You have to provide access for them to recover their property. You owning the land does not deny anyone else their property rights.
uh..to recover their personal property reposessed?
Legal.
Most likely, there is an easy way and a hard way.
The easy way is you allow them on the property, they seize the trailer and you go on with your life.
The hard way involves the County Sheriff.
As they are repossessing their property wave bye bye
I dont think this is in a banks remit but you need to put more information in the question.
Lenders are not in a position to trade properties. Just isn't going to happen. If you are interested in a property that is lender owned, you are going to have to purchase it from them.
yes
LIC Housing Finance Ltd is lending for the land. but the quantum is about 35 to 40% of the value only i believe.
If you have a good job or repayment plan, you can ask for a loan at your
credit union or Prosper. People may help you. From
http://www.acreditlibrary.com/prosper.html and http://luccu.org
Oh boy. I sure hope that you had a real estate attorney look at the contract before you signed it. I think you need to contact an attorney ASAP.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8402963.stm
And for the record, I am interested in a just peace for all in Israel and Palestine.
It's not their land. Imagine if we started building subdivisions in Baghdad for only Americans to live in and walled off large areas and did not let Iraqis travel freely in their own land. Nobody would stand for that. This is what Israel has done do the Palestinians land, making it an archipelago separated by huge walls (built not on Israeli but Palestinian land) checkpoints, fences, freeways only Israelis may travel on, all on a very narrow strip of land with limited water and fertile ground.
Where's MY NPP: What is your point. They have more a claim to that land than you do to America. Would you be willing to leave if some Native Americans kicked you out? Do you think you could go to whatever piece of Europe your ancestors came from and claim land there, just because it used to be yours and you've been gone for a while?
Islam and Judaism are religions. The people of Palestine who are Muslim have been living there just as long as the Jews. But they converted to Islam. Genetic tests show almost no detectable difference between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. That doesn't negate their right to their land.
THE MUSLIMS DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS
They need to stop building settlements in Palestinian land if they ever want peace.
It would be great if they could co-exist. I was always pro-Israel. But, I have heard some stories from good friends who have spent some time in Palestine, and how Palestinians are treated by Israelis.
Since the Muslim religion didn't exist for 600 years while the Jews were in Israel I don't see how any Muslim claim can be taken seriously they should be purged from the area.
They should honor past agreements and stop expanding their settlements.
We gee, we got illegal Mexicans coming into the USA. Some buy land and build homes and we do nothing about that. So what is any different about Israelis going into the West Bank and building homes?. If you are going to tolerate one kid of illegal act, why not another?
"Living Space". We've heard that term before, albeit in another language.
I think separation of peoples is the only plausible solution. Gaza needs to be emptied and annexed into Israel. The entire West Bank should be a homeland under a military governor supplied by the UN for the so-called Palestinians. A kill zone of 1000 yards should separate the West Bank from Israel as re-fashioned. That zone should have high fences on each side, and be patrolled by a UN security force.
The Palestinian Homeland Area should not be considered a sovereign state. It should have no authority to manage its own trade, immigration, or military matters. All those decisions should be made by the military governor, who also exercises all matters of High Justice (capital cases).
Within that framework, the so called Palestinians should have autonomy for local self-governance if they are capable of it. They should have adequate water rights to cultivate their fields and orchards. They should have their own schools not amounting to Madrassas training youths to become weapons of war or suicide bombers.
All non-jews should be expelled from the area of Israel. Israel should contain 100% jews, apart from a few ambassadors and their wives and staff, who under no circumstances should be moslem or islamic (they could be atheists, or Christians, or B'hai, or Hindoos, or Taoists).
All holy sites in Israel should be deconstructed as places for visitation. All holy objects that are holy to moslems should be taken to the West Bank Palestinian Homeland area. They could be placed in a museum or visitation site there. The UN would not guarantee their security, that would be a matter for the local government within it's area of autonomy. The local governors would be appointed by the UN military Governor, that way it can be assured that they are not from terrorists organizations. If the so called Palestinians are allowed to elect their own local leaders, they will surely be members of Hamas, Hezbolla, or the Kuds force, so that's not on. But the local leadership council should be given wide authority and deference and respect by the military Governor as long as the council does not seek to de-stabilize the situation and commit homicide, randomly or against innocents. Launching rockets into Israel would be a no-no -- the local leadership council would not be allowed to organize that sort of thing. Also blowing up the military Governor's office would be out -- just not acceptable conduct.
If there are peaceful so-called Palestinians, and "moderate moslems" they could live quite well in the West Bank. The separation of people's concept is not the ideal solution. It's just the only one that would actually be a solution. If Israel is to be wiped off the map, then Saudi Arabia (founded by the Brits in 1932) should go too, and Iraq, and Kuwait, and Qatar. Maybe the whole area could be an empty zone -- a wildlife preserve -- assuming the birds and the gazelles could manage to live there without killing each other every day. That would be peace, of a sort. But, the best practical solution would be a separation of the peoples along the lines described above. The so-called Palestinians wouldn't be happy with it, but they are not happy with anything, ever. And jews love to Kvetch, so there would be bigtime Kvetching on the jewish side. For the record, you are a moslem, right?
It is incredible that Israelis cannot enclose a porch now for at least 10 months.
But Arabs can build as much as they want to, with no restrictions.
The Israelis demonstrating today are 100 percent right.
And one more thing, the asker refers to people living in Palestine. Palestine ceased existence in 1948, when Israel took part of what had been called Palestine, while Jordan and Egypt divided up the remainder.
.
This is how "religion" name is used to occupy and steal a country. There will no be peace until the Jewish, Muslims and Christian will accept and respect each other believes. Stealing the property and/or land to a person and then justify the act by saying he/she is a Jew or a Muslim or Christian do not make the act right.
Technically, the land promised to Abraham included all of what we'd call the Middle-East.
The land called Israel in the Bible was the area of land which was promised to Jacobs Children... Jacob was the son of Isaac and Isaac the son of Abraham. If you read Genesis it become more clear. Esau and Ishmael's Children all got land as well. Even Lot's (Moab) children received land in the area promised to Abraham.
So, Gaza and the West Bank are apart of Jacob's (Israel's) lot... and should be given to the Jews without question. They even won it in war, so it's theirs by right of war as well.
Yes, Gaza belongs to the Jewish people. The "West Bank" belongs to the Jewish people. The ENTIRE land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people, from Egypt to Iraq.
Anyone can read the Bible and see that these lands ALL belong to the Jewish people forever.
The land of Israel has been given to the Jewish people by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, as a permanent inheritance.
Gen 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
Gen 15:19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
Gen 15:20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,
Gen 15:21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.
=================
Deu 11:24 Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours: from the wilderness and Lebanon, from the river, the river Euphrates, even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be.
Actually if you study the scripture the land that was promised was in what is now south western Iraq.
Palestine was taken because it was close by and the Palestinians were poor and had little influence on the world stage.
Love and blessings Don
Yahweh promised the whole land of Canaan to the ''ancient Israelites''.
A God Given right is a nice thing to have
God did not give anything to anyone and does not play favorites. In fact, if you read the first verses of Joshua this so-called "promised land" would include all the Middle East and Turkey. Look at
http://timeoftheend-faithandreason.net
Funny how the people who wrote the book are the ones that the book entitles land to..
and doesn't it make you wonder why the US has had all the natural disasters since the Bush admin gave Gaza away? God will not be mocked!
for some maps, you might want to try this
http://searchingthescriptures.net/main_pages/maps.htm
it isn't everything, but it might help as a start
Here is a link to biblical maps.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/biblicalmaps/qt/BiblicalMaps.htm
The reason they gave up the land is because God said that he would scatter Israel throughout the world. When in 70 AD the Romans destroyed the temple and the Israelites were then scattered throughout the world.
God also said he would gather Israel like together again. In 1948 Israel became a nation again after almost 2000 years of being scattered throughout the nations of the earth. While they were scattered the Palestinians ruled the land that is Israel. When Israel regained the land in 1948 the Palestinians were to share the land according to the UN. That is the basic reason why they are there now. There is a lot more detail to the whole thing but that is the basics.
If you would like to know more just ask. Would be happy to get you more details if you would like.
Yes it was promised to Abraham and his descendants through Issac.They should not have to surrender their land, it is just a small part of the massive area that Islam controls today.
It was actually all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates...that is :
Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.
Are you suggesting that these countries become part of Israel?
Problem is: Who ARE the descendants of Abraham? I suspect its most of the people of the Middle East if my population genetics serves as a suitable guess.
muslims believe in abraham too and they are his descendants so what's up with the promised land to a specific few rather than the descendants (which would pretty much include all abrahamic faiths)
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.â€
Yes both were promised to Israel and they will take them back even if by force.
