Silverfox, No you have it bang on. I'm just trying to seek some advice to maybe gain some evidence that actually the FHTB could not have been used for anything else other than the purchase of that property, for this to then aid his appeal in court. they would never have been able to buy the property if it wasn't for that loan. However she doesn't see it in that way she's just looking at ££££ and making sure he walks away with nothing because in her eyes "it is his loan not hers"


War Hero
Try this:

JSP 464

1224. Blah blah blah. The FHTB must be repaid immediately and in full (see paragraph 1242) or be transferred immediately to another qualifying property (see paragraph 1225). Failure to report the sale or disposal of the property or, if appropriate, to repay the outstanding balance immediately, will be regarded as a breach of the regulations (see paragraph 1244) and will result in interest charges being levied against the outstanding balance from the date on which the sale took place.

There. Is that big enough for you? @Louise447


War Hero
It doesnt matter what way she or anyone else sees it. The money belongs to MOD, the solicitor is not allowed to hold it back.
Sorry to jump into this belatedly but it isn't quite as simple as the MOD having ownership of any money from the sale of the property. FHTB operates as an advance of income to be used specifically for the purpose of a deposit on a property. The MOD has no legal charge over the property (as opposed to the mortgage or a secured loan) and the solicitor has no responsibility to ensure that the outstanding balance is repaid.
The situation is mostly similar to a case of one party using their savings to provide a larger part of the deposit for the property. In that case the party who contributed more would be most likely to recoup that difference before the proceeds are split in the event of an amicable separation but in the event of a more difficult separation then normal legal proceedings would need to be taken to ensure that the financial split worked in their favour.
The SP does however have a responsibility to ensure that the FHTB is repaid on the sale of the property as that is the contractual claim stated in JSP 464 that your other half signed up to.
In a nutshell, the FHTB has to be repaid (or it will be converted to a crown debt and interest charged) and your OH will have to argue that he should receive that money from the sale of the property before any split in equity occurs.
Not really what you want to hear I'm afraid but unfortunately the sale and the FHTB are 2 separate entities. There is no reason to suspect that your OH wouldn't get that money back through the courts/settlement but it may not happen in the order that will work best for you.

Latest Threads