Repossessions

[shippers]

Yes, but these same STR's are in no position to complain, as they've passively caused this situation.

No better then dodgy car salesmen. I know an idiot is born every minute, and you wouldn't pay £40,000 for a second hand mondeo, but come on.

"Oh my poor STR fund isn't getting any interest" or "I'm loosing money stashing it in the bank". FFS you can't loose what wasn't yours in the first place. No doubt these berks ring their fists at MEW twunts as well!!?!?

Unbelievable.

How can they really *passively* cause a situation in an increasing market. By definition they've sold out at below the market top, and therefore have tried to depress the market price before it becomes unsustainable. To my mind they've spotted the marker before it's exploded beyond sense and tried to bring it back to normality before others in the market lose out by overpaying on items traded in that market. It's like trying to blame shorters when they recognise that a market is overvalued. It's getting cause and effect completely back to front. It's exactly like the nonsense confidence argument. Confidence doesn't keep businesses going. REAL liquidity does.

The MEW's are worse because they've tried to cash in, but also tried to have their cake and eat it. ****** EM.

[PopGun]

... by not running the world's banks, media and governments?

Well no, but without the berks running said banks, media and governments, they wouldn't have a STR fund in the first place. Just a depriciating asset.

I can see an STRer out of my window now, chasing a golden goose with an axe.

[wild card]

The banks are going to lose money on the repossessed houses - this is certain for the next few years anyway.

They tend to try and sell them fairly soon after the repo. Presently there are numerous empty repo'd properties

unsold on the market deteriorating.

These families have moved on with all the unset that this causes. Most move to rented BTL properties as there is no social housing left. The BTL landlords are kept in business.

The local councils, Housing associations or who ever could negotiate with the lenders, agreeing to buy for the reserve price.

Families would then become tenants in their own houses. Tenants with tenants rights.

It would also be a quicker process for the banks.

The gov changes in mortgage interest payments will soon cover up to £200000 and will be available sooner and to more people.

With unemployment figures soaring beyond the gov's expectations this mortgage payment is going to really cost the country.

Maybe even a comparable amount to buying the houses. These houses need not become subject to Right to Buy and will be good quality social housing stock for the future.

Rents could be calculated on individual circumstances and limitations set regarding size, value etc. Circumstances resulting in unemployment need to be proven as for JSA.

If it could be done in a manner which merely utilized the existing costs I would be in favor.

We need to be realistic. Tax payers money is and will continue to be used to re house unemployed, homeless people anyway.

Prices would drop quicker as the repo'd houses would be sold quicker for an agreed low price.

The landlords would have no new tenants to pay their mortgages resulting in even more properties on the market.

Less civil displacement.

As for this action encouraging debt, I doubt it. We are in this situation because debt has been encouraged for years now.

Attitudes have already changed. The worse is yet to come and the desire for debt will be gone.

OMG sore head. It makes sense to me.

[the flying pig]

...To me it seems far more sensible for some means to be devised whereby the occupant can be allowed to stay in their home and the mortgagor not be forced to sell it. What happens now is the forced attempt to sell into a depressed market further depresses prices and exacerbates the whole situation so that hardship is forced onto larger sections of the population...

rubbish.

i'd like to move into a decent-sized family house.

i've fully paid off the mortgage on my flat, i've got cash saved up to add to the deposit, and my wife and i earn decent money between us.

if there are people living in the sort of house that i want to live in but who blatantly can't afford it, then, unless their bank actively wants to subsiside them or there's a specific charity or something, funded with voluntary donations & set up to hel[p people in that situation, they should be turfed out so that someone like me, or whoever the highest bidder is, can move in. if this happened i would have to sell my flat for whatever the market says it is worth, giving a younger and/or less well-off person a foothold on the housing ladder at a far lower price than they'd have paid in 2008, 2007, and probably almost all of the noughties TBH.

Edited January 23, 2009 by the flying pig

[PopGun]

How can they really *passively* cause a situation in an increasing market. By definition they've sold out at below the market top, and therefore have tried to depress the market price before it becomes unsustainable. To my mind they've spotted the marker before it's exploded beyond sense and tried to bring it back to normality before others in the market lose out by overpaying on items traded in that market. It's like trying to blame shorters when they recognise that a market is overvalued. It's getting cause and effect completely back to front. It's exactly like the nonsense confidence argument. Confidence doesn't keep businesses going. REAL liquidity does.

The MEW's are worse because they've tried to cash in, but also tried to have their cake and eat it. ****** EM.

MEWs can go to hell, agreed, but I understood they wouldn't get help.

