This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Am re-mortgaging my house and taking the opportunity to borrow some additional money to pay off a loan from my Father. The new lender didn't mention needing a solicitor at all until I told them the purpose of the additional borrowing. They say they need a letter from a solicitor to "prove" that's where the money is going.
I've spoken to a couple of solicitors and they both said "eh?" They only way they would be prepared to do that would be if they were handling the re-mortgage as though I was moving house and the money passed through their hands to my original lender and Father.
It just doesn't make sense to me because, if I did want the money for some other purpose, that the lender didn't approve of, I could just give it to my Father and then he could give it back to me!
Anyone been in this situation before?
Post edited at 11:45
In reply to hokkyokusei:
A long time ago I remortgaged after some renovation work was done on my flat. I had expected to need a solicitor and had primed mine to handle it. In the end I changed lender to one that covered legal costs (with their appointed solicitor) as part of the deal to switch to them, much to my own solicitors disappointment.
It was back in the days when banks were keen to give you money, I doubt they are so keen these days...
A long time ago I remortgaged after some renovation work was done on my flat. I had expected to need a solicitor and had primed mine to handle it. In the end I changed lender to one that covered legal costs (with their appointed solicitor) as part of the deal to switch to them, much to my own solicitors disappointment.
It was back in the days when banks were keen to give you money, I doubt they are so keen these days...
In reply to hokkyokusei:
You're bound to need a solicitor to confirm the title to the mortgagee, surely? Or do you mean your own representation separate from the mortgagee's solicitor?
jcm
You're bound to need a solicitor to confirm the title to the mortgagee, surely? Or do you mean your own representation separate from the mortgagee's solicitor?
jcm
In reply to hokkyokusei:
I am no expert by any means, but I was under the impression if a house is re-mortgaged for purposes of gaining additional money, then you need to prove where that money is going and that it is to a sensible cause. Ie. buying a car, home improvements or paying off debts. Otherwise you could just doss it on drugs, gambling and hookers which makes you a higher liability to pay it back.
I am no expert by any means, but I was under the impression if a house is re-mortgaged for purposes of gaining additional money, then you need to prove where that money is going and that it is to a sensible cause. Ie. buying a car, home improvements or paying off debts. Otherwise you could just doss it on drugs, gambling and hookers which makes you a higher liability to pay it back.
In reply to crayefish:
How does a solicitor prove where the money is going?
They will just take their fee and walk away.
Always remember that a solicitor will wor against you just as readily as they will work for you. Their only driver is their fee ;(
> I am no expert by any means, but I was under the impression if a house is re-mortgaged for purposes of gaining additional money, then you need to prove where that money is going and that it is to a sensible cause. Ie. buying a car, home improvements or paying off debts. Otherwise you could just doss it on drugs, gambling and hookers which makes you a higher liability to pay it back.
How does a solicitor prove where the money is going?
They will just take their fee and walk away.
Always remember that a solicitor will wor against you just as readily as they will work for you. Their only driver is their fee ;(
In reply to timjones:
No idea. But I think they have some accountability and thus want to ensure that the money is going where you said it would, such as to his dad's bank account. If he then chooses to give it back to him, that would probably be considered another loan which is of no interest to the bank.
> How does a solicitor prove where the money is going?
> They will just take their fee and walk away.
> Always remember that a solicitor will wor against you just as readily as they will work for you. Their only driver is their fee ;(
No idea. But I think they have some accountability and thus want to ensure that the money is going where you said it would, such as to his dad's bank account. If he then chooses to give it back to him, that would probably be considered another loan which is of no interest to the bank.
In reply to timjones:
>Always remember that a solicitor will wor against you just as readily as they will work for you.
This isn't actually true, of course. You seem to have some sort of obsession with posting rubbish about solicitors. Do you have some unhappy childhood experience you need to share with us?
>Their only driver is their fee ;(
Unlike the rest of us, who do their work for free, obviously.
jcm
>Always remember that a solicitor will wor against you just as readily as they will work for you.