CJ has stated it better than I can;
Israel owns it, No matter what :
unfortunately both the Arabs and the jews are the decendents of abraham so you could not use it to justify genocide of an entire region.
Yes Donna, it was the Land that God promised Abraham.
The land is not granted because some people "deserve" it and is not taken away because some people do not "deserve" it. If someone can take the land and hold it- he "deserves" it.
If arabs can grab the West bank and Israelis eat it- then, arabs deserve the land and Israelis do not.
More so than the Jews.
@avi-then why did we go to war with Iraq when they invaded Kuwait in 1990? Did native Americans and Australian aborigines deserve their land? Do Tibetans deserve theirs? Globally we made a decision 60 years ago that land acquired by force is not legitimate.
This is also not just about land, it is about human dignity, rights guaranteed by the UN charter. I know some countries are also quilty of rights violations, especially other Arab, Asian and African countries. But we condemn them (China for example) we do not offer are unqualified support-and in the case of the USA, protection and even aid money (Israel is the only developed country that receives regular aid (note:AID not LOANS)). Israel claims it is not a military occupation (although it is controlled through the military) okay then why do not Palestinian in the occupied territories enjoy freedom of movement, the right to even dig a well!
Most country's recognize the wrongs they have done to their indigenous populations, and I'm fully aware that if the ratio of Native Americans and Europeans was the same scale as Palestinians and Israelis, things might have turned out differently in North and South America. In other areas where the ratio was different-Rhodesia, India, Viet Nam the European colonists cut there losses and went home (stealing everything that wasn't bolted down). Only in Israel is this different, and only because the USA forces the issue.
Palestinians can not stop Israeli advances let alone recover land taken!
By pondering what Moshe said you will get the answer
" "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. ." Ben Gurion
I really don't know, why don't you go there and ask them.
the bit marked jordan
It is their land! Same as the land that in your language is called israel.
Depends on whether a person adhers to jungle or human laws.
Such an Arab question....
I have never heard Jews advocating to remove Arabs who are not terrorists...
As far as i understand, im sure you'll correct me if im wrong, israeli occupies some of these territories but doesnt lay any claim to them
syria, egypt and jordan all recognise palestine as an independent state and doesnt lay any any claim to the territories either.
so how can palestine not exist as a separate state from the surrounding countries if none of them lay claim to the land?
please keep answers mature and sensible, i would also ask you not to copy and paste long propaganda posts, although im sure some of you will.
Matt B, while Israel's official stance is that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are occupied territories, Michael W is also right in saying that "Israel lays claim to all of Palestine", because it does. Since Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights in 1967, all Israeli issued maps show these areas as part of Israel. It is because of this claim that Israel has been building illegal settlements all the time in these areas. Just check this very recent link about how such a map raised a controversy in the London underground.
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/britain/israel_poster_comes_down_after_pressure
I have asked similar questions to yours before, and I have seen others ask the same question. You will hardly ever see a pro-Israeli who would give you a straight answer to it. The reason is that deep in the Zionist ideology they want the West Bank and Gaza Strip to be part of Israel, but at the same time, they can not officially make that claim, because that would make the Palestinians there Israeli citizens. Considering that the Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Israel are essentially equal in numbers to the Jews, and increasing a 3 times the rate of the Jews in Israel, that would immediately make Israel no longer a Jewish state. That is the only reason why Israel has not made the official move to annex these territories yet. The Zionists are waiting for the right opportunity to empty these lands from the Palestinians as they did in 1948 in the land that is now called Israel. Until this opportunity comes, Israel will continue the illegal occupation of these lands and continue to treat the people there as sub-humans.
I suggest you read my answer to this question, which has a few quotations from Zionist leaders illustrating the Zionist ideology.
Edit:
Matt, I got the population figures from 3 different sources, which differ slightly from each other. These are CIA Facts Book, Wikipedia and Jewish Virtual Library. Depending on the source the percentage of Jews in historical Palestine (Israel, West Bank and Gaza) ranges from roughly 48% to 52%. The biggest differences are in the reported number of Israeli Arabs which ranges from 1.25 million to 2.0 million (depending on the source). As for the population birth rate, the number I reported in my answer earlier (Palestinian birth rate being 3 times the Jewish birth rate), that was based on mathematically calculating the growth rate for the period 1994 to 2004 for Jewish and non-Jewish population in the table provided in the Jewish Virtual Library. That calculation yields a 4.7% annual growth for the Palestinians vs. 1.7% annual growth for the Jews. However, I noticed the reported numbers in the CIA facts book list 1.7% for Israel (Jews and Arabs combined), 2.2% for the West Bank and 3.4% for the Gaza Strip. Here are the references:
CIA Facts Book:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html#People
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/we.html#People
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html#People
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Religions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians#Demographics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_population
Jewish Virtual Library:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/israel_palestine_pop.html
As for your final question about “what do I think the Zionists will do to get rid of the Palestiniansâ€, the Zionists historically have taken advantage of world events to push their agenda. In WWI (1917) they took advantage of the weakened Britain to obtain the Balfour Declaration. They took advantage of the Nazi era to gain European Jewish support and stimulate immigration to Palestine. They took advantage of world sympathy with the Jews after the holocaust to get recognition for Israel, while they ethnically cleansed the Palestinians from Palestinian land occupied by Israel in 1948. In recent history, they took advantage of the Falklands war (Britain and Argentina) to invade Lebanon in 1982 and oust the PLO from there. The world financial situation now is starting to resemble that of the Great Depression in 1930’s. During such economic difficult times, the world’s political map can change. In the 1930’s Nazism flourished and was followed by WWII. We do not know what is coming as a result of this economic/financial crisis/depression. If political systems start crumbling and wars start to occur between different countries, then that will create the golden opportunity for the Zionists to implement their new phase of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from the West Bank and maybe Israel. i am sure the plans are already prepared, but only waiting for the right moment to implement.
One of the famous quotes of Benyamin Netanyahu: "Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories." (then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to students at Bar Ilan University, from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989)
One thing for sure, time is not on Israel’s side. Thus I expect they will make the move within the next 10 years, before the Israeli Arab children reach voting age, and before they lose to the demographic statistics. However, one must remember, it is easy to start a war, but it is not easy to end it, and you can never guarantee the outcome.
Sorry for the long, technical and depressing answer.
OUTER MONGOLIA, THE PLANET ZOG! What's this if Palestine doesn't exist rubbish, you tell that to all its inhabitants who've been bombed, I'm sure the israeli's would like to also know who they've been fighting all these years what the sugar plum fairy and her merry men? Right just post this q in the travel section africa, israel bit of answers and run for cover. medication please.
Edit: traditional views? hmm you mean the ostrich effect, head in sand.
saw fanat said it all he gave the best answer that i have ever read on the israel palestine subject a thumb up for you saw
The West Bank and Gaza are what remains of Palestine, which is now called 'Israel'.
The people who stupidly assume that there was no Palestine do not understand that Arab countries in the region were mixed in borders, and all the place was under the real of different governors and states throughout: the Muslim khalifs, the Umayads, Abasis, then after a long time the Ottoman Empire. The place was called Palestine, indeed, like Egypt was called Egypt and Syria ' Al Sham' . There wa no empty place in the Midlle East, and people built real civilizations and ties with the land.
The Zionist propaganda has always used the empty etho of 'a land without a people for a people without a land' and circulated the myth that Palestine was 'empty': where did the burned villages, cities, where did buildings, olive trees, music, etc come from? Palestinians lived in the area, and they are an Arab people that exactly live the same way as Lebanese or Syrians. Did the diaspored millions of Palestinians, who were forced to leave their home for savage settlers come from the Moon?
The claim that it's a 'Jewish land' and that Jews should colonize Palestine after thousandss of years is the most stupid logic blunder the modern world has made.
If Hitler persecuted them Jews, what's the role of Arabs in this? Jews who lived in the Muslim countries always lived in an environment full of respect. I wonder how many people know that Islam prohibits forcing a religion on someone or persecuting a minority.
Wow, people who dont like Israel like to change history dont they? There never was a country called Palestine. The term "Palestine" is believed to be derived from the Philistines, an Aegean people who, in the 12th Century B.C.E., settled along the Mediterranean coastal plain of what are now Israel and the Gaza Strip. In the second century C.E., after crushing the last Jewish revolt, the Romans first applied the name Palaestina to Judea (the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank) in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The Arabic word "Filastin" is derived from this Latin name.
