Repurchase / repossession - advice needed

Don't you all see the pattern that's developing here and the way that Banks who compromised us all by their unforgiveable behaviour and purposefully hidden  risk taking with all the worldwide knock-on impacts from the Banking crisis, are now through their continuing unethical and unregulated behaviour in Spain are ironically benefitting  from divisive psyches such as demonstrated in this and many other threads? 

IMHO Maria is spot on when she observes the need to work together to tackle unethical and abhorrent malpractices that ultimately compromise us all, whether directly or indirectly.

Divide and rule....

This message was last edited by ads on 28/09/2017.

‘’work together’’ how naive can you get. The only people working together are the corrupt banks, corrupt politicians, corrupt regulators and the corrupt legal system earning a fortune out of it all.

That’s how the world goes round. Joe public will always be treated as a mug to feed the powerful greedy.

Yes, we can fight it, but you will never win. Look at Brian, over 5 years in court, they are just hoping he drops of his perch.

Don't turn your back Duncan on those that have won their fight against the Banks and the Supreme Court rulings now being issued against the Banks.

I'm not so naive not to see the relevance of your observation re money making from within the legal profession but equally to write off significant progress made to date by those fighting for accountability does a disservice to those ( few) with honourable intent..  who are equally not a "charity case".

Baz1946 you should look beyond your nose ...the British are no longer welcome in Spain ...and this hate is only going to get worse  when we get out of the EU...we are blamed for high property prices and draining the Spanish NHS and the creation of a  black economy.

 Windtalker how much further do I look beyond my nose then? I already mentioned I have a good relationship with Spain, up to date I have never met a Spanish person who has told me to 'Get out' or even given a hint that we as Brits are not welcome, I have never had a bad experience with Spanish solicitors like so many on here, I have not even had a bad time with the banks either, I could tell you some good stories about the help I have had with the banks, and a few more bad ones with the UK banks.

Does anyone know what will happen if we 'DID'  leave the EU.

High property prices, then you must know how the British work when selling houses, one house in a street gets X amount the next one wants a bit more because they painted the front door a different colour, when a new estate starts selling well and the houses go like hot cakes, up goes the starting price.

How do we drain the Spanish NHS, if you work you pay for it, if you don't Spain pays and sends the bill to England....So I am told?

Creation of the black economy, without insulting Spain they perfected that one,  we bought Spain's houses with a large bit here and a little bit on the books, something that doesn't happen much in the UK, you're a plumber, no one ever asked you to do a job with no VAT then,  the world runs on the black economy.

As I have said before on here about the OP problem, it wasn't the banks fault they got into a mess, so why do people on here keep banging on about how bad Spain's banks are when it has no bearing on the case in question.

I kind of agree with Baz here in so far as you can't just blame the banks for every problem, just because we want to.  

But the overall thing is that the housing market, in any country we are discussing here, involves people buying a product they can't afford.   In order to buy this product we need a lender, and the amount we have to borrow is so high it has to be a mortgage.  

So unless the people and the lenders speculate, there is no overheating of the market.  When the market overheats the people just wanting a home are the ones who suffer.  When the people who just want to buy a home can't afford one, the speculators and the lenders then suffer and the market collapses.   It's simple really!!!!

The OP is probably one of the speculators who suffered when the market collapsed and until the people can afford the houses again, the OP has lost their 'bet'.  

My post was concerned with how they can deal with it now, with the difficulty they find themselves in.   They have to restructure and take responsibility for losing a 'bet'   

I wasn't aware that Banks were being blamed for everything but striving for accountability and good regulation where relevant. 

Checks and balances on the mortgage market and out of kilter over spending or inappropriate compromising speculation that has the ability to affect economies and law abiding citizens on a far wider scale is what good regulation and governance is all about, and this is why regulatory structures etc​​​ are ever more essential in this day and age to act as counter balance.

On possibilities of reaching an agreement with banks for handing property back:

We need to look at this taking into consideration:

1- Spanish government passed along the last years, a number of new regulations to help mortgage debtors, as they are debtors in the context of a housing and financial bubble. Banks were set limits to the almost absolute enforcement rights they had.

2- Original lenders are far from being holders of the credits and the fruits of repossession of properties attached to debts.

3- European Court of Justice is protecting consumers rights within repossession procedures in Spain, especially is the mortgage deeds contained abusive clauses

4- Funds need full ownership of properties before being able to place them into the market and profit and therefore, a settlement between the original bank and the debtor is supported by those as a way to avoid costly and lengthy repossession procedures 

I wonder why the people that are under Repossession don't rent the property out to holiday Maker's for a couple of months ...to cover the mortgage payments .....on another thread on EOS  (Winter Rental Wanted) one poster Duncan Thicket state's he is  charging €2,000 for a one month winter rental... so why don't more people do this....in the case of the original poster this would not have helped them out ...as they rather stupidity decided to live in a property that was sold to them as a holiday rental ..and are are now trying to blame the bank's.

Windtalker, that's what I said several posts ago!!