This isn't actually true, of course. You seem to have some sort of obsession with posting rubbish about solicitors. Do you have some unhappy childhood experience you need to share with us?
>Their only driver is their fee ;(
Unlike the rest of us, who do their work for free, obviously.
jcm
In reply to crayefish:
>No idea
Correct, of course. All a solicitor can do is undertake where they are going to send the money. but as you also say banks seem to perceive this, rightly or wrongly, as being helpful to weed out one or two wrong'uns in real life.
jcm
>No idea
Correct, of course. All a solicitor can do is undertake where they are going to send the money. but as you also say banks seem to perceive this, rightly or wrongly, as being helpful to weed out one or two wrong'uns in real life.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
It's not? Aren't you as willing to work for person a as person b in a dispute between them?
> >Always remember that a solicitor will wor against you just as readily as they will work for you.
> This isn't actually true, of course.
It's not? Aren't you as willing to work for person a as person b in a dispute between them?
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I guess they see it as a 'better than nothing' approach which I imagine works in the majority of cases. As with most systems, if you want to cheat it, there is always a way around it.
> >No idea
> Correct, of course. All a solicitor can do is undertake where they are going to send the money. but as you also say banks seem to perceive this, rightly or wrongly, as being helpful to weed out one or two wrong'uns in real life.
> jcm
I guess they see it as a 'better than nothing' approach which I imagine works in the majority of cases. As with most systems, if you want to cheat it, there is always a way around it.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
A very bad experience with a solicitor who couldn't even manage to read a will properly.
Plus another one who was all to willing to act as a paid bully and threaten injunctions to try and bully me into to footing the whole bill for the maintenance of a boundary that should be a 50:50 responsibility.
The snivelling weasel in the second instance quite obviously didn't take any time to do any basic homework or consider the facts of the matter. I'm positive that he would have done the same job for me if I'd paid him. The man was either very stupid or had no moral conscience whatsoever. He didn't appreciate being told so, at least he hasn't troubled me since I told him what I thought of him and where he could stick his letter
It is quite possible to make money AND act in an ethical manner!
> >Always remember that a solicitor will wor against you just as readily as they will work for you.
> This isn't actually true, of course. You seem to have some sort of obsession with posting rubbish about solicitors. Do you have some unhappy childhood experience you need to share with us?
A very bad experience with a solicitor who couldn't even manage to read a will properly.
Plus another one who was all to willing to act as a paid bully and threaten injunctions to try and bully me into to footing the whole bill for the maintenance of a boundary that should be a 50:50 responsibility.
The snivelling weasel in the second instance quite obviously didn't take any time to do any basic homework or consider the facts of the matter. I'm positive that he would have done the same job for me if I'd paid him. The man was either very stupid or had no moral conscience whatsoever. He didn't appreciate being told so, at least he hasn't troubled me since I told him what I thought of him and where he could stick his letter
> >Their only driver is their fee ;(
> Unlike the rest of us, who do their work for free, obviously.
It is quite possible to make money AND act in an ethical manner!
In reply to crayefish:
Banks and estate agents appear to trust them. I'm not sure why, overall I've found them no more or less trustworthy than the rest of the population. Therefore I'm beggared if I can understand why I should be forced to use them by other institutions?
> No idea. But I think they have some accountability and thus want to ensure that the money is going where you said it would, such as to his dad's bank account. If he then chooses to give it back to him, that would probably be considered another loan which is of no interest to the bank.
Banks and estate agents appear to trust them. I'm not sure why, overall I've found them no more or less trustworthy than the rest of the population. Therefore I'm beggared if I can understand why I should be forced to use them by other institutions?
In reply to timjones:
What's the difference between lawyers and hookers?
Hookers stop screwing you when you're dead.
> It is quite possible to make money AND act in an ethical manner!
What's the difference between lawyers and hookers?
Hookers stop screwing you when you're dead.
In reply to timjones:
But it's not to do with trust it's to do with accountability. If they lie or are dishonest, then they can be accountable for their actions and taken to court over that - easier to take a solicitor to court for lying about a contract as it is their responsibility to sort it, as opposed to an individual who can claim they didn't know the fine print or what ever. It's an extra peace of mind for the banks.