The Hebrews entered the Land of Israel about 1300 B.C.E., living under a tribal confederation until being united under the first monarch, King Saul. The second king, David, established Jerusalem as the capital around 1000 B.C.E. David's son, Solomon built the Temple soon thereafter and consolidated the military, administrative and religious functions of the kingdom. The nation was divided under Solomon's son, with the northern kingdom (Israel) lasting until 722 B.C.E., when the Assyrians destroyed it, and the southern kingdom (Judah) surviving until the Babylonian conquest in 586 B.C.E. The Jewish people enjoyed brief periods of sovereignty afterward before most Jews were finally driven from their homeland in 135 C.E.
Jewish independence in the Land of Israel lasted for more than 400 years. This is much longer than Americans have enjoyed independence in what has become known as the United States.4 In fact, if not for foreign conquerors, Israel would be 3,000 years old today.
Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not."
Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted:
We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.
In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in te Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."
The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said "Palestine was part of the Province of Syria" and that, "politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity." A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."
Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's capture of the West Bank.
This leads to the statement to in all words summed up, there never was a country of Palestine.
What is called Palestine was occupied territory of Egypt - Ottoman Empire. An unprecedented and perpetuated group of self-exiles that have inherited their status to their generation and therefore to justify the hatred and the annihilation of Jews. This Palestine had no territory, form of government, structure, constitution, president, etc. The question of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be used as a pretext to put into question the fundamental right for Israel to exist
http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-hi... ----Here is a map of the middle east, all 5000 recorded years. There never was a Palestine and before anyone gets all angry, i dare you to try to prove me wrong
Gaza was Egyptian and West Bank was Jordanian, there never was a Palestine.
Oh how right you are. Yes if Palestine did not exist how were the UN able to find it to give half of it to Israel
Pro Israelis will tell you that hundreds or thousands of years ago it was called this or that or that at some time in history (none know the exact date ) that God gave it to the Jews as they were Gods chosen people.!!! I thought that God created us all as equals ? which now gives them the "right " to take the other half from its original inhabitants. One user actually said that Palestine did not exist and that it was just an area. !!! Every land is an area.
Israel lays claim to every part of Palestine or whatever they want to call it' something they have been doing since 1947 and very successfully I should add althought its cost both sides thousands of lives and despite being deemed as illegal by the UN on numerous occasions.
Are you renting, renting to own, or buying? If buying I would assume it was bond for deed? Any one of these the owner can take back the property if the you break the contract.
Generally the banks just sell the land -- they're banks they don't want land they want money!
Ask China!
That's how much of the state forests and national forests came to be after the great depression.
u only have to wot is stated in ur tenancy agreement...nothing more. hope u have 1!
you should have a receipt from paying rent every month. i dont think they can make you show your personal records.
Yes, He wants to be sure he gets his rent. That's his job.
Credit checks are routine when renting, don't read more into it. You always have the option to leave.
YOUR finances are bugger all to do with him - as long as you are paying your rent when required! I wouldn't think that would've been part of a lease agreement anyway. Tell him to check his OWN bank statements and he'll probably find the info he's looking for right there.
No he cannot demand to see any of your financial records. You should have a tenancy agreement and that will tell you exactly what he can and cant do. Most landlords (UK) have standardised rules of tenancy. If he needs proof that you have paid his rent by standing order or direct debit then he should be checking his statements but, saying that you should also be able to see that nothing has gone wrong from your end. Mistakes sometimes happen that you are unaware of.
Well if you are paying the rent in ok every month, whats the problem? Show him, to prove it. If you are not paying it you have a bigger problem!
He is harrassing you ! No one should view your financial records. You do not have to do that. Call legal aid or talk to a lawyer who you can talk to for the first half hour free. If you pay the rent to the bank the bank can let him know when the rent is not being paid. He does not have a right to your records or to make an appointment at the bank to see them even with you there. The Bank can get into trouble if they disclose your information to him. Remember he has no legal right and the bank can notify him if you default. meanwhile I would be looking for another apartment.
I have NEVER encountered this... Also, my father is a landlord, and I have NEVER heard of him doing this... in fact, I consider this an invasion of privacy. You should be able to simply have him contact your former landlord and have them offer a rental reference. A credit and criminal background check should also suffice.
Call this renegade landlord and tell him that you are no longer interested in the unit as he is not following appropriate due process and is invading your privacy. You personal investments are none of his business. Wish him luck in finding a tenent and tell him he'll need it!
No, he is way out of line. Your personal finances are none of his business. His concern with your personal finances ends with you paying the rent on time each month per the rental contract. And even if you have problems with that he still has no business poking about in your personal financial matters.
As for proof of paying, if you pay by check (HIGHLY recommended) your cancelled checks are your proof of payment. As for the future, tell him to f*** off.
Geraldine, no one can force you to do anything that you have not agreed to in writing. Creating a lease agreement is simply an agreement by which a property owner agrees to let you occupy their property for a specific period of time under certain conditions (which should not include what you stated) in return you promise to meet the terms and conditions of the agreement and pay a certain amount of money over the total period of time you agreed to. That's all there is to it.
If you want to test the above, ask the landlord to do the same for you he/she is asking you to do with your bank and tell him/her that it's to make sure he is capable of meeting his current debt obligations and see what they say.
He wants to be sure that you pay his rent, although it is normal to ask to see your bank statement and it is a bit over the top to make an appointment on your behalf.
Of course he can't.
With regard to your finances, at the beginning of the tenancy he is within his rights to contact your employer to verify that your salary is what you say it is (and to verify that you have a permanent contract).
With regard to paying the rent every month, it's his bank records that should be being checked, not yours!!! If you've paid by direct debit then his bank statement is proof enough that you've paid on time. Or if you've paid by cheque, then you have proof that these cheques have been paid into his account.
The funny thing is though, he is so clearly out of line by saying this, I'm wondering what he told the bank when he arranged the appointment. Surely he didn't say "I'm going to bring in my tenant so you can read her bank statements" because they would have said "what the ****?" It's a bit odd.
No.No. He can not demand anything from you. He can request though. Now, if you don't want to grant his request then he has no choice. Just pay your bills and keep the receipts. Compile all your records, just in case he will do this and that...You don't need to show him anything.
2. Private tenancies
On the following pages, there are explanations of the law, and how to deal with particular problems that can arise for tenants and landlords. First, you must establish what sort of agreement you are dealing with.
If you have a tenancy, the type you have depends in part on when it began.
Assured and assured shorthold tenancies
If the tenancy started on or after 28 February 1997, it is probably an assured shorthold tenancy, unless the landlord has told you in writing that it is an assured tenancy. The tenancy may start either with a fixed term or as a ‘periodic’ tenancy, running from week to week or from month to month (depending on when your rent is due). Either way, the tenant usually has the right to stay for at least six months.
If the tenancy started between 15 January 1989 and 27 February 1997, it will be an assured shorthold tenancy if:
the landlord made this clear in a special legal form at the beginning; and
it had a fixed term of at least six months to begin with and does not include a 'break clause' that would allow the landlord or the tenant to end the tenancy within the six months.
Otherwise, it will be an assured tenancy.
Regulated (or protected tenancies)
Most private tenancies that started before 15 January 1989 are regulated (or protected) tenancies. This type of tenancy has the most proctection against rent increases or eviction.
Tenancies with basic protection
People who have a tenancy or licence with basic protection have fewer rights than assured, assured shorthold and regulated tenants. You will probably have a tenancy with basic protection if:
you live in the same building as your landlord but you do not share living space with them â€" for example, if you live in a house that has been converted into flats, and the landlord lives in one of the other flats;
you live in accommodation provided by a university, school or college;
your rent is especially low or high;
you live in accommodation provided by the local authority because you are homeless;
you had an assured tenancy or assured shorthold tenancy but you have stopped living in the property, even though you still have the tenancy; or
in most cases, you must live in your home as part of your job.
Instead of a tenancy with basic protection, you may have a ‘licence with basic protection’, which has similar rights. See ‘The difference between a licence and a tenancy’ below for more details.
Excluded tenancies
Tenancies with the least level of protection are known as excluded tenancies. You may have an excluded tenancy if you:
share living space with your landlord;
share living space with a member of the landlord’s family, if the landlord lives in the same house;
live in holiday accommodation; or
pay no rent.
Instead of an excluded tenancy, you may have an ‘excluded licence’, which has similar rights. See ‘What is a licence?’ below, for more details.
There are some other situations when you might have a tenancy with basic protection or an excluded tenancy. If you are not sure what type of tenancy you have, get advice.