Briando55 .yes I know what you are saying ...but what I can't understand is if you could get €2,000 per month in the winter ..why don't people that are struggling to pay a mortgage do this for a couple of months per year ...the Villa next door and one directly opposite me have just been repossessed by the banks...the people that had them used them as holiday homes only.... am I missing something hear ...I don't know.

Windy,** EDITED **, the OP (Original Poster) never said they lived in the property. They had a guaranteed rental agreement with a now defunct company. In fact, I would not be surprised if they have never even seen the property themselves. It was never intended to be a home for them (as you rightly said). They were sold this as a buy-to-let "investment", like many others who believed the hype, helped by a plethora of washed up old cricketers and golfers trying to squeeze the last few bucks out of their fading celebrity. As I posted many, many times during the "boom" time, most of these fantastic investment opportunities were built on out-of-the-way urbanisations with next to no infrastructure, and then, as now, were/are totally unfit for anything. That is why the OP by their own admission "can count on one hand" the number of weeks the place has been rented out. Of course, not all properties are equal - there do exist some lovely villas in great locations with all the necessary facilities nearby, that may well be worth €2,000 per month in winter - we don't know without further details. But it's clear from what we do know, that the OP's place is either unrentable (and almost certainly therefore unsellable too) or that they have simply not bothered trying to rent it. The big question, therefore, really is - why, if they've had the place for 10 years, have they waited until now to start worrying about it ????????

** EDITED - Against forum rules **

** EDITED - Against forum rules **

From the Original Poster: "we can count on one hand the number of weeks the property has been let - depite a rental gurantee scheme set up by Inside Track.  Our intention was to overpay using the rental income so that when the end of term was reached the capital would be minimal."

Unless you can quote where they said they had lived in the property themselves, do please stop twittering on (cheep cheep).

** EDITED - Against forum rules **

Looking at a wider perspective it's important to consider the following when drawing conclusions about Banks and how their behaviour during this last decade has impinged upon interest-only mortgagees.

All buyers were encouraged to purchase property in Spain with the option to rent out their property to assist with outgoings if they so chose.

This option to rent relied upon a relatively stable rental market being in place with adequate legal protection to protect against rental abuse.

For communities, it relied upon a system of management fees with legal protection in place to ensure all owners pay their rightful contributions so as not to financially compromise owners.

It relied upon a stable and responsible banking system to ensure that interest-only mortgagees were properly assessed from the outset, not only in terms of their ability to pay for the full length of their term, but also the requirement to fully comprehend their financial obligations to either

a) sell at point of maturity to pay off the loan, or

b) make financial provision during the term to pay off the loan ( savings) or

c) renogotiate the loan, realistically bearing in mind the age of the mortgagee at point of maturity and relative restrictions that would apply thereafter.

All were led to believe that the option for interest-only mortgages were intended for those who by the nature of the product depended upon either an increase in property value to acquire adequate funds to pay off the mortgage at point of maturity, or were in a position to make adequate savings provision in the interim years, or were of a salaried age to be allowed to renogotiate the loan at point of maturity ( i.e. be of an age with sufficient income to afford the new negotiated term). BUT ALL WITHIN A RELATIVELY STABLE ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT.

The Banks and interest- only mortgagees  BOTH  had responsibilities therefore to  address these risks at point of maturity, but the banks had the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the mortgagee FROM THE OUTSET was correctly assessed and was made fully aware of these risks in the interim periods.

Also it could be argued that Banks had a further responsible role (where relevant) to provide adequate forewarning mechanisms in place to respond to sudden compromising changes in the economic climate, ( such as occurred in the Banking crisis), so that mortgagees were adequately forewarned of the need to reassess and recognise the heightened risks from the sudden downturn in property values.

The conclusion given all of the above, together with the fact that Banks lack of regulatory controls and compliance caused the worldwide Banking crisis in the first place, which directly impacted property values and heightened the risks for interest-only mortgagees,  now begs several questions….

Did the Bank of Spain monitor and regulate its Banks to ensure that adequate mortgagee assessment and forewarning processes were in place from the outset?

Did the Bank of Spain instruct Banks to responsibly forewarn interest-only mortgagees following the sudden increasing risks from the Banking crisis?

Did the Bank of Spain act responsibly and reassess their provision of interest-only mortgages with a view to restrict or withdraw this product from use and thereby better manage/ minimise  the ongoing risk?

IMHO, to deny that the Banks have any responsible role in this ongoing scenario relating to interest-only  mortgage products, and their need to NOW act legally and responsibly and in an ethical manner is to turn blind eyes to many uncomfortable truths.

And then we come to the regulatory structures in place ( or lack of) to control rental guarantee schemes with a view to ensuring clients are made fully aware of the risks from the outset with no hidden print or abusive clauses…..

Thank you to the EOS moderators for cleaning the thread up, and apologies for getting dragged into the silliness. Getting back to the serious discussion:

"Did the Bank of Spain instruct Banks to responsibly forewarn interest-only mortgagees following the sudden increasing risks from the Banking crisis?" No, obviously not. But since the crisis you refer to started around 2008 - nearly ten years ago - it's surely inconceivable that anybody with a pulse couldn't know what has happened since - let alone anyone who had actually "invested" in the property market?

