I was simply observing that in circumstances where the original contract made no provision for the possibility of the debtor wishing to pay a lump sum off the mortgage ...
Should'nt the "contract" have made this provision...after all its not unknown for borrowers to pay lump sums off their tracker mortgages if they "come in to money" ( eg by selling other assets, inheritance, redundancy, pension lump sum, lottery win or whatever).
If the issue of lump-sum repayments is not addressed in the contract then there's a good argument that the lender did the debtor a favour by facilitating his or her desire to make such a payment.
I'll still disagree with you that in the case of this tracker mortgage, the bank "did the debtor a favour" in this case by accepting 9 or 10 years monthly repayments in one go, and then after 5 years or whatever saying he is in arrears. The borrower is not looking for the money he overpaid to be repaid...he is simply wondering is it right that he is officialy described by the bank as being "in arrears", even though he has kept all interest paid up to date, and has overpaid capital. His credit rating is probably affected.
After requesting all of the borrowers lump sum, the bank is financially much better off than if it had been paid monthly repayments as per the original "contract". I think the bank done itself "a favour" more than the debtor.
it was the debtor who made the request and so I do not think its incorrect to describe the bank as facilitating the request.
I do not think he formally requested anything. The debtor / borrower paid 8 or ten years monthy capital repayments in one go, in the form of a lump sum. This was
mutually agreed as to how the capital would be paid off. In fact once the bank became aware that the borrower had a lump sum, they wanted as much of the lump sum as possible, and persuaded the borrower to pay the entire lump lump / proceeds of the sale of the other property. There was no monthly capital repayments billed for in the years prior to the lump sum being paid off
or for a number of years after the lump sum was paid.
Now the bank manager has changed...the borrower is still well "ahead of himself" in terms of money repaid...so what happens if the borrower is still struggling subsequently? He has paid off well more than half the capital amount of the mortgage and made all interest repayments, even though not even half of the term of the mortgage has expired yet! Is he in arrears? This raises interesting questions. Was in in arrears 3 or 6 months or 2 years after he paid the six-figure lump sum? If he is in arrears what do you call someones position who, unlike the borrower in this case, has not repaid capital and interest to date?