The difference between a licence and a tenancy
Some people who rent privately have a licence, rather than a tenancy. In legal terms, a licence is a permission from the owner to occupy the accommodation, whereas a tenancy is a form of ownership of the accommodation. However, it is not always obvious which type someone has. You may have a licence (which means you are a 'licensee') if:
your landlord provides services, such as room cleaning, which mean they have access to where you live - for example, if you live in lodgings, a hotel or a hostel: or
you are being allowed to stay in accommodation by friends or family.
Licensees have similar rights to people who have a tenancy with basic protection or an excluded tenancy.
If you are unsure what type of agreement you have
If you are unsure what type of tenancy or licence you have, check your written agreement. If you don’t have one, ask your landlord for a copy, or seek advice about the type of agreement you should have. You should also seek advice if you are unsure whether you are a licensee or a tenant, or if your landlord has given you a licence agreement but you think it should be a tenancy. See ‘Further help’ for where to find advice.
If a tenant wants to end the tenancy
If a tenant on a periodic tenancy (one which runs from week to week or from month to month depending on when rent is paid) wants to leave, they must give the landlord notice, usually:
four weeks if you pay weekly; or
one month if you pay monthly.
There are other rules about giving notice to end a tenancy, and it is best to get advice if you want to end yours.
If a fixed-term tenancy has not finished, the landlord can usually insist that the tenant pays rent until the end of the fixed term. You can sometimes argue against this, for example if:
the house or flat has serious defects; or
your landlord was able to get a new tenant soon after you left, or has not taken reasonable steps to get a new tenant.
You will need to get advice if you think either of these reasons applies in your case. Tenants can leave on the last day of a fixed-term tenancy without having to give notice - but it is best to let the landlord know you plan to leave.
Some fixed-term tenancies have a 'break clause', that allows a tenant to tell the landlord they want to leave before the fixed term expires. If there is a joint tenancy, and one tenant wants to leave, the legal situation can be complicated, and the remaining tenants should get advice.
If a landlord wants to end the tenancy
Most landlords of private tenancies must give written notice if they want a tenancy to end and the tenants to leave, though this does not always apply to the landlords of licensees. If the tenant does not leave by the end of the notice period, the landlord can start 'possession proceedings' in the county court by giving a notice seeking possession. The tenant does not have to leave at the end of the notice period, but if they don't leave and the court grants an eviction order, they may have to pay the landlord's costs of going to court.
If you are a tenant facing eviction and are likely to become homeless when you leave, you should get advice before leaving. It may be difficult getting the council to help you with housing even if you leave before the landlord gets a court order. The council will take the reason for the eviction into account when deciding whether it will offer help with housing. If the court awards an 'outright possession' order, and you still do not leave, the landlord can ask the court to call in bailiffs to evict you.
The tenant does not have to leave just because a fixed term has come to an end. The landlord usually still has to serve notice and, if the tenant still does not leave, must apply to the court for a possession order.
If the landlord wants possession because the tenant has not paid their rent, the court may, in some cases, grant:
an adjournment, which is when the hearing is put back to give the tenant time to prepare their case. An 'adjournment on terms' is when the court delays the hearing for a fixed period or even indefinitely as long as the tenant pays the rent plus a regular amount towards the arrears; or
a postponed (suspended) order, which is when the tenant is allowed to stay in the property as long as they stick to certain conditions, such as paying off a certain amount of arrears each month or week.
If the tenancy is assured shorthold or a tenancy with basic protection, the court can delay granting possession for a maximum of six weeks only.
Assured tenancies
With an assured tenancy, the landlord must first give the tenant a legal notice, called a 'notice of seeking possession'. If you get a notice like this, you should get advice immediately.
Depending on the reasons ('grounds') for possession, the landlord must give the tenant either two weeks' or two months' notice that they intend to apply for a possession order. But if they are seeking possession because of the tenant's anti-social behaviour, they can start possession proceedings immediately after giving notice of seeking possession.
The tenant may either:
go to court and argue against the landlord's claim (that is, argue that the landlord doesn't have the right to end the tenancy); or
wait to see if the court issues a possession order.
The landlord must first prove to the court they have a reason for possession. If the landlord shows the court they have certain reasons (known as 'mandatory grounds'), it will automatically grant 'outright possession'. These include where:
the tenant is at least two months or eight weeks behind with the rent;
the landlord used to live in the property (or they now need to) and they made the tenant aware of this at the start of the tenancy;
the landlord is going to demolish or rebuild the property; or
the landlord's bank or other mortgage lender is repossessing the property.
Other grounds are 'discretionary'. This means the court will decide whether it is reasonable to grant possession or not. The most common discretionary grounds are that:
the tenant has missed rent payments, though only if they have missed less than two months' or eight weeks' worth;
the tenant has damaged the property or broken a term of the tenancy agreement;
the tenant has been a nuisance to their neighbours; or
the landlord can prove that the tenant can find somewhere else to live, either from the landlord or from someone else.
If the tenant has missed rent payments, the court may postpone (delay) the order so that the tenant can pay off the rent they owe without losing their home. If the landlord offers another place to live, the court must be satisfied that it is suitable for the tenant's needs. This means taking account of, for example:
the size of the new place and the rent on it;
where the tenant works;
where their children go to school; and
whether they need to live near a family member.
The tenant can dispute the landlord's offer in court if they think it is not suitable. The court is likely to consider that an alternative place to live would not be suitable if it had a tenancy that would give the tenant fewer rights than they currently have.
Assured shorthold tenancies
People with assured shorthold tenancies have less protection than assured tenants.
If the landlord wants the tenant to leave within the first six months of the tenancy, they have to show they have a reason to evict the tenant, in the same way they do for an assured tenancy. This also applies if the agreement allows the tenant to stay for a fixed period, unless the agreement includes a 'break clause'. During that period, the landlord can evict only for the reasons that apply to assured tenancies.
If the tenant has had the tenancy for six months or more and the tenancy is not for a fixed term of more than six months, the landlord can get a court order without having to prove they have a reason and without having to attend a hearing. This is called the 'accelerated possession' procedure. But to do this, the landlord must give the tenant at least two months' notice in writing that they want possession, and they cannot go to court to get possession until that notice period ends.
As long as the landlord has followed the procedures properly, the court will automatically grant them possession. But the tenant can still ask for a possession order to be delayed for a short time if it would cause them 'exceptional hardship'; for example, if someone in their household is ill or pregnant.
If the landlord wants possession but is not claiming a 'money judgement' for the unpaid rent, they can use what is known as the 'accelerated possession procedure'. Under this, the landlord sends the paperwork for the possession claim to the court and a judge can make a possession order without a court hearing. This procedure is quicker and cheaper than a normal possession claim.
Regulated tenancies
The landlord must start to end the tenancy by giving the tenant a 'notice to quit' (unless an end date was agreed at the start of the tenancy). This must give the tenant at least four weeks' notice and be in a special legal form. The landlord must then apply to the court for a possession order.
As with assured tenancies, there are certain 'mandatory' grounds for which the court will automatically grant possession, as well as 'discretionary' grounds for which the court must decide whether it is reasonable to evict the tenant (see 'Assured tenancies'). Many of the grounds that can be used are similar to those for assured tenancies, but there are some differences.
Tenants and licensees with basic protection
To end the tenancy or licence the landlord must:
serve a 'notice to quit' giving at least four weeks' notice; or
wait for the agreed fixed term of the tenancy or licence to end.
After this, the landlord has to get a court order to evict the tenant if the tenant does not leave. However, the landlord has to show the court only that this notice has been properly served - they do not have to prove that there is a ground or reason for possession to be granted.
If your home is provided as part of your job, your right to live there will probably end when your job does. However, you cannot be evicted without receiving at least four weeks' notice and a court order.
Excluded tenancies and licences
If there is a legally binding agreement between the tenant or licensee and the landlord, the landlord must first give any notice set out in the agreement or wait for the fixed term of the tenancy or licence to end. However, unlike with other types of tenancy or licence, the notice period can be less than four weeks.
If there is no agreement, an excluded licensee will be entitled only to notice that is reasonable in the circumstances. This could be as little as a few days or sometimes even immediate.
If the tenant or licensee does not leave after the notice period, the landlord does not have to get a possession order from the court, as they normally do with other types of tenancy. They can, for example, change the locks while the tenant or licensee is away from the property, though they cannot use force to evict them. However, the landlord can choose to get a possession order as a way of forcing the tenant or licensee to leave. As long as the landlord has given reasonable notice, the court will grant the order. The landlord can then get a bailiff’s warrant. Bailiffs have the right to use ‘reasonable force’ to remove tenants or licensees from the property.