> Banks and estate agents appear to trust them. I'm not sure why, overall I've found them no more or less trustworthy than the rest of the population. Therefore I'm beggared if I can understand why I should be forced to use them by other institutions?
But it's not to do with trust it's to do with accountability. If they lie or are dishonest, then they can be accountable for their actions and taken to court over that - easier to take a solicitor to court for lying about a contract as it is their responsibility to sort it, as opposed to an individual who can claim they didn't know the fine print or what ever. It's an extra peace of mind for the banks.
In reply to crayefish:
If I take the charitable view then both of the issues I've had with solicitors were been down to their inability to read and interpret fine print or laws. The less charitable view is one of the issues was just an attempt to use their "status" to bully me. The balance of probability is that the less charitable view is the correct one.
Sadly in the many cases people won't be sharp enough to spot what is going on and will either wind up paying another solicitor to sort matters out or will feel threatened enough to be "bullied" into doing as the solicitor says ;(
Personally they don't give me any peace of mind whatsoever!
> But it's not to do with trust it's to do with accountability. If they lie or are dishonest, then they can be accountable for their actions and taken to court over that - easier to take a solicitor to court for lying about a contract as it is their responsibility to sort it, as opposed to an individual who can claim they didn't know the fine print or what ever. It's an extra peace of mind for the banks.
If I take the charitable view then both of the issues I've had with solicitors were been down to their inability to read and interpret fine print or laws. The less charitable view is one of the issues was just an attempt to use their "status" to bully me. The balance of probability is that the less charitable view is the correct one.
Sadly in the many cases people won't be sharp enough to spot what is going on and will either wind up paying another solicitor to sort matters out or will feel threatened enough to be "bullied" into doing as the solicitor says ;(
Personally they don't give me any peace of mind whatsoever!
In reply to crayefish:
Like it
> What's the difference between lawyers and hookers?
> Hookers stop screwing you when you're dead.
Like it
In reply to timjones:
Understandable given your experiences. But you've been on the shit end of two bad ones. They would still give banks peace of mind though as they have the clout, unlike individuals and thus can use them to their advantage. When it comes it stuff like that, it helps being big of course (as in like a bank, not hung like a donkey; though that has other benefits!).
> Personally they don't give me any peace of mind whatsoever!
Understandable given your experiences. But you've been on the shit end of two bad ones. They would still give banks peace of mind though as they have the clout, unlike individuals and thus can use them to their advantage. When it comes it stuff like that, it helps being big of course (as in like a bank, not hung like a donkey; though that has other benefits!).
In reply to crayefish:
Possibly but I have a nasty feeling that my experiences are far from uncommon.
The second incident was quite recent and I'm still considering invoicing the solicitor for the time I spent dealing with the matter. £190/hour appears to be the going rate for dealing with legal matters according to their website
> Understandable given your experiences. But you've been on the shit end of two bad ones. They would still give banks peace of mind though as they have the clout, unlike individuals and thus can use them to their advantage. When it comes it stuff like that, it helps being big of course (as in like a bank, not hung like a donkey; though that has other benefits!).
Possibly but I have a nasty feeling that my experiences are far from uncommon.
The second incident was quite recent and I'm still considering invoicing the solicitor for the time I spent dealing with the matter. £190/hour appears to be the going rate for dealing with legal matters according to their website
In reply to hokkyokusei:
Probably some form of money laundering guidelines. I do not think that people understand you have to prove where money comes from and is going, especially in financial institutions.
So the new lender is probably right.
Probably some form of money laundering guidelines. I do not think that people understand you have to prove where money comes from and is going, especially in financial institutions.
So the new lender is probably right.
In reply to timjones:
Wouldn't surprise me. But unfortunately life is all about trying to avoid being screwed over it seems. If you can avoid it for the majority of the time while also squeezing in the odd shag and mountain climb then you've done well
> Possibly but I have a nasty feeling that my experiences are far from uncommon.
