Post by krw Post by Btms Post by krw
On 15 August 2011, according to Lowfield, Chris had sought a £40k loan
to buy the smithing business and renting the premises from the previous
smith. However the bank needed Alice's house as security.
So Alice and Kate already own their cottages and Brian cannot roll them
back into Home Farm ownership.
The editor should be sacked for being unable to remember old stories.
I take your point but I guess it is pissible (twatbili) that the house was
offered as security even though they don't own it?
Since the economic / banking crisis of 2008 the banks have taken a
pretty strict view on lending, although it may have eased in the last
couple of years. Alice would need to demonstrate ownership for it to be
used as security and they would want to see her (joint?) names on the
title deeds and at Land Registry.
If Alice did not own the cottage then it is not hers to pledge as
security and it is not possible to use the inclusion of an asset in a
will as the actual owner may well alter the will in the meantime before
the asset is possessed by the bank to repay the loan.
When my employer's bank started wanting to see title deeds etc we
decided we could manage without an overdraft facility (we had other
sources of finance) from a UK bank.
And I am sure if I wanted to borrow £40k today then the lender would
want some proper security.
As I said I take your point. However, when I was in banking way back in the
last century, when banks tended not to allow folk to borrow more than than
they stood a good chance of repaying, there was a philosophy of accepting
the security offered by a parent when the parent was so wealthy that it was
considered that morally the off spring were borrowing their parent's money.
And could not be morally refused.
This use of the word "moral" in relation to bankers is a bit of an oxymoron
in today's world but I wondering if it might have been possible for Daddy
to have Guaranteed the loan secured on a charge to the cottage?
All that notwithstanding, even back then banks were not happy with the
Guarantor option (though with a charge on the cottage, this would be more
acceptable) as it was virtually impossible to recover a debt from a
Guarantor who reneged on the deal. Anyway, I doubt the writers would have
researched all this and in essence you are right that it is not congruent
with previous facts.
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.