If the landlord gets a possession order
If the court grants the landlord 'outright possession', the possession order will set a date for the tenant to leave. Once the date of the order has passed, the landlord can apply for a warrant if the tenant has not left. If this is granted, the court will tell the bailiffs to evict the tenant. The landlord has the right to claim payment for the time the tenant continues to live in the property.
If you are a tenant or licensee and you receive that bailiffs are going to evict you, you should get advice immediately. You may still be able to stop the eviction by getting the court to 'suspend' the warrant. But you must have a good reason and show you have a realistic plan to pay off any rent you owe.
Harassment and illegal eviction by a landlord
It is generally illegal for a landlord to evict a tenant without a court order. This usually includes, for example, changing locks while the tenant is out. Even in the few situations where the tenant doesn't have this protection (for example, people with an excluded tenancy or licence), the landlord must still bring the tenancy or licence to an end, or wait for it to end, before taking this type of action.
If you are a tenant who is being harassed, or you are facing illegal eviction by a private landlord, contact the tenancy relations officer at your local council (or the council officers who deal with harassment and illegal eviction). The council officer should try to stop the harassment and persuade the landlord to let you back into your home. If this fails, they can prosecute the landlord, although this happens only in extreme cases.
Tenants can also take action in court themselves, though they would need expert legal help to do this. You can apply for an injunction to stop the landlord harassing you or to let you return to your home. You should also be able to claim compensation. If the case is urgent, you can get an emergency injunction before there is a fuller court hearing.
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 also offers protection against harassment by any person including a landlord, even where they are not necessarily trying to evict you.
Deposits
A landlord will normally ask for a deposit from the tenant before they move in. Both the landlord and the tenant should make sure that the tenancy agreement states:
how much the deposit is;
who holds it;
when money can be deducted from it (for example, for unpaid rent or damage to the property); and
when the tenant will get the money back.
If, when the tenant leaves, they don't get their deposit back, and there is not a good reason for this, they can claim against the landlord through the courts as a 'small claim'. This is a simpler, quicker and less expensive way of using the courts than the full court procedure, but it can be used only for claims up to £5,000. You can get forms and more details from your local county court, Citizens Advice Bureau or legal advice centre, or from the court service website (see 'Further help').
A new tenancy deposit scheme to safeguard deposits and provide independant arbitration for disputes over deposits is being set up, and is due to begin in March 2007.
Rent increases
A landlord's right to increase rent depends on the type of tenancy.
Assured tenancies
People with assured tenancies can sometimes challenge a rent increase. If the tenancy is for a fixed term, the rent is normally agreed at the start and cannot change during that term. The only exception to this is if the tenancy agreement includes a rent review or increase arrangement (or if the tenant agrees to an increase).
With a periodic tenancy (one that runs from week to week or from month to month, depending on when the rent is paid), the rent can go up in the first year only if the tenancy agreement allows for this.
After a year, the landlord can increase the rent by giving at least one month's notice in a special form. If the tenant thinks the new rent is too high, they can contact their local Rent Assessment Committee (RAC). RACs are independent bodies that deal with rent issues. Your local RAC will be listed in the phone book. RACs can set the rent according to what is charged elsewhere in the area. They can uphold the landlord's rent demand (or even increase it) as well as reduce it. The rent fixed by the RAC is the maximum the landlord can charge for one year.
However, if the tenancy agreement sets out how the rent is to be increased, this procedure does not apply and then tenant cannot ask the RAC to asses the rent. If you are in this situation and you think the way your tenancy agreement says rent can be increased is unfair, you should get advice, because it is sometimes possible to challenge unfair agreements.
Assured shorthold tenancies
The landlord's right to increase rent on assured shorthold tenancies is the same as for assured tenancies. A tenant can apply to an RAC at the start of a tenancy if they think the rent is excessive.
If your tenancy started between 15 January 1989 and 28 February 1997, you can challenge the rent any time during the initial fixed term. If your tenancy started after 28 February 1997, you can challenge the rent within six months of the start of the tenancy. But it may be risky to do this, as the landlord can legally evict you at the end of the tenancy period. If you have an assured shorthold tenancy, you need to get advice before you challenge any rent increase.
At the end of the fixed term, the landlord may offer another fixed term at a higher rent. If the tenant signs a new agreement, they cannot then apply to the RAC to set the rent.
Regulated tenancies
Tenants and landlords with regulated tenancies can apply to the Rent Service to set a 'fair rent' (the Rent Service number is in the phone book). The Rent Service can put the rent up as well as down. If the fair rent is lower than the tenant has been paying, the tenant may be able to get back up to two years' overpaid rent. If the fair rent is higher than the tenant has been paying, the landlord must give notice before they can start charging the higher rent.
A fair rent is set for two years, but the tenant or the landlord can appeal to the RAC. It may either increase or decrease the rent set by the Rent Service. After two years, or if there has been a significant change in the property's condition, the landlord or the tenant can apply for a new fair rent.
Other private renting arrangements
For other types of tenancy (often where the landlord lives with the tenant) the landlord can charge any rent they wish. Unless there is a written agreement saying how and when rent may be increased, the only option for the tenant is to negotiate with the landlord or leave.
Responsibility for repairs
Many written tenancy agreements say which repairs the landlord must do and which ones the tenant must do. For most tenancies, if the agreement is for less than seven years, the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1985 means all landlords must keep certain things in good repair, whether or not there is a written agreement. These are:
the structure and outside of the property;
water, gas, electricity and drainage installations; and
heating and hot water systems.
Landlords must also maintain gas flues and appliances belonging to them, and get them tested every year by a Corgi registered gas fitter (one who is registered with the Council for Registered Gas Installers). They must also give the tenant a copy of the safety certificate.
In furnished flats and houses, upholstery and soft furnishings must meet fire regulations.
For tenancies that started on or after 15 January 1989, the landlord must also keep the common areas (shared stairways, hallways and lifts, for example) in good repair. In a block of flats, they must do necessary work on any empty flats they own (for example, to prevent leaking pipes affecting flats below).
If your tenancy started before 15 January 1989, the situation is more complicated and you should get advice. Your landlord's responsibilities will depend on whether your contract says you are responsible for common areas.
'Keep in repair' includes doing repairs that were already needed when the tenancy started, and not just problems that have arisen since. The landlord must also 'make good' or redecorate when a repair is finished. As long as the landlord gives notice, they normally have the right to come into the tenant's home to check its condition and do any repairs that are needed. They should give notice of at least 24 hours in writing, except in an emergency.
Legally, repair is not the same as renewal or improvement of a property. If you're not sure whether something counts as a repair, a housing aid centre or other advice centre should be able to help you.
Getting repairs done
The tenant (or tenants' association) should tell the landlord about things that need repairing as soon as possible. It is best to do this in writing and keep copies of the letters.
If the repairs aren't done, the tenant should get advice from a solicitor, Citizens Advice Bureau or housing advice centre. This is because, depending on the type of tenancy, the landlord could try to:
evict the tenant at the end of the tenancy period rather than do the repairs (assured shorthold tenants and licensees could be at risk of this); or
increase the rent when repairs have been done (this could affect regulated tenants).
In many situations, though, it is still worth taking action. If the tenant has told the landlord about repairs and they are not done in a reasonable time, or not done properly, the tenant can make a claim in the county court. You should get expert advice before doing this (see 'Further help' for where to find help). The court can order the landlord to do the repairs. It can also award the tenant compensation for distress and inconvenience.
A quicker option may be to get an injunction from the courts, which forces a landlord to do the repairs (again, you will need advice before doing this). This may be combined with a claim for compensation. Whatever happens, you should never stop paying rent, as this could give the landlord a reason to evict you.
If a tenant has to move out while major repair work is done, they may be able to claim the cost of somewhere else to stay. But you should get advice before moving out, because even a temporary move could mean losing some rights as a tenant.
If you stay while the work is done, you may be able to claim compensation from the landlord for discomfort and inconvenience.
Licensees are normally in a much weaker position than tenants if they want toget repairs done. A landlord normally doesn't have to carry out any work that is not set out in the licence agreement.
If the house or flat is unsafe
If a home is not 'hazardous' (its condition is seriously affecting the health or safety of the tenants) or if it needs other kinds of major repairs, the tenant should contact the local council's environmental health officer. The council can order the landlord to do the repairs. If they don't do them within a reasonable time, the council can:
take legal action against the landlord; or
do the work itself and get the cost back from the landlord.
