer)

Yes, I did, because that makes you an owner.

I believe the property will be added to the Land Registry because of the change of registration from your mother to the executor/s that has been granted probate. Call the LR & ask what happens to previously unregistered property when ownership is transferred under probate -

Daytona

Well I have rented for years...normal people do rent.

Daytona wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Hi Daytona

I thought it was the correct thing to do??

John

Its the irrelevant thing to do.

It is if you wish to prevent usenet archives such as Google Groups storing and making your posts available for posterity. On this occasion it meant I couldn't give Ronald a direct link to your post. Luckily someone had repeated it and I posted a link to their post instead. I thought I'd ask in case you didn't realise it was set.

Daytona

As long as no one else replies to your post. If they do (and dont snip your text), then it will be archived anyway within the subsequent message.

Daytona wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Now you mean?

I havent got even close to enough income to rent but if I get a FT job, I should be okay then.

Thanks

John

"Zoe Brown" wrote in news:cm0hed$k4k$ snipped-for-privacy@hercules.btinternet.com:

I didnt mean it to sound like you took it. What I meant was, I would be able to move out and move in to another house in the same way other people do, as apposed to being evicted by bailiffs on to the street and then having to find a house.

Is renting a good idea? Surely it would be wiser to just pay the money towards a mortgage? Again, I know very little about things like this, but surely if you had to pay 400 per month rent, you could buy a house for that? I was considering buying a small holding, sorry renting a small holding. I know a lot about the countryside and my idea was to produce 100% organic and animal friendly produce. However renting even the smallest place was like 700 per month.

John

This depends. I am buying a house next week. In actuall fact the interest on my mortgage is about the same as it would cost to rent. I will have an investment though - but it has taken me 10 years to save.

You would get housing benefit - again you have already been told this.