> The second incident was quite recent and I'm still considering invoicing the solicitor for the time I spent dealing with the matter. £190/hour appears to be the going rate for dealing with legal matters according to their website
Wouldn't surprise me. But unfortunately life is all about trying to avoid being screwed over it seems. If you can avoid it for the majority of the time while also squeezing in the odd shag and mountain climb then you've done well
In reply to crayefish:
You're quite right.
I dislike dishonesty, but not as much as I dislike "professionals" who cast their conscience aside in order to act as "hired guns" in crude attempts to screw other people over.
> Wouldn't surprise me. But unfortunately life is all about trying to avoid being screwed over it seems. If you can avoid it for the majority of the time while also squeezing in the odd shag and mountain climb then you've done well
You're quite right.
I dislike dishonesty, but not as much as I dislike "professionals" who cast their conscience aside in order to act as "hired guns" in crude attempts to screw other people over.
In reply to timjones:
This solicitor who upset you; was he acting for someone else or in his personal capacity?
jcm
This solicitor who upset you; was he acting for someone else or in his personal capacity?
jcm
In reply to timjones:
I assume you're talking about lawyers acting in a dispute. Disputes arise where two or more parties disagree. Lawyers don't create disputes, their instructing clients do. Lawyers have no interest in "screwing people over", their instructing clients do. The lawyer couldn't care less about what party is "in the right" and it would normally be inappropriate for them to involve themselves with this anyway. They are a not hired for their moral viewpoint, simply to carry out instructions given by their client.
It's also worth remembering that, like every other profession, not all lawyers are created equally. Someone who was a tw*t before entering the legal profession will most likely remain a tw*t. I've yet to see a test which can properly identify this prior to the 24 week mark.
> I dislike dishonesty, but not as much as I dislike "professionals" who cast their conscience aside in order to act as "hired guns" in crude attempts to screw other people over.
I assume you're talking about lawyers acting in a dispute. Disputes arise where two or more parties disagree. Lawyers don't create disputes, their instructing clients do. Lawyers have no interest in "screwing people over", their instructing clients do. The lawyer couldn't care less about what party is "in the right" and it would normally be inappropriate for them to involve themselves with this anyway. They are a not hired for their moral viewpoint, simply to carry out instructions given by their client.
It's also worth remembering that, like every other profession, not all lawyers are created equally. Someone who was a tw*t before entering the legal profession will most likely remain a tw*t. I've yet to see a test which can properly identify this prior to the 24 week mark.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
He was acting for someone else.
I'm just gobsmacked that he never spotted the obvious flaws in the line he adopted!
Or will a solicitor send a bullying letter for anyone that pays them to do it regardless of the rights and wrongs?
> This solicitor who upset you; was he acting for someone else or in his personal capacity?
> jcm
He was acting for someone else.
I'm just gobsmacked that he never spotted the obvious flaws in the line he adopted!
Or will a solicitor send a bullying letter for anyone that pays them to do it regardless of the rights and wrongs?
In reply to hokkyokusei:
Seems odd. I did precisely this 3 years ago. Bought house in 09 with help of family money to make my deposit comparativley huge so that I wouldn't have any bridging lone issues etc if I struggled to sell my old house and to get a good rate based on large deposit at a time when mortgae market was pretty screwed up. We used much of the 'extra' once our old house sold to extend the new one... then re-mortgaged in '11 with same lender and simply stated that as well as re-negotiating the original loan amount/rate that I needed more to pay back 'family money' used for the extensions. As Market was now better and extension had added pretty much the same value as we had spent on it the multiples all worked fine, we had sufficient equity to cover the new formalised lending.... and they never batted an eyelid around what the money was for/where it was going.
I suspect they rely on the fact they pay it to your bank account - Money laundering and stuff like that is all done by your bank and the bank that receives the money. A transfer between family members will never raise any great concerns and is easily explained to bank staff who can no doubt verify the story if they felt the need to, against the paper trail that will exist of the original payment by your father, presumably to you to the mortgage company/your lawyer when you bought.
