One for the legal eagles - forcing the sale of a jointly owned house

[motorbiking]

That's clear, thank you. But in FvB although the judgement was granted, there is always the question of enforcing it. Likewise with SS, the lender could pursue the full mortgage debt. I understand the factual difference but both involve benefit and detriment.

it can be and or. either is sufficient.

FvB: They also had workhouses back then.

SS: Not once they had accepted his offer and he had acted to his detriment based on that. It is quite wrong to suggest FvB applies.

 

[MNW67]

Is it not statutory barred after 6 years of no payments?

Yes, I think the limitation period starts running as soon as you miss a payment.

Something was bugging me about this answer I gave. I have found this guide from National Debtline which explains the limitation periods. It is more complicated than I had remembered. There are sections in the guide covering three important areas; how long the period runs, when it starts, and what sort of actions will start it running all over again. The rules for all three seem to differ depending on whether it is capital or interest. I had remembered the basic rule of 6 years for interest and 12 years for capital, but not the finer details:

Mortgage shortfalls | Am I liable | National Debtline

Money you still owe to your mortgage or secured loan lender after your property has been sold, is called a 'mortgage shortfall'. Free debt advice

nationaldebtline.org

And whilst I was on the website, I found there was a similar guide for different types of debts:

Statute barred debts | National Debtline

Find out when debts become statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980, how to deal with old debts, and what it means for your credit file.

nationaldebtline.org

 

[motorbiking]

post 131

specialities are also 12 years.

 

[motorbiking]

With you having a business are there any vat implications on the buying and selling of it . Couple of mates who bought house and done it up and sold it got caught out with vat bills can't remember the full details but vat man came for money couple of years afterwards

Buildings and construction (VAT Notice 708)

How to work out the VAT on building work and materials if you're a contractor, subcontractor or developer.

www.gov.uk

I think 5% VAT applies - might be wrong though - I only took a Quick Look

 

[gas112]

Buildings and construction (VAT Notice 708)

How to work out the VAT on building work and materials if you're a contractor, subcontractor or developer.

www.gov.uk

I think 5% VAT applies - might be wrong though - I only took a Quick Look

Not sure how it works just remember mate saying bassa's have come after me for vat on that house he had been retired for 2 years when it happened

 

[motorbiking]

Not sure how it works just remember mate saying bassa's have come after me for vat on that house he had been retired for 2 years when it happened

I wonder if I moved out of my house before having an extension done if that would mean a 10% VAT saving... hmm something to look into.

EDIT: I have to move out for 2 years.

 

[securespark]

That's clear, thank you. But in FvB although the judgement was granted, there is always the question of enforcing it. Likewise with SS, the lender could pursue the full mortgage debt. I understand the factual difference but both involve benefit and detriment.

I'm sure they won't come after me.

After that letter in 2000, I haven't had any more.

 

[motorbiking]

I'm sure they won't come after me.

After that letter in 2000, I haven't had any more.

and the fact that it was binding.

 

[blup]

I'm sure they won't come after me.

After that letter in 2000, I haven't had any more.

It was a hypothetical comparison with FvB. Both involved rescheduling debt so neither creditor should allowed to reopen the agreement.

 

[motorbiking]

It was a hypothetical comparison with FvB. Both involved rescheduling debt so neither creditor should allowed to reopen the agreement.

If FvB was heard today, the claim for the additional interest would fail.

F owed B £2k (old money) + Interest
B agreed £500 up front and then £250 every 6 months until paid, in exchange for no interest.
after the 2k was paid (3 years later) B went after the interest.

F acted to his detriment based on the promise from B. That makes the new agreement binding. (today)

If anyone wants to argue that, they better bring some case law.

 

[blup]

If FvB was heard today, the claim for the additional interest would fail.

F owed B £2k (old money) + Interest
B agreed £500 up front and then £250 every 6 months until paid, in exchange for no interest.
after the 2k was paid (3 years later) B went after the interest.

F acted to his detriment based on the promise from B. That makes the new agreement binding. (today)

If anyone wants to argue that, they better bring some case law.

I’m arguing the principle not challenging the high trees element

 

[MNW67]

I’m arguing the principle not challenging the high trees element

I would say that you are correct to do so.

What non legal people probably don't know is that in E&W there are two legal systems. The "common law" and "equity".

Judges will sometimes apply both in the same case, in a two stage process.

So, in a similar case these days, a judge would look first to the leading precedent of F v B. And decide that, under the common law, the money was still owing.

But then the judge would look to equity, to mitigate the harshness of the common law. Using the equitable principle of promissory estoppel, which has developed since the 1940s. The judge might then decide that, even though the money was still owing, it would be unfair for the money to be recovered.

 

[blup]

I would say that you are correct to do so.

What non legal people probably don't know is that in E&W there are two legal systems. The "common law" and "equity".

Judges will sometimes apply both in the same case, in a two stage process.

So, in a similar case these days, a judge would look first to the leading precedent of F v B. And decide that, under the common law, the money was still owing.

But then the judge would look to equity, to mitigate the harshness of the common law. Using the equitable principle of promissory estoppel, which has developed since the 1940s. The judge might then decide that, even though the money was still owing, it would be unfair for the money to be recovered.

So if you think something's unfair you ask the judge to be equitable, sounds a bit hit and miss.

 

[MeldrewsMate]

I never really understand your posts.

Serco offer 5 years rent. If the OP doesn’t want any management/maintenace issues. What’s the problem?

https://www.serco.com/uk/sites/serco-aasc/landlords

The problem is that the mortgage must be redeemed in 2 years, and no-one is going to lend at 110% loan to value...and I/we don't want it let to Porn makers or kiddie fiddlers.
And @blup can't spell Reform UK, which is why his attempt at wit fell flat.

 

[blup]

The problem is that the mortgage must be redeemed in 2 years, and no-one is going to lend at 110% loan to value...and I/we don't want it let to Porn makers or kiddie fiddlers.
And @blup can't spell Reform UK, which is why his attempt at wit fell flat.

Nah I completely misunderstood his post