Jump to content

Recommended Posts

We just got declined for a mortgage in Dulwich Village by Barclays - we passed financially but the house value came back as ?0 and we got told the whole Dulwich Estate has been blacklisted and no mortgages will be granted by Barclays, Santander or Nationwide because of the restrictive terms of the Dulwich Estate rules. The rules says that the estate can take first charge over the property for any amounts owed to the estate and so the banks deem them un-mortgageable.


Has anyone else heard of this? Obviously this could have a big impact on sales and the-mortgages in the area. Interested to hear any other experiences.

Who told you that the Estate properties are unmortgageable where these lenders are concerned? Sorry I can't believe this at all.


I thought the vast majority of houses on the Estate were freehold and subject to the scheme of management:


http://www.dulwichestate.co.uk/som/


Is is the case that the property in question here is a leasehold?

Is it a house the Dulwich Estate currently own or just a house within the Estate boundary?


It doesn't really make sense to me either way but people have definitely bought and sold within the boundary recently so it could be an issue with that particular property or with estate owned properties.


The fees charged to live within the Estate boundary are only a few hundred pounds a year so even if a charge were to be top of the list, I can't imagine it would have much bearing on the mortgage amount.


I've just remortgaged with Scottish Widows on my house within the boundaries and there weren't any issues.

womanofdulwich Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bizarre.the charge would be for unpaid scheme of

> management fees?


http://www.dulwichestate.co.uk/som/scheme-document#clause16a


Point 11 in the scheme of management even mentions Barclays as the standard for interest rates.

localyocal Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


The rules says

> that the estate can take first charge over the

> property for any amounts owed to the estate and so

> the banks deem them un-mortgageable.

>


Most mortgage companies wont be willing to take a second charge. Perhaps they have only recently been made aware of the estate charge (or are only now taking it seriously/literaly) and are playing hardball until they change it.

If the Estate charge is unpaid the Estate do have a right to register a charge against the property but it would rank below any mortgage currently registered on the property so this is a complete overreaction by the lender whose security in the Property would be unaffected by any charge registered by the Estate. I have also had a case where clients had to change lenders due to this misunderstanding of the situation, very frustrating!

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/second-charge-or-second-mortgages


The risks and alternatives


As a second charge mortgage works very much like your first mortgage, your home is at risk if you don?t keep up the payments.


If you sell your home, the first charge mortgage gets cleared in full before any money goes towards paying off the second charge although the second charge lender can pursue you for the shortfall

Similarly the owner of a second charge can also repossess but they have to pay off the first charge first before they can use any money to pay off their own charge. The existence of a second charge does not prejudice the security of the first lender which is why Barclays stance is so stupid!


Realistically Dulwich Estate would be highly unlikely to ever try to repossess a Property, they register a charge to ensure that they will eventually get the money that they are owed when the property is sold or the owner of the property remortgages.

  • 4 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • For every person like OP that moans their doorbell was rung and there was a knock on the door, there's someone else moaning that they didn't hear the delivery drivers. If you've ever done delivery work you'll know that loads of people's bells don't work. The delivery drivers probably goes to a hundred doors a day: press bell, knock door, drop package, move on. If you don't like delivery drivers, insist on delivery by Royal Mail where the workers have wages and a union - or just stop ordering shit online that's artificially cheap. But most of us (me included) don't want that
    • If someone comes to my house and bangs my door and slams my gate, I'd speak to them about it nicely and ask if they would please not do that. And then subsequently less nicely if they keep doing it, ending in reporting them.  We don't slam doors at home and I don't put up with that either. I can see us moving to a culture where we bribe drivers to be nice by tipping them, but we shouldn't have to. It's not necessary - does not matter if they are on minimum wage or not, or if society means that delivery services are outsourced or whatever reason anyone would like to concoct.     
    • We’ve got a gap on the roof of our shed that needs patching  don’t want to buy a huge roll so hoping someone has some leftover  happy to collect/reimburse 
    • I never said I thought it was targeted or deliberate. There also has never been a “stand off” or confrontation, we’ve spoken to them in a friendly manner about it. Our experience is they don’t seem to care. That’s the frustrating thing for us, if someone politely raises a concern at least take a second to reflect. Treat others how you would want to be treated.  I don’t want them to lose their job, far from it. But considering it could cost me a days work to fix any damage, I’m within my right to try prevent it.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...