So long as your deposit level is sufficient to make them happy they shouldn't care in the slightest what you do with the cash as it doesn't change your risk profile vs somebody who never had a wodge of cash burning a hole in their pocket in the first place.
I'd suggest querying, stating again that it is simply to repay family money and that as they are paying it to your bank account they should not have any concerns. It would be reasonable for them to have concerns if you asked them to wire the money straight to an unknown account but if it is going to your account that you service mortgage from there are no issues I can think of (both from my personal experience and having a small amount of exposure to 'know your client' and 'anit-money laundering' type stuff I have to know a little about in my line of work - neither are my direct area but everybody in company has to do compulsory basic training and nothing here rings any bells of concern in my mind).
Seems odd. I did precisely this 3 years ago. Bought house in 09 with help of family money to make my deposit comparativley huge so that I wouldn't have any bridging lone issues etc if I struggled to sell my old house and to get a good rate based on large deposit at a time when mortgae market was pretty screwed up. We used much of the 'extra' once our old house sold to extend the new one... then re-mortgaged in '11 with same lender and simply stated that as well as re-negotiating the original loan amount/rate that I needed more to pay back 'family money' used for the extensions. As Market was now better and extension had added pretty much the same value as we had spent on it the multiples all worked fine, we had sufficient equity to cover the new formalised lending.... and they never batted an eyelid around what the money was for/where it was going.
I suspect they rely on the fact they pay it to your bank account - Money laundering and stuff like that is all done by your bank and the bank that receives the money. A transfer between family members will never raise any great concerns and is easily explained to bank staff who can no doubt verify the story if they felt the need to, against the paper trail that will exist of the original payment by your father, presumably to you to the mortgage company/your lawyer when you bought.
So long as your deposit level is sufficient to make them happy they shouldn't care in the slightest what you do with the cash as it doesn't change your risk profile vs somebody who never had a wodge of cash burning a hole in their pocket in the first place.
I'd suggest querying, stating again that it is simply to repay family money and that as they are paying it to your bank account they should not have any concerns. It would be reasonable for them to have concerns if you asked them to wire the money straight to an unknown account but if it is going to your account that you service mortgage from there are no issues I can think of (both from my personal experience and having a small amount of exposure to 'know your client' and 'anit-money laundering' type stuff I have to know a little about in my line of work - neither are my direct area but everybody in company has to do compulsory basic training and nothing here rings any bells of concern in my mind).
In reply to Ferret:
Ah. Are we using the term 'remortgage' to mean borrowing more money from the initial lender? In my lexicon that's not a remortgage, but if that's what the OP meant then I agree it's hard to see why a solicitor is needed.
jcm
Ah. Are we using the term 'remortgage' to mean borrowing more money from the initial lender? In my lexicon that's not a remortgage, but if that's what the OP meant then I agree it's hard to see why a solicitor is needed.
jcm
In reply to timjones:
Well, no, you weren't. You were suggesting that he was a Bad Man for putting forward on behalf of his client a position which you regarded as unreasonable.
You don't know, of course, that he didn't spot the flaws and advise his client accordingly, but his client then disregarded that advice.
Well, as I said before, a solicitor won't take on any client. But after that, the solicitor is not in a position to break the retainer just because he thinks his client is being unreasonable, or even because his client is demanding letters worded in a particular way (within reason) or for any reason at all, really (other than some obvious ones like being unable to get instructions or not getting paid). So the answer is basically yes, subject to the next paragraph.
Solicitors have to follow the Code of Conduct, and that means not doing anything which brings the profession into disrepute (basically; I forget the exact wording). Sending letters which are deemed excessively bullying is that. What means is a fine line. A couple of solicitors were recently
struck off - a hugely controversial decision - for sending letters to people allegedly downloading porn in breach of copyright demanding damages on behalf of their client.
So if you truly received bullying letters, you might have some cause for complaint.
However, you didn't, of course. you just got indignant because your neighbour (or whoever) had instructed his solicitor to make demands you didn't think were due, and you took what a solicitor regards as simply businesslike for 'bullying'. That's not the same thing at all. What baffles me is why you blame the solicitor and not his client.
jcm
> I'm just gobsmacked that he never spotted the obvious flaws in the line he adopted!
