I have recently tried to buy a property in Wales that was being repossessed. It had an older couple who had fallen on hard times following the loss of the job of the main breadwinner.  They did not receive the correct advice about signing on and Housing Benefit and therefore, as they do, the bills mounted and unable to cope it all went wrong.

They struggled to juggle the balls but simply failed  and were due to be evicted, I made an offer which was around the market price albeit £30,000 less than they bought it for.  I had agreed with them that they could stay on as tenants as it had been their family home and I would hate to see them moved on.. needless to say they were over the moon.

The purchase offer was put forward to Santander and  after consideration about previous offers time on the market etc: they accepted that the offer was the best they would get, Santander agreed and also agreed with the owner (soon to be our tenant), they could pay them the short fall over a few years . It made sense all round – the owners would not be evicted, we would not have another homeless family and the lenders would know where they were to collect back payments rather than lose the lot.

All was good until!!

The holder of the second charge with a less sensible company who are owed £15,000 have said (even though they know the house will not sell for anymore and agreed the price in the first place) that they will not now agree to the sale as it is not covering their charge.  So as they have no real power over the sale buy the first charge after repossession they still want the owners evicted. Why? 

This means that Santander will now need to go through the process of eviction and then offer the house out onto the open market which will achieve £10,000 less than my offer!!!  I will not pay what I had agreed with the family that I wanted to help by keeping them in their home!!!  The company with the second charge will get nothing!!!  AND another family will be set out onto the streets!!!

Where is this Country really going when things like this can go on and logic and reason have been put aside in favour of spite and unreasonableness?  I understand that we all want our money but this is not right as the actions of the second lender seem to be nothing more than just truly spiteful and perhaps they should not lend at such high rates to high risks if they cannot take the tablet. Please tell me if anyone knows of a case where people such as this can go back in front of the judge and show that the proprietor of the Second charge is acting unreasonably and therefore keep their home by securing the sale as agreed?

Hi Richard,

Spot on – this is what we have told the vendor to do. They have not even got a solicitor so we told them to see if they can get one on legal aid as it is a housing issue. We can prove it is the best and nearly only offer in 6 months of marketing and they have the first charge holders agreement to the sale.  All the purchase money is with the solicitors so all we need is a good judge on the day which, fingers crossed, they will get.

I know it may seem funny that we are defending them but the truth is, as with some tenants who fall into arrears through just being silly and not knowing the system, you need to help them to get straight and to help them with the least pain inflicted upon them and their families and as eviction benefits no one, to me, it is futile and very wrong and in this case, totally unnecessary. 

Thanks for your post it is nice to have a "legal beagle's" point of view. 

Hi Paul,

That,s the point of us buying it before the eviction, we would create a sale at a higher price than they will get after an eviction and allow the owner to become the tenant without them going into a hostel or B&B paid for by the Council and splitting up the family.

It is far more logical for the lenders and the vendors to take this route before an eviction for a long term all around safer resolve but maybe the problem is right there. It is far to logical :-(