Forfeiture of 999 year lease by freeholdergreenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread
In 1988 I purchased a 999 year lease on an appartment for #125,000,mortgaged to Abbey National.Due to arrears Abbey repossessed in August 1991 and in October 91 the freeholder kicked in the door and forfeited the lease for rent arrears of #108.68.Abbey never marketed the property and settled with the freeholder in 1995,they never regained possession.They were paid #113,000 and at that time were owed #250,000.They are keen to end matters with myself and want me to sign to say that I won`t pursue them and they won`t pursue me.So far I have resisted the property is now worth #240,000 and the freeholder is keen to sell but I have managed to block their efforts.I have been to court many times and the Judge always seems to side with the freeholder the upshot being that if I owed only one penny in rent he would say that entry by the freeholder was legal.I welcome your views.....Many thanks,I wish I had discovered your brilliant web site sooner.
-- John Haynes (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 10, 2000
Sorry that nobody has responded on the forum to you as yet but because of the high profile media attention that mortgage shortfall victims are getting, this site is much busier than normal, which shows what the true situation regarding repossessions really is in the UK.
Your case is a tricky one, with it involving leasehold, so I'm guessing that you may have received some response via private Email already. Anyway I suggest that the the main issue here is the one that definitely matters most to the repossessed but one that seems to matter least to the lender: the valuation, marketing and phases of the process.
In my opinion, the major lenders such as the ABBEY NATIONAL and the HALIFAX PLC adopt a carefree attitude to selling repossessed properties. I wonder if the managers that monitor these sales have any integrity. In my view, if they did, these practices would not occur. Then again what's the old saying; "Those that can, do. Those that can't end up working for.....".
We have have experienced the same type of blindness to imposed misery throughout history. You only have to look at events in the Balkans to appreciate the utter ignorance of those with some power over others, when confronted with the truth they blindly carry on, because it's the only thing they know how to do!
I now believe that those amongst us that have no sense of justice cannot be changed (They would not be employed in those positions otherwise), but we CAN impose justice upon them.
Anyway, enough pontificating and moralising, most of which would go WAY above heads selectively recruited - in my opinion - on the basis of lack of a moral conscience. Let's get back to the problem. It seems very much that it should be covered by the cae law of Skipton Building Society -v- Stott, in that there was a special interest in the property which should have concluded in an increased sale price.
Whatever you do - READ ALL this web site thoroughly, the information within it can be used so that you can help yourself.
I wish you all the best in your fight!
-- Tony Hayter (Tony@Hayter.com), October 06, 2000.