“A report of a County Court mortgage possession case has reached us, in which the secured lender’s behaviour resulted in a finding of abuse of process. The question was when (an if) an arrears payment had been received.”
NearlyLegal, 30th September 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“A former criminal defence solicitor has been jailed for two years for her part in a £1.3m mortgage fraud in east London.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 20th September 2012
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“Owner occupiers unable to afford their mortgages have sometimes entered into sale and rent back arrangements (‘SRBs’). Under a SRB, the house is sold, often at a discount, but the vendor remains in occupation under a lease granted by the purchaser. According to a 2008 OFT study, even though SRBs were a relatively new phenomenon there had been about 50,000 of them. At that time the SRB market was unregulated. The FSA began to regulate it in 2009. According to a recent FSA press release, ‘the entire SRB market is temporarily shut’. Nevertheless, it is apparent that many tens of thousands of SRBs must have taken place by now.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 24th May 2012
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“Two financial advisers who conned investors out of £3m in a property scam which they lost gambling have been ordered to pay back just £1 each.”
BBC News, 24th March 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“It is only a short time ago since the House of Lords was asked to consider the issue of beneficial interests of an unmarried couple in Stack v Dowden. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Jones v Kernott highlights again the ongoing problems that can arise when unmarried couples separate and there is no clear agreement as to the ownership of their property interests.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd February 2012
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“New rules to stop a resurgence in risky mortgage lending are likely to be imposed in 2013 by the Financial Services Authority (FSA).”
BBC News, 19th December 2011
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Ministers will decide by next April whether to change the law on missing people in England and Wales.”
BBC News, 30th November 2011
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“How should the court approach the determination of the beneficial interests in a property acquired in joint names by an unmarried couple? The Court of Appeal had held the decision of the House of Lords in Stack v Dowden did not allow the court to impute to the parties an intention that they would divide their beneficial interest in their property fairly. The Supreme Court revisited the decision in Stack v Dowden and disagreed with the Court of Appeal: If the presumption of joint beneficial ownership is rebutted, the court can, in the absence of finding any intention as to the shares, impute to the parties an intention that their beneficial interest would be divided in a manner that the court considers fair.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 9th November 2011
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“The Jones v Kernott judgment does little to resolve the grey area of ex-cohabitees’ entitlements to a share in their former home.”
The Guardian, 10th November 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53; [2011] WLR (D) 321
“When a cohabiting couple bought a family home in their joint names and were both responsible for the mortgage, but without any express declaration as to their beneficial interests, the starting point was that equity followed the law so that the presumption was that they were joint tenants both in law and in equity. That presumption could be displaced by showing that the parties had a different common intention at the time when they acquired the home or that they later formed a common intention that their respective shares would change. Their common intention was to be deduced objectively from their conduct. If it was clear that the parties did not intend joint tenancy at the outset or had changed their original intention, but it was not possible to ascertain, whether by direct evidence or by inference, what their actual intention was as to the shares in which they owned the property, each was entitled to that share which the court considered fair, having regard to the whole course of the dealing between them in relation to the property.”
WLR Daily, 9th November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
” Lawyers called today for new legislation on ‘co-habiting couples’ after the UK’s highest court ruled that a man who left his partner nearly 20 years ago was not entitled to half the value of the house they shared.”
The Independent, 9th November 2011
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“The property rights of millions of unmarried couples who split up have been clarified by a supreme court judgment that has awarded the overwhelming share of a bungalow in Essex to the woman.”
The Guardian, 9th November 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Fenland District Council v Sheppard and others [2011] EWHC 2829 (Ch); [2011] WLR (D) 316
“In making a vesting order, pursuant to section 320 of the Insolvency Act 1986, in favour of a statutory chargee whose charge ranked in priority to the mortgagees’ charge over the property, the court was not bound to set aside the mortgagees’ charge where the mortgagees did not themselves apply for a vesting order. Such an order would not effectively benefit only the mortgagees by extinguishing the statutory charge if it could be shown that the statutory chargee intended to preserve the benefit of its charge, or that the extinguishment of its charge would be against the statutory chargee’s interests, in which case there would be a presumption against extinguishment.”
WLR Daily, 3rd November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Since the early 1990s it has been common place for ‘the ordinary domestic householder purchasing his own home’ to pursue the valuer contracted by the prospective mortgagee for negligent over-valuation.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 19th September 2011
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“As if finding a property, saving for a deposit and passing credit and salary checks weren’t enough for would-be homebuyers, lenders have thrown in a new issue: your solicitor. An increasing number of borrowers are finding that their lender will not work with the law firm they have chosen to do their conveyancing – a situation that is reducing consumer choice and can add costs, hassle and delay to the homebuying process. And the problem is likely to grow.”
The Guardian, 2nd September 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Swift 1st Ltd v Colin and others [2011] WLR (D) 262
“The holder of a charge over a property had full power of sale under the Law of Property Act 1925 irrespective of the fact that the charge had not been substantially registered. All that was required to exercise that power was for the mortgage to have been executed by deed.”
WLR Daily, 27th July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Bank of Scotland plc v Zinda [2011 EWCA Civ 706; [2011] WLR (D) 208
“An agreement between the mortgagor and mortgagee consolidating the unpaid instalments leading up to a suspended possession order and the future mortgage instalments thereby enlarging the total amount of loan did not have the effect of creating a new contract of loan displacing the original contract of loan. Nor did the agreement affect the survival of the suspended possession order entitling the mortgagee to take immediate possession of the mortgaged property without any further order based on the new contract.”
WLR Daily, 23rd June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Home owners who were sold mortgages during the property boom that they couldn’t afford are to be given compensation following a ruling by the City watchdog.”
Daily Telegraph, 22nd February 2011
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“A coalition of the UK’s leading housing and legal organisations have written to Chancellor George Osborne warning of ‘dire consequences’ for homebuyers and the building industry if Financial Service Authority proposals for mortgage regulation are implemented.”
The Guardian, 16th November 2010
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010 published
Full text of Act (PDF)
Source: www.opsi.gov.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025