# consented over phone to Repossession Order on house with solr -circumstances changed.



## Commercial (30 Aug 2012)

I have a client who consented over the phone to a Repossession Order on his private home with his solicitor. 

He was unaware of the consequences at the time and his circumstances have since changed. 

He was not living in the house at the time and he now wishes to move back in with his family as the bank have not come near the house since the repossession order in early January.

He is willing to come to a repayment arrangement with them to partially meet the interest and look for a family member to purchase the house at market value within the next 12 months.

Is there a strong possibility that he and his family could be evicted if they move back in, even though they are willing to pay some of the interest. Although they have consented to the Repossession order is this an option?


----------



## mf1 (31 Aug 2012)

"He was unaware of the consequences at the time "

Sorry - just don't get that. He handed back/ disposed of the house and he had the benefit of legal advice. He cannot just change his mind and decide to move in. 

He can contact the bank and see if he can reach an agreement with them. 

mf


----------



## Peter54 (1 Sep 2012)

Hi Commercial,

Surely he would have had to sign a document to declare he was surrendering the property?  I very much doubt a telephone conversation to a solicitor would have ended his interest in his home there and then.

He needs to write to the bank and come to an arrangement.


----------



## ajapale (1 Sep 2012)

Commercial said:


> <_would_>... he and his family .... be evicted if  they move back in........?




He should consult with his solicitor before embarking on this scheme.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (17 Sep 2012)

If a repossession order was granted by the court and has been implemented, then the property is no longer his. If he moves in, it is similar to his moving into any other house which he does not own. It would be trespass, and might also be contempt of court. 

As mf1 has said, he should contact the bank.

It's unlikely that the bank will allow the former owner to move back in, but if he can up with a buyer, they will probably sell it to that buyer.


----------



## Bronte (18 Sep 2012)

Piedpiper your point seems to be that whether you stay in the house or not you'll still owe the same amount of money, so you might as well stay.  An intersting point of view.  But there are circumstances where it is better to give up possession.  If it means the debt is written off and you can start again, surely that is better.  

Take the brief outline of a case the Commercial has mentioned on here, the owner cannot afford the mortgage, can now offer 'part' interest payment and wants to further complicate matters by getting a family member to 'maybe' stump up the money to 'buy' the house back at today's market value.  That all sounds marvelous, but highly unlikely to work in reality.  

Commerecial did not outline in what way the house owner was misled.  I would imagine he discussed his options with his solicitor's advice and then it was the owner who had to decide what to do, not the solicitor.


----------



## Wishes (18 Sep 2012)

Interesting post PiedPier, food for thought. 

I have had every professional working on my case over a few months period from bankruptcy experts, accountants, solicitors and business people. So much information going around my head and everyone of them have urged me to hand bank my home.


----------



## Bronte (20 Sep 2012)

Wishes said:


> I have had every professional working on my case over a few months period from bankruptcy experts, accountants, solicitors and business people. So much information going around my head and everyone of them have urged me to hand bank my home.


 
So four different sets of professionals/experts have urged you to hand back the house but they are incorrect?  Have they anything to gain by tell you to do so?  

Can you post the details, figures in particular so we might see how you can hope to stay in your home? And more particularly whether it might be a good or bad idea.


----------



## Bronte (20 Sep 2012)

PiedPiper said:


> There are as far as I am aware no cases where anyone gave up possession of a home and walked away and stayed in Ireland.
> 
> .


 
I know such a case, and the people involved cannot wait until the bank takes the property back. 

What's to be gained by staying in a property you cannot afford, with the arrears mounting and no end in sight?


----------



## PiedPiper (23 Sep 2012)

What's to be gained by staying in a property you cannot afford, with the arrears mounting and no end in sight? 

In answer to the question whats to be gained quite a lot, it gives the home owner time to come up with a solution.

If you hand over the home and the bank sell it there is very little chance the price of the house will go against the loan by the time all the various agents and so on have been paid there is rarely much difference in the amount owed.

If its a rental property its even worse with that dispensed with the Bank will now move on to your home.

If you abandon the property it may be broken into cold damp and not maintanted so going to be sold at less than already low market value.


----------

