Repurchase / repossession - advice needed

Are your properties being repossessed by the Bank?

After recent Court decission by the European Court, possibilities to oppose an enforcement procedure if the anticipated maturity clause was included in your Notary deeds are much higher

Also, depending on value given to the property for auctions, a settlement with the Bank is possible. There are also other abusive clauses playing now much in your favour if a repossession is started

https://www.costaluzlawyers.es/2019/04/04/new-cjeu-sentence-to-favour-mortgage-holders-in-spain/

https://www.costaluzlawyers.es/2018/10/19/european-union-comission-on-irph-clause/

If the Land Regustry in Spain bans the registering of any differential between residential and B2L mortgages that certainly answers a number of the assumptions previously made on here.

As a matter of fact, Land Registrars reject the clause on rental banning that many Banks add to their clauses in mortgage deeds as they consider them against our Mortgage Act

As johnzx and MARIA posted previously, there are laws that exist to protect the rights of both sides.

The biggest problem in Spain and possibly other countries is enforcing these laws IF someone wishes to ignore them completely.

This is where Brian is correct, eventually, after much time, effort and money a little common sense may prevail IF a judge receives the correct message, a long drawn out process, I might add, but as MARIA and I have both suggested, currently in Spain the tenant receives a lot of rights IF someone tries to evict them.

Perhaps rent through a recognised tenant association body, have their tenancy agreement overseen by a solicitor, carry out background checks, that sort of thing.

But dont see any way it can be guaranteed safe.

How can an honest prospective long term tenant avoid getting into this situation?.

And once duped into it what rights and security does he have?.

Yes Hugh, I agree with you.

Sometimes it's hard to see where fraud exists though.  The investor buying the house would say they had the intention of providing a service (if only the market hadnt changed!).

The bank will say they were facilitating the service by lending on a small return to an investor with a business plan.

We and the tenant will say that there was not enough real expertise put into it to make sure it was a sound business plan that would stand the test of time.

So in all that 'mess', the court would have to decide what laws apply to protect the parties losing money and houses, and that costs a lot of money to decide.   You have to balance the ongoing cost as a 'throwing good money after bad' scenario and form your own judgement.

The bank may find it less messy to keep a tenant in a property if its not going to sell quickly, to look after it maybe?  The tenant would have to think about getting services at the property without a legal tenancy agreement perhaps (or just keep stumpf).

If I were the tenant in this situation I would salvage what I could from the wreckage and use the time to find another suitable place as quickly as I could?

Oh....and learn from the experience, dont trust to luck and cheap offers.

Yes Brian

i think we do have general agreement and in some countries time is of the essence, but what Kavanagh suggests is true.

What is considered almost fraud in some countries is considered normal practice in others such as Spain, where U.K. rules and ideals most certainly don’t apply.

I think windtalker will find that the U.K. banking industry was also bailed out by the tax payer, banks generally are currently greedy and not efficient.

windtalker still seems not to understand that a 5 year rental contract was provided by a dodgy landlord who speculatively purchased a number of apartments then defaulted on the mortgage as they realised they could not afford them, but they pocketed 5 yearvrent anyway.

Yes banks were stupid to lend on speculative purchases and rental properties in 2006/7 but that is with a certain amount of hindsight now.

The Spanish Banking industry .was bailed out ..with a  35 Billion Euro  EU hand out ..paid for in part by the UK Tax payer.

Now back to 5 year tenancies ...who on earth would give someone a mortgage on a property ...that did not have a clause in the contract that said no subletting without the permission of the lenders....what mortgage company could afford to wait 5 years for a none paying tenant to move out ...what loonie /shareholder  would agree to this type of mortgage...being granted... Doe's this screwball reckless lending only go on in Spain or what.

Yes Brian we do.

What you describe is correct but different countries and their justice system (or lack of one) will view this differently. In some countries nobody cares and a blind eye is turned, in stricter countries this is fraud and you would be dealt with accordingly.

Ok back to basics!  

We are not in the UK, we are in Spain.

In some cases you would need to know the motive of a property owner granting a long term tenancy and then defaulting on the mortgage in Spain. If you continue to have your UK head on and keep quoting the rights and wrongs of the UK you will never work it out.  

it’s not too hard to work out, it’s capitalism at a raw example.   One person uses their capital or borrowing ability to buy property and then rents out to a second person at a maximum return.  When that first person has gained maximum revenue, they turn their back on what’s fair or equitable.  