Well, no, you weren't. You were suggesting that he was a Bad Man for putting forward on behalf of his client a position which you regarded as unreasonable.
You don't know, of course, that he didn't spot the flaws and advise his client accordingly, but his client then disregarded that advice.
> Or will a solicitor send a bullying letter for anyone that pays them to do it regardless of the rights and wrongs?
Well, as I said before, a solicitor won't take on any client. But after that, the solicitor is not in a position to break the retainer just because he thinks his client is being unreasonable, or even because his client is demanding letters worded in a particular way (within reason) or for any reason at all, really (other than some obvious ones like being unable to get instructions or not getting paid). So the answer is basically yes, subject to the next paragraph.
Solicitors have to follow the Code of Conduct, and that means not doing anything which brings the profession into disrepute (basically; I forget the exact wording). Sending letters which are deemed excessively bullying is that. What means is a fine line. A couple of solicitors were recently
struck off - a hugely controversial decision - for sending letters to people allegedly downloading porn in breach of copyright demanding damages on behalf of their client.
So if you truly received bullying letters, you might have some cause for complaint.
However, you didn't, of course. you just got indignant because your neighbour (or whoever) had instructed his solicitor to make demands you didn't think were due, and you took what a solicitor regards as simply businesslike for 'bullying'. That's not the same thing at all. What baffles me is why you blame the solicitor and not his client.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
If he regards doing something that makes him like like an unprofessional tit with no conscience as "businesslike" he's got a problem IMO. I was even less impressed when he refused to back down when I indicated that I wasn't dumb enough to comply to their demands.
Would it be excusable if he'd followed instructions to come and kick the living daylights out of me in order to try and bully me to footing someone elses share of a bill?
Solicitors have to show a bit of intelligence and conscience if they want their profession to command respect!
> However, you didn't, of course. you just got indignant because your neighbour (or whoever) had instructed his solicitor to make demands you didn't think were due, and you took what a solicitor regards as simply businesslike for 'bullying'. That's not the same thing at all. What baffles me is why you blame the solicitor and not his client.
If he regards doing something that makes him like like an unprofessional tit with no conscience as "businesslike" he's got a problem IMO. I was even less impressed when he refused to back down when I indicated that I wasn't dumb enough to comply to their demands.
Would it be excusable if he'd followed instructions to come and kick the living daylights out of me in order to try and bully me to footing someone elses share of a bill?
Solicitors have to show a bit of intelligence and conscience if they want their profession to command respect!
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Ah - you coudl be right. Now I think of it, I've never felt teh need to physically change lender.
I assume a lawyer is required when moving lender but in a pretty limited way. I also still can't see any merit in that solicitor being involved in what the spare money is used for.... they arrange to receive a wodge of cash from new mortgage company, secured on house to pay off old mortgage company to then send anything left over to the client. Who then gives it to their dad?
Ah - you coudl be right. Now I think of it, I've never felt teh need to physically change lender.
I assume a lawyer is required when moving lender but in a pretty limited way. I also still can't see any merit in that solicitor being involved in what the spare money is used for.... they arrange to receive a wodge of cash from new mortgage company, secured on house to pay off old mortgage company to then send anything left over to the client. Who then gives it to their dad?
In reply to timjones:
>Would it be excusable if he'd followed instructions to come and kick the living daylights out of me in order to try and bully me to footing someone elses share of a bill?
Absolutely. Solicitors do that kind of thing all the time.
I'm beginning to think I may be wasting my time here. I'm going to assume you're just one of those people who think Jack Nicholson ought to be prosecuted for what he did in The Shining, and move on.
jcm
>Would it be excusable if he'd followed instructions to come and kick the living daylights out of me in order to try and bully me to footing someone elses share of a bill?
Absolutely. Solicitors do that kind of thing all the time.