"...to deny that the Banks have any responsible role in this ongoing scenario....is to turn blind eyes to many uncomfortable truths." I don't think anyone here actually denies that the banks have a significant responsibility. But there is another uncomfortable truth that has to be faced. As you say yourself, "the Banks and interest- only mortgagees  BOTH  had responsibilities..." but the continued insistence that "the banks had the ultimate responsibility" almost sounds like it absolves the borrowers of their part in the whole mess. I know it may sound very harsh, but if there are (ultimately) never any consequences for individuals' bad choices, where's the deterrent to making equally bad choices again in the future? So my question again for the OP and others in similar situations: why, if they've had the place for 10 years, have they waited until now to start worrying about it ? It must have been pretty clear many years ago that the numbers didn't stack up. 

The Banks have an obligation to accept that lack of regulation led to the collapse of property values upon which these products relied, and the ongoing regulation and controls of these products should have come from the Bank of Spain.

The deterrents you make mention of Roberto are an obligation by the Bank of Spain to have regulatory structures in place to minimise the risks when such extraordinary circumstances occur, to swiftly take control and deter Banks from issuing these products ( and certainly not allow proliferation to occur) and where applicable to ensure that mortgagees are given timely opportunity to reassess and make realistic provision ( if possible) and not leave them struggling to pay the consequences FOR BANKS FAILURES THAT LED TO PROPERTY VALUES COLLAPSING.

The sad aspect is that Banks have not learned the lessons and even as we speak are not sufficiently regulated to control their malpractices in Spain, to honour their financial obligations without obstructing at every opportunity.

Banks should never be allowed to encourage such risky product uptake without having a duty of care to correctly assess and forewarn well in advance when economic circumstances ( born from their own negligences) have the potential to impact mortgagees with such dire consequences.

So in broader terms then, I reckon we all agree that a 'unholy trinity' is needed to create the circumstances the OP is involved in.

The Spiv who sells a property with false pretences of how good it is as an investment.

The Gullible who listens and thinks a fast buck is available, and buys a property without any broader social interest.

The Shark who lends money with small print that stitches the buyer up if anything at all becomes difficult.

So in this 'coming together' of the trinity, probably the only one who comes out with any easy money will be the Spiv, who takes the money at the point of sale and heads for the hills.  

Ads, don't you think the regulation your thinking of is only covering one part of the issue here though?   While ever there is greed and Spiv, the way is open for lenders to make offers.

To regulate with any 'teeth' the courts have to be able to act quickly and decisively to enforce regulations in a way that actually scares all these people into changing behaviour.  

Agreed in part Briando, all  ( and more) play their part, but  in more general terms looking at this wider perspective,  as opposed to this one incident,  the starting point to this compromising scenario has to be taken in context with the facts leading up to these failures and abuses, so as to analyse the uncomfortable realities and find realistic and workable solutions to act as you and others rightly say as deterrents for the future.

Without doubt history has demonstrated to date many failures, including those who expected a real estate and legal system to be in place to protect, where regulation and adherence to the rule of law ( with regard to timely justice) has proved to be so compromising.

It's a highly complex scenario and has sadly left all too many struggling to gain justice where applicable, or come to terms with the status quo and how best to move forward. 

It takes time, immense patience, funding, and as previously discussed, courage, to take on the financial institutions to make progress and gain accountability.

Likewise, to identify how under resourcing of the justice system, inconsistent judicial rulings based upon regional differences and the time taken to obtain supportive Supreme Court rulings with Bar Associations "on board" to gain reform have also played their part. 

Progress is being made but there are still many factors that buyers, mortgagees and owners alike need to be adequately forewarned about, not least the overstretched and under resourced justice system. 

IMHO, the area all too often underestimated to gain reform , greater accountability,  good regulatory practice with effective deterrents and enforcement structures in place, is in the monitoring and reporting mechanisms supposedly in place to protect. But this requires the legal profession to recognise and consistently use such mechanisms to  identify the underlying problems ( including loopholes in the existing system) that leave citizens at continuing risk.

This message was last edited by ads on 02/10/2017.

Ads, it must be me because I fail to see how it can be any banks fault when someone, anyone, borrows money on an interest only loan, paying back minimum monthly amounts, knowing that the full amount of the loan would need to be paid back sooner or later, not paying back any of the capital in the agreed loan term, buying the property on a promise of renting it out, which sounds like all this information came via the company lending the money, who ran seminars on telling people how get into the massive renting property market.

Jeepers when people buy a car and the dealer tells them it will do 50 to the gallon they soon say 'Year right, sure it will' borrow many thousands and what your told is..'The price will rise, you will rent it out 12 months of the year'....And thats okay then.

How on earth can you make a bank 'Accountable' for it's actions if people are going to act like this.

This week I have met two people who took out, because they had to,  these 'Life time Mortgages' both wouldn't have it that the loan might double in ten years time, both were not bothered about paying any of the loan back, both have family which had they sold the house would have left the kids something, but at the rate these things work nothing is the final figure for a lifetime of buying your home.