As a social landlord or a lawful tenancy the rights of the tenant are protected.   It doesn’t really matter which country is the point of the discussion, the first person has broken the law and abdicated responsibility.  

The tenant is no longer then secure and a lengthy legal wrangle may ensue, wasting both time and money an awaiting the inevitable outcome, they will have to leave sooner or a little later.  

Have we a meeting of minds on that so far perhaps?

Clearly windtalker you are immuned from being banned, that’s why you continue to post your insults and abuse.

Windtalker

If you think the UK Banking industry is professional, I think you must be on a different planet.

Granted the Spanish banking industry is even less efficient but it was NOT a Bank who granted a 5 year rental agreement.

Mortgages taken out in 2006 and prior to Crisis took no account of whether an apartment was lived in or rented for a start, so forget B2L, they did not exist.

The properties I be described were bought as speculation and the buyer, a corporate from Madrid got its fingers burnt as it knew not what to as it cohkd not afford 10 mortgages.

Eventualky they found a slightly dodgy agent to rent out the propoerties on long let, cash up front.

Nice for all concerned, except of course for the slow moving inefficient Spanish Bank who realised they were not receiving any mortgage payments.

By the time they repossessed as no other assets available, many of the long term tenants were happily in place and the bank could do little about them.

Even more strange is that the bank then apparently renewed some of the rentals at similar low rents, just to get some income and offered discounted buying prices to the in situ tenants.

Should such tenants now decide to stay on and not pay the new owners and landlord rent, what can the bank do, not a lot, it appears.

Kavanaugh I am aware as you are that we are not talking about the UK..I was just giving you a comparison ..between that Spanish banking industry that seems to have the brains of a peanut ..as a posed a professional UK banking industry ..** EDITED - Against forum rules **

Brian

in our case Bank has finally fully repossessed and re registered ownership and paying Community fees.

Tenant has effectively been squatting for some time and I’ve no idea what deal he made with previous owner but it woukd appear the Bank are struggling to remove him.

Windtalker

I can assure you a company who owned a number of apartments offered 5 year, cash upfront deals to tenants so received their money up front.

They paid NO Community fees and No mortgage, presumably developers mortgages, which is why eventually the bank repossessed all the properties but the tenants with their 5 year contracts remained.

Temember in 2006 banks were falling over themselves offering all sorts of deals, not caring if property was rental or not.

Some even offered 10year interest only mortgages which are now coming home to roost.

The previous corporate owner walked away with 5 years cash rentals from 8-10 owners and stuck it, in a separate company to the owner of the property no doubt.

Never could get any Community fees from them.

We are not in the UK, we are in Spain.

In some cases you would need to know the motive of a property owner granting a long term tenancy and then defaulting on the mortgage in Spain. If you continue to have your UK head on and keep quoting the rights and wrongs of the UK you will never work it out.

Just if the rental contract was registered in the Land Registry before the mortgage was charged on the property, the tenant has rights to stay. This is after a reform made in 2013.Before then, the tenant had the right to stay for 5 years, which was the obligatory term for protecting housing rental.

In many cases, Banks are respecting current rentals

Only someone with the brain the size of a peanut... Would give a 5 year rental contract on a rental property ..especially if they had a mortgage on the it... in the UK it is possible to obtain a buy to let mortgage ...but no bank or lender will lend on a property that you intended to let out for more than a 6 months ...buy to let type of mortgages are normally charge a 1% or more above a normal mortgage rate...and it clearly state's in the mortgage contract a maximum of 6 month's contract know as a ( short hold tenancies agreement ).

It’s surprising on two counts Hugh.   

When the landlord has defaulted in that way the tenancy becomes a bare licence, or month to month tenancy because the property hasn’t actually been sold with a sitting tenant.  That’s the same principle all over without a full civil court judgement otherwise   

Also the non payment of rent has broken the contract anyway and a notice seeking possession proceedings can begin

Maybe other examples will come along to the thread.   Has the bank fully repossessed the property Hugh, or is it ongoing?

I still have a case on my Community Brian, where a Bank has repossessed a property, with a sitting tenant who is apparently no longer paying rent to either the old owner or the Bank, the new owner, but the bank appear to be unable or unwilling to evict the tenant, who is still in situ.

As someone stated, having a sitting tenant paying no rent, devalues the property even more, so I’m sure they would love to evict an actual squatter.

Im afraid I think the Law is currently protecting tenants, rather than allowing them to be be thrown out into the street.