I'm beginning to think I may be wasting my time here. I'm going to assume you're just one of those people who think Jack Nicholson ought to be prosecuted for what he did in The Shining, and move on.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Ah wwell. I guess that I'll just have to live with thw fact that I can't respect the profession
How do they live with their consciences on the occasions when their threatening tactics work and somebody buckle into doing something that isn't their responsibility?
> >Would it be excusable if he'd followed instructions to come and kick the living daylights out of me in order to try and bully me to footing someone elses share of a bill?
> Absolutely. Solicitors do that kind of thing all the time.
> I'm beginning to think I may be wasting my time here. I'm going to assume you're just one of those people who think Jack Nicholson ought to be prosecuted for what he did in The Shining, and move on.
Ah wwell. I guess that I'll just have to live with thw fact that I can't respect the profession
How do they live with their consciences on the occasions when their threatening tactics work and somebody buckle into doing something that isn't their responsibility?
> jcm
In reply to hokkyokusei:
I'm assuming your father doesn't have a second charge against the property?
Either way you'll still be needing searches carried out against the property, most people just pay a solicitor instead of trying to do it themselves. Maybe because it's a fairly simple job so legal fees tend to be low.
I'm assuming your father doesn't have a second charge against the property?
Either way you'll still be needing searches carried out against the property, most people just pay a solicitor instead of trying to do it themselves. Maybe because it's a fairly simple job so legal fees tend to be low.
In reply to neilh:
You may be correct, though the original lender didn't care where the money came from. In fact I'd have difficulty proving where it came from. My dear old Dad went to the bank to do the transfer or get a bankers cheque or whatever he was so outraged by the fees they wanted to charge him he ended up coming away with a carrier bag full of cash! I was furious with him when he turned up at the pub with it!
> Probably some form of money laundering guidelines. I do not think that people understand you have to prove where money comes from and is going, especially in financial institutions.
You may be correct, though the original lender didn't care where the money came from. In fact I'd have difficulty proving where it came from. My dear old Dad went to the bank to do the transfer or get a bankers cheque or whatever he was so outraged by the fees they wanted to charge him he ended up coming away with a carrier bag full of cash! I was furious with him when he turned up at the pub with it!
In reply to Ferret:
Yes, this is exactly the situation. I borrowed from my Father to get a good LTV and hence interest rate. The house is now worth more, so I want to borrow more, retaining the LTV and, now slightly better, interest rate. I suspect that if I was using the same lender I would be OK, though ironically, the new lender is owned by the initial lender.
Yes, this is exactly the situation. I borrowed from my Father to get a good LTV and hence interest rate. The house is now worth more, so I want to borrow more, retaining the LTV and, now slightly better, interest rate. I suspect that if I was using the same lender I would be OK, though ironically, the new lender is owned by the initial lender.
In reply to Removed User:
No, he doesn't. He just loaned me the cash. We don't have any kind of written agreement. I'm simply aware that he would set the dogs on me if I ever tried renege on the debt
This is the unexpected but to me, the new lender isn't saying I need a solicitor for any other purpose than confirming what I intend to do with the money.
> I'm assuming your father doesn't have a second charge against the property?
No, he doesn't. He just loaned me the cash. We don't have any kind of written agreement. I'm simply aware that he would set the dogs on me if I ever tried renege on the debt
> Either way you'll still be needing searches carried out against the property, most people just pay a solicitor instead of trying to do it themselves. Maybe because it's a fairly simple job so legal fees tend to be low.
This is the unexpected but to me, the new lender isn't saying I need a solicitor for any other purpose than confirming what I intend to do with the money.
In reply to hokkyokusei:
>This is the unexpected but to me, the new lender isn't saying I need a solicitor for any other purpose than confirming what I intend to do with the money.
Then that is weird. I'd understand saying they need to pay it to a solicitor, but how a solicitor's 'confirmation' of what you're going to do with the money can be worth anything is beyond me.
jcm
>This is the unexpected but to me, the new lender isn't saying I need a solicitor for any other purpose than confirming what I intend to do with the money.
Then that is weird. I'd understand saying they need to pay it to a solicitor, but how a solicitor's 'confirmation' of what you're going to do with the money can be worth anything is beyond me.
jcm
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...