If the condition of the house or flat is affecting a tenant's health the local council can also take action against the landlord. If the local council won't do anything, the tenant can get the magistrates' court to force the landlord to fix the property (under the Environmental Protection Act 1990). You will need expert advice to do this.
If the tenant arranges their own repairs
If the landlord won't do minor repairs, a tenant can get the work done themselves. You can take the cost of the repairs out of your rent. But you must get advice first, because you must follow a special procedure, as follows:
1. Write to the landlord explaining that if the landlord doesn't do the work within a reasonable time (two weeks, for example) you are going to do it yourself and claim back the money.
2. If the work is not done in this time, get three quotes for the work.
3. Send the quotes to the landlord with a letter explaining that you will go ahead with the cheapest quote unless the landlord arranges for the repairs to be done within a certain time (two weeks, for example).
4. If the work is not done in this time, arrange for the work to be done by the company or tradesperson who provided the cheapest quote.
5. Pay for the work and send a copy of the receipt to the landlord.
6. Ask the landlord to refund the money.
7. If the landlord does not refund the money, write to them explaining that you are going to take the money from future rent payments.
If you don't follow this procedure, you may still be liable to pay all the rent. And people with assured shorthold tenancies can still be evicted for not paying their rent even if they have followed this procedure.
Making improvements to the house or flat
Private tenants can make improvements to their home only if the landlord has given their written agreement first. Tenants cannot claim back the money they've spent unless the landlord agrees to this at the outset.
Have you not got your birth certificate ? or marriage certificate if married, a utility bill and maybe you can get someone to write a letter of support, if you know a customer of the bank you want to join.
I know when I was looking to change banks I was told I would need at least 2 forms of I.D plus a letter of recommendation from a current customer of the banks. That bank had a black horse in its well known logo and I told them what they could do with their account. Its worse than trying to get into Fort Knox.
If you have had a bank account in the past then you may find another bank is willing to let you open an account with out the I.D. I was lucky had a savings account with one bank and a joint account with another when the divorce went threw I was able to go to my old bank and they dealt with the transfer etc. and gave me a new current account.
yes, i think this is very unfair, i often wonder about id issues if i chose not to have a passport. i dont know why you should HAVE to buy a passport just to provide id to open a bank account. i would pick thebank of your choice and make a big fuss with the management and then maybe the banking ombudsman, failing that you might just have to get one
I opened a basic bank account online the other week, as a second account.
I didnt need ID.
if you know someone who has an account sign on for a joint account with them then after 6 months you are able to open your own account without documentation
Double check that a passport is all they will accept. as well as making a fuss they may accept a birth certificate, or your utility bills or a tenancy agreement etc... make a fuss or check out other banks which may have a more relaxed attitude. PS do you have a drivers licence? or medical card?
drivers licence?
2 utility bills?
Library card?
Birth certificate ? Drivers licence? NHS Card ?
I opened an account recently and they would accept driving license or passport - which I think is a bit strange as a passport doesn't have an address on it. Speak to the bank - there must be provisions for non drivers and people without passports.
I don't have a passport either and I tried a couple of banks till I found one that just required a couple of forms of ID, one of which had to be a utility bill showing my name and address. Not all banks require a passport as ID.
You can't get a passport without ID anyway. The ID you would need to get a passport can be used to open a bank account. If you just flew into the US, how did you clear Customs without an ID? That is not supposed to be possible. I have half a dozen accounts and NO ONE at the bank knows IF I have a passport.
Do you have a photocard-driving licence, banks will usually accept this as id. Utility bills, mortgage/rental agreement, birth certificate.
you can contact your bank to restructure your debt, here in the Phil you are guaranteed of non imprisonment by debt, just dont' issue a bouncing check that is bec that is already a criminal case, anyhow,
No the bank could not garnish your properties that easily without filing a case in court ( civil case) against you.a final declaration is needed from the court by the bank to do that in your property. just to be fair to the bank just try to settle your account, they could file a civil case against you for Solutio Indebiti and they could get or garnish the property that you left here in the country, that is the only legal action that the bank can do.
no it will not affect your status as an OFW if they file a Civil case against you. your husband should talk to the manager and not an agent only and go for restructure program of the bank. have them placed it in a paper for legal documentation. goodluck :) http://answers.yahoo.com/question/accuse_write?qid=20091119200017AAgeVWD&kid=AJJ6BVT2UDhjZKwirmf5&s=comm&date=2009-11-30+22%3A46%3A48&.crumb=
They want their money. It is a debt that is owed to them , therefore you must pay it. Call the bank and ask if you can settle the debt. They may do it for pennies on the dollar. It wouldn't hurt to try. Try to negotiate with them.
Take it from a former teller, mention something about how you want to learn all aspects of banking starting with being a teller. If you have any room in your resume also add a few bullets about your qualities, such as being honest and patient - show off your customer service skills because you will have to handle all types of people. If you are germ freak then tellering is not for you - money is very dirty! Good luck!
Objectives are out-of-date. Not many people use them these days, as one's "objective" is alway to get hired!
I LOVE THE SMELL OF MONEY IN THE MORNINGS
Depends on you as a person and what you have experiences in like for me I have used
Objective: I enjoy working with the public. The atmoshere gives gives me a very good feeling. My accuracy in currency while working with the public is very good. I am humorous, very cautious, alert, (basically things about you that you think qualifies to be in that position). Good to you.
You can write just that. Objective: "To become a bank teller at X bank". No one will really question as to why you put that there, as that will be part of the interview.
As a bank teller, you'll have to be comfortable talking to people, dealing with them if they're angry or need money, as well as handling money, which can be a tough job. Do you have experience doing any of those things? Or have you had experience with keeping inventory organized? What experiences do you have with dealing with people?
Why do you want to work for X bank? What is it about them that you like instead of Y bank? Have you had good experiences with X bank?
Find out as much as you can about the bank by going to their website and read up on them.
Don't worry! Relax, be confident, be yourself! Good luck.
Really depends upon the bank and the backlog of loans, I would plan on at least 2-3 weeks
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-land-contract.htm
1. You won't own the property until the end of the mortgage.
2. They can sell the property without your knowledge or consent.
3. Recording of Land Contracts may or may not be legally required in your area.
4. The payments you make (or don't make) aren't reported to the credit agencies.
5. If the current lender learns of this arrangement, they could call the loan as due payable in full if there is a prohibition of this type of arrangement.
6. What you are trying to do is to assume a current mortgage. Lenders haven't allowed that or written assumable mortgages for years. They've always required a new mortgage for new buyers. This prevents people from assuming a 4% mortgage when the nominal rates have skyrocketed to 8% (in those days). When J Carter was in office (late 70s), mortgage rates were around 16%. Think how much money lenders would have lost on assumable notes (I couldn't care less how much they lost)
7. Borrow the money for their move, but you'll have to meet the credit requirements and still make the mortgage payments on the house.
8. If they refinance, that might help. It would depend upon how much and the terms of the refinance.
They might be able too, it is hard to say. Most likely they already have it at low interest though. But, the new loan would have to be an investment loan, since they won't live there, and that could actually be higher then what they have now.
Unless they can afford 2 houses you will be preventing them from buying where they are going. With them not having money to move I doubt they would be approved to own 2 houses.
Sure buy it on a land contract or lease option.
I think you both may want to consider the lease option. It better protects his parents and gives you more flexibility.
Whichever way you go be sure to record a "memorandum" of contract in the court house. This will protect your interest in the property.
An additional benefit of either method is that you will be making regular payments. These payments can be used as proof as your ability to make payments, this processes is called seasoning. Be sure to keep good excellent records. Either make sure your check is cashed on time every time, or use a MONEY ORDER.
During this time, actively take steps to further improve your credit.
yes. ask the bank. (if they decide to help)
people finder .com. enter the phone number. and it will give you an address
for:
Assets:
Bank
Land
A/R - Jones
Supplies
Office Equipment
Automobile
Building
Liabilities:
A/P - Smith
Bank Loan
Mortgage Payable
Thanks =]
Assets:
Bank
A/R - Jones
Supplies
Office Equipment
Automobile
Building
Land
Liabilities:
A/P - Smith
Bank Loan
Mortgage Payable
It's a transient world and you never really own anything
"You can't own land" is usually the mantra of ideologues who would like to own your land.
As a free and sovereign individual, you own three things: yourself, the products of your labor, and those things you trade for with the products of your labor. When you go to work, you are trading your labor for some agreed-upon units of these things called dollars. You can then take these dollars, and trade them for other things, like food, entertainment, and other commodities. Land is a commodity like any other, and can be bought, sold, and traded. As such, yes, it really can be owned.
