Any case against bank for blocking sale of Home?

[kodachrome]

Im not hopeful about the outcome of this question having spoke to a Solicitor already, but its been suggested I have nothing to loose by posting it here anyway by well-wishers appalled by my situation, so why not and if nothing else might serve as some schadenfreude.


In a short, bullet point, timeline:

- 2 Mortgages, 200k outstanding in Dublin House as "investment property" and 400k in Meath House as family home. Values today maybe 150k Dublin and 200k Meath.
- Myself and now former partner named on both mortgages. Partner has left the country and will not be contributing to mortgage payments.
- Bought Dublin house in 2000 (lived in as home till 2007) and then Meath house in late 2007. Dublin house became "investment property" for what was meant to be short term only.
- Mortgages are cross charged, house in Dublin is the security for house in Meath
- Originally never planned on having 2 properties for more than 3mths, Bank agreed to this (had verbal commitment from Bank Manager TSB would never block sale of house, this was just a bridging scenario) however Bank wrote into terms that sale (of Dublin house) wouldn't be allowed if LTV was under 95% on Meath house
- We were both made redundant 2years ago and out of work for a year. Both employed now, but with so much debt built up in that period has crippled us long term.
- Had offer of EUR255k 2.5years ago on Dublin house which PTSB blocked as LTV (as proposed from their Surveyor) was 88% on Meath house. Outstanding Mortgage on Dublin house was only 210k at the time, sale would have cleared Mortgage and cleared all my out of work personal (credit) debt as per the plan I had with PTSB.
When they blocked it I had told them at the time mid to long term financially we would not be able to meet mortgage (or any other) payments if sale didn't go through, they escalated to Board internally and still blocked.

- Both properties are in some amount of arrears and Credit debt has dropped to about 14k from 28k, but at this point Im crippled being lumbered with two properties (rental is hit and miss with Dublin house, cost to fix and keep running extremely high) on my own as partner has emigrated.


When I relay this story people cannot accept PTSB could or would block the sale of a property (which would have cleared Mortgage and also enabled their customer to maintain other mortgage payments) on a house that later would have some of its neighbours sold for EUR99k in fire sales (noting the offer I had was for 255k!). The bank on the other hand told me:
- I agreed to the terms, which is true
- Its better risk management to spread me across 2 properties than one


Obviously moral obligations to repay debt have to take a back seat to the reality that this is now an unsustainable situation financially, despite having a good job I will continue to be living on the breadline for the next 15-20years with no hope of a family or real future, I feel I have no recourse but to emigrate. Before (or as as well as) doing this however I want to approach the bank with a token payment per month to see if I can at least buy about 10years of hobbling along before repossession orders etc kick in to give the market time to recover to allow me to sell both properties and clear the mortgages. I dont know if this is really an option.


Thoughts.. is there any grounds for mis-conduct from PTSB?

 

[Dr.Debt]

I sympathise but I think you can save yourself a lot of heartache by just letting it drop. Sometimes its not a case of whether they are right or wrong, its a case of whether you have any chance of taking a successful action agaonst them. In this case I think you're probably wasting your time.

 

[Bronte]

- Its better risk management to spread me across 2 properties than one

This is so totally outrageous that words fail me. The lunatics truly are running the system. And it even went to board level for decision.

All I too can do is sympathise with you. I cannot see how you can take a case against them, there are no grounds to take a case for stupidity.

They had the veto over the house sale based the clause on the second mortgage. Something that has never come up before on AAM.

Unless someone else can see a case.

If not how about you moving on from it, and dealing with the mess you are now in. I recommend you do a full post on all your outgoings, it's called the money makeover on here and maybe we can help you to see through the mess.

 

[Raging Bull]

Sorry about your situation. Firstly i agree with other posts that banks were idiotic. You could argue that the Bank did not consider your interest under consumer protection code and were negligent in refusing you to allow the sale of your house.

Normally they would be right that their risk is more diversified across two properties but we have not being in a normal situation for a number of years. Clearly if you can dispose of an asset at slight profit and put against teh other house it also reduces risk. However their contract clause might be too tight but you could try negligence and the fact they only looked at their interests not yours. Ironically I think their interest were best served by allowing you to sell but some numpty decided otherwise

When you tried to sell the investment property did they actually value your other home ? If they didnt it might be worth exploring that line to show that the decision to block was not fully documented with correct factual information (adds to negligence case)

 

[kodachrome]

When you tried to sell the investment property did they actually value your other home ? If they didnt it might be worth exploring that line to show that the decision to block was not fully documented with correct factual information (adds to negligence case)

Yes, they sent out their appointed Valuer who spend the 30min or whatever making his assessment. Obviously he wasnt aware of the LTV issue, but given the gravity of the outcome, in hindsight it seems like an unrealistically small amount of time and effort to devote to something so critical.

 

[Cantalia]

I know it's a while back but this case should have gone to ombudsman and if successful there which is free, then to court

 

[Gerry Canning]

I know it's a while back but this case should have gone to ombudsman and if successful there which is free, then to court

You have a case for the Ombudsman.
Eg under General Principles 1.PTSB must ensure{acts honestly .fairly and professionally in the best interests of its customers and the integrity of the market}2.Ptsb must {act with due skill,care and diligencein the best interests of its customers}
I can,t see Ptsb having done the above. However General Principles are normally (eaten) by dry law.

Suggest, Review your position and send a well crafted letter to Customer Complaints Ptsb, Churchyard Lane , Douglas Co Cork.
CLEARLY outline your case.
CLEARLY outline your loss.
CLEARLY outline that you require to be left in no worse a position than @ the time ptsb was (stupid).
Maybe also tell them you note their customer positive new adds.

Good luck,

 

[Bronte]

1.PTSB must ensure{acts honestly .fairly and professionally in the best interests of its customers and the integrity of the market

2.Ptsb must {act with due skill,care and diligence in the best interests of its customers}
,

It's going to be hard to prove that though isn't it? Plus the OP agreed to the specific term and condition about the mortgage percentage.

Nevertheless it's worth pursuing a claim with the ombudsman. You never know with him what way any given case will go.

 

[kodachrome]

I have to wonder though to what goal would I hope to achieve here? Even if they were found to have acted poorly, what would there penalty be? Anything short of them handing me 30k and taking the property themselves would fail to actually regain what they cost me.. however the chances of them doing that, even if ordered to (I imagine they would contest it forever) are IMO, zero.

The Solicitor I spoke to, who is in the business of taking banks to court of similar cases said I dont have a hope of winning as this was a term on the loan approval, a LTV value of 95%. Their defense is simple, they acted "correctly and legally at the time" which, very rapidly but in hindsight, was a terrible decision. I dont think that there is anything more than a goodwill case here.