Raising Cash on the Security of Your Home? Always See a Lawyer First

8th October 2019 By Arman Khosravi

Many vulnerable people who fall into debt are tempted to raise cash on the security of their homes. However, a case in which an elderly couple came within an ace of losing the roof over their heads stands as a warning to all that such arrangements should never be entered into without first taking professional advice.

In response to a newspaper advertisement, the couple, who were in dire financial straits, contacted a company that promised to put them back in the black. After they were persuaded to sign a blank transfer form, the company conveyed their home to a property investor. The property was leased back to them on a five-year shorthold tenancy and, although it was valued for mortgage purposes at £130,000, they only received £52,000 in return for entering into the transaction.

After the couple’s tenancy expired, the investor sought possession of their home. However, in refusing that application, a judge found that they had been assured by the company that they would be able to continue living in the property for the rest of their lives. He ruled that the investor would only be entitled to assert a right to possession if the couple failed to keep up with payment of their rent.

In dismissing the investor’s challenge to that ruling, the High Court noted that one of the company’s directors had subsequently been heavily fined by the Financial Conduct Authority in respect of his involvement in similar transactions. He was found to have made misrepresentations to vulnerable property owners, including false claims that their properties would be independently valued.

The investor argued that she had no knowledge of any statements that the company may have made to the couple in order to induce them to enter into the transaction. However, the Court found that the company had acted as her agent, rather than the couple’s. Having left all the arrangements to the company, she was not entitled to avoid being bound by assurances that the couple had received.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Challenge to Will's Validity Rejected by High Court

12th April, 2024 By

The best way to ensure your assets will be distributed as you wish is to have your will professionally drafted by a qualified solicitor. In a recent case, a challenge to the validity of an elderly man's will was dismissed by the High Court. The man had previously made a will in 2011, leaving most of his estate equally to his three children. In 2018, by which time one of his sons had predeceased him, he made a further will, leaving the residue of his estate to his other son...

Defiance of Family Court Orders Will Always End Badly

10th April, 2024 By

Custodial sentences very rarely come into play in the family courts. Where there have been repeated breaches of court orders, however, judges may have little choice but to clamp down. This was illustrated in the High Court during committal proceedings that stemmed from a child custody dispute. The background to the case involved contested proceedings between the father and mother of a young child. These concluded with a court order establishing that the child – a daughter – would live with the mother. Three months later the daughter travelled with...

Claim for SDLT Relief on Annex Unsuccessful

8th April, 2024 By

When buying a property consisting of more than one residence, it may be possible to claim multiple dwellings relief (MDR) against Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT). However, there are certain conditions that must be met for an MDR claim to succeed, as a recent case illustrates. A property was purchased for £1.8 million. Prior to the purchase, the buyer had agreed with the seller that he would be allowed to carry out works to construct a self-contained annex at the property. The buyer's SDLT return included a claim for MDR...

Divorce – Alleged Bigamy Raised in Financial Remedies Dispute

5th April, 2024 By

The issue of bigamy and its potential impact on a person's ability to seek financial remedies in a divorce came under the legal spotlight recently. A husband made an application to strike out his wife's financial remedies claim on the basis that she had committed bigamy and deceived him into a marriage when she knew she was not free to marry. This deceit, he claimed, was so egregious that, as a matter of public policy, she should be debarred from pursuing any claim for financial remedies against him. The husband based...