Oh and technically, you are only renting your home until such time as you finish paying it off. That's why the bank can take it away from you if you default on payments.
Um this is a funny question since it depends on a lot of things. Definition of control of ownership or reality, of so many things.
Just because a creature enters your land it does not mean you don't own it it would simply mean it is invading it.
Of course what is land? Does it go down to the Earths core? Or is it so many meters under the surface? If I dig under your home and make an underground home there am I still on your land? If it's not then why can you plant crops in your land and still call where they grow land? Are they not rooted under the surface?
What is ownership? Is it money? Control? Words? If you say you own land can I not just come up to you and say "Actually I own this land?" Does producing a deed make it yours?
No it's a system of understanding. I understand it's your land based on a deed I understand to be written legally in truth, for without such system we would have a much harder time than we do know. Imagine a world where anyone could claim anything by words alone..... that would lead to force........ and violence, death... yeah.
Yes ... in the sense that we can make legal decisions regarding our land ... its use, its division or sale ... who can live there, etc.
All the while various levels of government have similar powers, and can also be said to own the land ....
In another sense humans won't be around forever, and then we'll cease to own it ...
It seems absurd to me too. It's like saying you own a star. But I guess we have to have the concept of land ownership so that people can be secure in their homes and farms and such.
it's just a concept which can be interrupted or destroyed by different entities at different times. so it depends on the circumstances. : )
only if your CIVILIZED!!!..
its WRONG!!
Nope
No, lenders are not in the business of offering land contracts, they don't want to be "landlords" - they want to liquidate the assets. I have never, ever heard of a lender entering a land contract.
Improve your credit, then fall in love with a house.
ok what u can do is..............u can ask the bank for a lown and then buy ur house and then pay the bank once u get a pay check and there u go! u have ur house
You twice mention a "land contract", as I have never heard of that, I guess you are not in the US. With 20 percent down you can get just about any home loan here no mater how bad your credit is. Most banks are eager to work with people and can come up with ways to purchase a home!
If your credit sucks try to fix that first. Getting more loans will not help. Eventually you will lose the house you love and your credit may get even worse. You will always find other houses that you'll like.
Hi Hotsuz21,
No, you can not buy a house on land contract from a bank. The reason is simple, it has to do with "equitable title". If the bank were to give yo a l/c you would have equitable title, which means if you were to stop paying they would have to foreclose on you - much the same way as a mortgage.
However, I have heard of some banks renting out the houses they own just to keep them from sitting vacant. This may be a much better option for you. If you can get the bank to do a lease/option for up to a year, that would give you time to see if you really want that house and give you time to fix your credit. This will depend on your market and if the bank can just sell the house. Remember, humans work at banks, some are nice.....
Good luck
Here's the problem with foreclosures and buyers with poor credit (or low down payments):
The banks want to get whatever they can for the property as soon as possible. So, they want very quick escrows. If a buyer with poor credit or with a high loan-to-value financing situation puts an offer on the property, the bank may reject the offer - even if it's at the listing price - because of the higher probability of being tied up in escrow while the buyer actually tries to secure the financing. Or, it may fall out of escrow completely. In the mean time, the bank still isn't getting paid for the property.
I've been researching foreclosures for a few months now and have made offers on a few properties (with 25% cash down and preapproval for a 75% non-owner occupied loan). I've even offered about 7% over the listing price. And, I have gotten aced out by someone who comes in with a lower offer. But, it's a 100% cash offer. And, since there's no risk and a guaranteed quick escrow, the bank takes the lower cash offer.
My credit is A+ (I already own a couple of properties and am just looking for another investment property). But, the banks realize how tough the lenders are these days. So, they would rather not take the chance on someone who is coming in with an offer that is contingent on securing financing with a low down payment.
Honey while I understand you want to own your own home. But you have to realize first things first. You need to work on repairing your credit first. Why set yourself up for disappointment by being rejected time and again or paying exorbitant fee's because your credit is bad. It will only take a year or two and you could be in a much better position to ask for more. But maybe not now. You could certainly give it a try on this house, but I have no doubt you would be denied.
Remember: Owning a home is a privilege not a right.
F-R-E-E that spells free credit report dot com baby
Bob, it appears that Obama is the major player after the Palestinians calling for the "two states solution".
Israel keeps having to tell him that they are a sovereign nation, and to mind his own business.
He may be making matters worse.
It's hard to figure out which way this will go.
The division of Jerusalem is similar to the division of the atom. BOOM! Battle of Armageddon!
Short answer is yes. Most people agree that a two state solution is the only viable one - after all, Israel would never accept a single state as they would quickly be outnumbered by Arabs. But at the same time their government either cannot or will not curb the expansion of west bank settlements, never mind getting rid of them.
I believe the only practical solution will be a totally radical one, for example, resettle all the occupants of Wyoming, build replicas of Jerusalem and so forth there, and move the state of Israel there. Yes this is tongue in cheek, but the problem really seems to be intractable without some sort of breakthrough solution.
In 1947/48, Palestinians, along with ALL other Arab countries, said if the UN voted to make Israel an independent state, they would consolidate forces and wipe them off the face of the earth. Well, we all know who won those series of conflagrations. And most people seem to have short memories about that era in history.
But I also feel Israel can be doing a better job of finally settling this matter. Building settlements on the West Bank is wrong. However, given the history of Arab and Palestinian behaviour, they are simply reaping the results of their folly.
From my point of view, Israel is continually invading another country and expanding their territory. We can't expect the Palestinians to be happy about that. The "two state solution" would need both to respect boundaries, but it has no hope of working if Israel is implacably unwilling.
The term solution has been applied so that people believe it to be a solution without studying whether it would be effective. The Palestinian people do not recognize Israel's right to exist. Palestinian children are taught to value jihad and Israel is not shown on their maps. Giving away land in Israel has not led to peace--after Gush Katif was given away, Israel was subjected to almost daily rocket firing. Now, Palestinians are preparing missiles to fire on Tel Aviv-Tel Aviv is not in the west bank. Why should the west bank be judenrein? West Bank is part of the holy land for the Jewish people. Hebron, a major town in the West Bank, is the burial place of the forefathers and some of the foremothers of the Jewish people. The city of Jericho, also in the West Bank, was where the Jewish people first entered Israel after returning from exile in Egypt. The city of Shechem in the West Bank is where Joseph of the ten tribes of Israel is buried.
Address: #30 Aromire Street, Ikeja, Lagos . NG
Tel: :+234-80774316032-603 OR +234-8081275093
Fax: 234-8083851952
Email: stand.chartbnkplc.remit@gmail.com OR scb.remitt.dept@sify.com
Website: http://www.standardchartered .com/ng/home/whatsnew.html
RCZ: 05357436
Here is our bank website for more details and information
http://www.standardchartered .com/ng/home/whatsnew.html
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER HAVE BEEN APPROVED HERE IN OUR CUSTODY TODAY,WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD FOR YOUR URGENT RESPOND.
Attention: Vinod Kumar Mishra,
This is to inform you that the International Remittance Department; STANDARD CHARTERED BANK PLC is in receipt of the SCB: WINNING PRIZE / BENEFICIARY APPLICATION FORM from your Claims Agent, Via Email Attachment.
After due verifications/consultations,we issue this acknowledgment letter to you thereby assuring you of our readiness and our Bank have finalized to release the fund(1.500,000.000.00usd only)won from YAHOO EMAIL PROMOTIONAL INC to your designated Choice Via DIPLOMATIC DELIVERY.
All the below requirement are hereby necessary to enable us commence processing of the payment Delivery to you without any delay .
NOTE: You have to provides all this immediately for immediate procession of your Fund.
(1) YOUR FULL HOME ADDRESS
(2) A COPY OF IDENTIFICATION (PASSPORT OR DRIVING LICENSE OR VOTERS CARD) SCAN AND SEND IT TO US.
(3) A COPY OF SWORN AFFIDAVIT CERTIFICATE OF CLAIM (from any of the high court in your country)
We need these above information's from you,to enable us compare/reconfirm with the facts and figures we have here in
your payment file and it will help us to avoid misappropriation of payment or release of your final payment approval documents to a wrong beneficiary .
Though your personal details are still intact and already here with us, but we are trying to make sure that you are the rightfully beneficiary we are contacting and about to pay .
So please , Do bear with us as we do not mean to offend you but trying to put things in the right order and perspective . once you re-confirm all the information and we find them ok , we shall contact you on the modalities of processing your fund for immediate transfer.
Once again I congratulate you on behalf of the entire STANDARD CHARTERED BANK PLC management on your winning.
SCB(Merchant Bankers) PLC maintains a correspondent banking relationship all the west Africa and New Zea land (ANZ) Banking Group, The swiftness and efficiency of this service is enhanced by the on-line computer link maintained with the ANZ, which ensures fast processing of Forms M and the establishment of letters of credit. The FAB Banking Group has branches all over the west Africa and the on-line service avails SCB customers of the wide branch network
NOTE: NO DEDUCTION OF MONEY AND FRAGMENT ION OF FUND.YOUR FUND WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO YOU COMPLETELY THE SUM ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS ONLY. $1.500,000.00USD.ONLY WHEN YOU HAVE PROVIDED ALL THE REQUIREMENTS NEEDED BY THE BANK.
We are ready to give you the best of our service anytime any day.
We work from Monday 8:00am till 6:30pm Saturdays
IF FOUND ANY INCORRECT WRITE IT AND SEND TO US.
Thanks for your Co-operation.
Here is our bank website for more details and information
http://www.standardchartered .com/ng/home/whatsnew.html
SIMON J. MILLETT.
( CEO, SCB PLC )
Standard Chartered Bank Plc
A FOOL AND THIER MONEY ARE SOON PARTED !
Spend the money wisely
for:
Assets:
Bank
Land
A/R - Jones
Supplies
Office Equipment
Automobile
Building
Liabilities:
A/P - Smith
Bank Loan
Mortgage Payable
Thanks =]
You need to know the due dates of payments before you can sort them according to liquidity. For e.g. must the bank loan be paid before the mortgage payable or vice versa? In the absence of more info, and sorting them in order of increasing liquidity, the order would be:
Assets
Land
Building
Automobile
Office equipment
AR - Jones
Supplies
Bank
Liabilities:
Mortgage Payable
Bank Loan
A/P - Smith
bank , A/r , land, supplies, building , automobile , office equipment
a/p , mortgage payable , bank loan
2210 really isn't that much. I'm assuming your land lord has a strong case against you since you sound worried. Best I would do is just explain your point of view to the Judge and hope for the lowest possible sentence.
Sure $2,210 is worth it - because he can add his costs in suing you, and in collecting, to the amount of the judgment.
Not all States allow wage garnishment for a civil debt, but most do. If he sues you and wins, you will then be required to submit to a "debtors examination", at which you will have to tell him where you work, what you own, where you have bank accounts, etc etc etc.
After you lose, the only "payment plan" that you are entitled to is your States cap on wage garnishment. This varies by State, but is typically around 25% - 30% of your wages.
Richard
Im sorry this is happening to you. If they file a judgement youre totally screwed-it will wreck your credit, which most insurance companies check, and employers check. You may be able to get him to agree to take LESS, like 500.00 or something, but you have to get the correct form and have him sign it. Good luck man. I had that **** happen to me-the judge was so crooked...it taught me the law does NOT work fairly. I had to put it on a credit card, but 3 years later I have a house and the card is paid off, and that landlord is just a LOSER.
Yes, it is worth it for him. When you get screwed enough, you eventually get sick of it and take action. And it won't cost him, it will cost you if he wins, as you will likely be responsible for court costs, as well.
Give him money right now. All you can afford...be it $25.00 or $100.00. It will show in good faith that you are trying to repay and not just making empty promises. Cash speaks louder than words.
go shoot him since he wants it the hard way
My bank requested an appraisal on raw land I own on May 4th. In the next couple of days I faxed the appraisal company deed information, maps (erosion and satellite), similar property listings, paperwork from the county showing I could build (long and complicated story, but I’m basically grandfathered into the land so I can build on it). I drove 5 hours to meet them on May 8th to show them the land.
On May 11th, my bank and I received one email regarding the condition of the roads may have an effect on the appraisal (we had to take the back road because the neighboring ranch that belongs to my dad that the main road goes through was closed due to cattle being herded, so it was a really rough road that rarely gets used, but I explained this to them and the bank). There is also a second road that we did not take that comes from the opposite end of the property that leads to town, so I really don’t see how this is an issue.
Regardless, that was the last communication with them. The bank requested an update on May 18th, with no reply. I requested one today with no reply. We paid on the 8th of May for the appraisal in full as they required before they would see the land. The bank says they have never seen an appraisal take so long. They are the only appraisal service in the area. Any suggestions?
YOURs is the perfect example of when a bank uses "the only
game in town."
If you would like, I will find you an appraiser! And if you give
me the data on who you used, I will find out what they are
doing; it should take 1-2 days max to put out the appraisal.
I do appreciate emergencies and small problems that occur
to companies but that is not your concern; you paid for a service
and you have earned your appraisal.
caliguy_30's answer reads like a fairly typical bit of propaganda. I think I can give a better example. Let's say you live in a house that has been in your family for millenia, then one day a new heavily armed neighbour backed by the biggest mobster in town invades your land, occupies your house and garden, and gives you a tiny scrap of land to live on. Then he builds a wall around you and refuses to let you leave, even to go to work. He then lets other family members of his build their own houses on your land, and frequently has his security men shoot your family members for fun-especially when your kids throw rocks at him in frustration and anger. He also cuts the power/water/gas/food supplies on regular occasions, leaving you freezing & starving. When you manage to smuggle in some rockets and launch them at him, he responds by invading your little scrap of garden and massacring your family with weapons he got from the big mobster, all the while saying he just wants to live in peace but you won't stop attacking him.
Israel doesn't want peace, it wants the total destruction of Palestine.
They don't, they've lived there for decades, some for their whole lives.
they don't yet have the "road map to peace" and don't know the way...soon they will have the easy fold up version for the glove box
Why don't you leave your house ? Because it's yours right ? Same thing with the Jews, that land belongs to them. If anyone should leave it should be the Palestinians. If their Arab neighbors are so concerned about them, let them take them in. God bless.
what other people are you talking about fatty?
In case you forgot, the Middle East declared war on Israel in the 60's and Israel massacred their entire army in 6 days. The West Bank was taken by Israel during the fighting. Israel has every right to West Bank.
They don't get out because the people who are asking them to leave are people who don't think Israel has any right to exist at all, and who also have this little habit of blowing themselves up on buses and in grocery store. is that the type of person you would be willing to give land next door to?
The west? Try the U.N., genius, in which YOUR country participates.
That's called not taking over land belonging to other people. It's called following a world organization's wishes.
Get real. Your ignorance is actually giving off a smell right now.
Boy, nice revisionist BS here.
Israel wasn't 'given' the West Bank by the west.
They took it over during the six day war in 1967. You know, the one where the Arabs got their asses handed to them even though they attacked first?
The same reason you're not giving up your land to any Native American that comes knocking on your door saying it was his at one time.
If you buy a house next door to mine where i have lived for 30 years ... and I start harassing you because i simply don't like you being there, i'd rather have a friend or a guy with the same political view or religion as mine live there. If I start trashing your place and even attacking you secretly. Lets say you have more power than i do and you are stronger than i am ... wouldn't you take control of some of my yard? for example the part of my yard where i hide all my weapons? or the one where i launch all my attacks against you from?
Well Friend Israel / palestine is the exact same thing.
The same way you want to live in peace and prevent me from disturbing you ... Israel does the same. until palestinians guarantee total peace and non aggression against Israel and accept Israel as neighbor... it will not change.
The Same Reason That The Europeans Will Not Leave The US
Well, this is the same person who thinks the BNP aren't racist, so what sort of ignorance did you expect?
Why don't the Palastinians stop sending kids with bombs in their packpacks into Israel?
Why don't the Palestinians just get a clue that the Israelis are not going anywhere, and concentrate on using all that foreign aid they've been given (mostly by the West) to make better lives for themselves and their children, instead of investing it in rockets to kill Israelis? If the situation were reversed, the Israelis would have taken that money and invested it in hard work and commerce, and by now they'd own half the area anyhow.
Because they want the land there for living space. Why else?
International law states that land won in a defensive war belongs to the conqueror. In 1967 Israel was attacked by 5 neighboring arab countries. Israel fought them off and won even more land. It is legally theirs.
The other thing to keep in mind is that In 2005 as a good will gesture in order to win peace, Israel returned a portion of it's 1967 winnings to the Arabs. It is called Gaza, and since the week after Israel withdrew, the arabs have been firing thousands of rockets from the very land that Israel handed them. So explain why Jews should get out of the west bank.
The West Bank was won in a military victory.
Ever hear of the United States? How do you think we got our land?
Jews for Jesus - YAY!
Because America is behind the Jews .
Zinoist rule this world.
Why do you think we hate the Mid-East?