So, in around about way, you agree that they are vultures? Fair enough, so long as they stay away from the moral high ground, and are prepared to feast on spoiled meat.

[shippers]

Well done, I totally agree with you even though a lot of those who have responded to your post don't. I think many of them are resentful hypocrites.

Home ownership was encouraged in this country for ideological reasons I fully support. It was rightly, in my opinion, encouraged on the basis that those that owned property would have an incentive to behave as responsible citizens with a stake in the security, well being, prosperity and future of the country.

Of course human nature being what it is, some saw an opportunity to exploit the situation and profit from it. No owner wants to overpay for their home. Prices increased because of the banks willingness to lend, if you wanted to buy you had to pay the prices being asked. The alternative was to rent or lodge where you could, perhaps stay with your parents or share with friends. Prices are now falling not just because prices are perceived to be too high but more I think because of the mortgage famine caused by banks refusal or inability to lend.

Exactly the same situation arose in the United States, but it was arguably more exploited because of the American propensity for greed.

It just doesn't make sense for me to see people evicted from their homes and the house to be empty for an indeterminate period until it is sold. I understand the legal position but it doesn't seem sensible. It causes problems and look at who benefits, not always someone previously priced out of the housing market, it could be a property speculator with cash available to take advantage of a fire sale price, an exploitative landlord increasing his portfolio. Have those enjoying schadenfreude considered these probabilities.

To me it seems far more sensible for some means to be devised whereby the occupant can be allowed to stay in their home and the mortgagor not be forced to sell it. What happens now is the forced attempt to sell into a depressed market further depresses prices and exacerbates the whole situation so that hardship is forced onto larger sections of the population. Even Mervyn King now acknowledges that "moral hazard" is a lesser evil than the potential depression that threatens to engulf us.

They can rent it off the state at market rates, with an interest charged at market rates, if the market rates are deemed too high, then the government can lower them, helping all renters in the area. If they want to move, they can rent with everyone else.

But there is no way they shoud be allowed to profit from the risk they claimed they could cover. They should be forced to go through hoops to claim this help. If it is discovered they claimed higher income to obtain the initial mortgage they should be immediately evicted, and charged income tax for the duration of the fraud they committed.

[threetimesdead]

What happens now is the forced attempt to sell into a depressed market further depresses prices and exacerbates the whole situation so that hardship is forced onto larger sections of the population. Even Mervyn King now acknowledges that "moral hazard" is a lesser evil than the potential depression that threatens to engulf us.

Depression is not potential, it is already there. So, stopping repos will not prevent something that already has happened.

For the economy to start moving again the credit bubble and the asset price bubble has to burst.

Repos are our means to that burst and to a catarsis for the economy, a new beginning.

By not allowing the burst to happen we will only delay it and make it even more painful in the future.

Edited January 23, 2009 by threetimesdead

[shippers]

MEWs can go to hell, agreed, but I understood they wouldn't get help.

So, in around about way, you agree that they are vultures? Fair enough, so long as they stay away from the moral high ground, and are prepared to feast on spoiled meat.

No I don't agree they are vultures. I call anyone in the public sector earning guaranteed pay increases and protected pensions and "hidden expenses" vultures.

The STR crowd are just sensible. Instead of risking long, they risked short for a variety of reasons. Shorting for the last 6 years was madness if you believed the media and "No more boom and bust", and much less risky and damaging to the general wellbeing of the economy.

[eightiesgirly]

I would have sympathy really I would but the same little bastards have tortured my 8 year at every opportunity about her lack of forgein holidyas, my 3 year old car, your baby wears cloth nappies, you name she's had it thrown at her and of course it's been overheard from the parents so not really the kids fault but there are some bloody horrible "middle class" brats I cannot wait to see eating asda's value beans and it might just save them.

Asda value beans! gimme a break f**ck 'em, f**ck 'em all, let 'em burn. Let the humility lessons begin. This stuff grinds my gears, middle class messed up brats.

I feel very sorry for people overtaken by bad circumstances, for the keepy up with Jones's brigade, sorry, no real tears here.

[PopGun]

If it is discovered they claimed higher income to obtain the initial mortgage they should be immediately evicted, and charged income tax for the duration of the fraud they committed.

Ah, now that's a different matter. Imagine the Karma?!

Of course reasonable conditions should be attached. Yet it will be deemed more cost effective keeping people in their homes, instead of the expense of temporary and eventually perm housing.

There was a thread on here not too long ago, about the stupid costs of putting people up in temp housing.

[PopGun]

No I don't agree they are vultures. I call anyone in the public sector earning guaranteed pay increases and protected pensions and "hidden expenses" vultures.

The STR crowd are just sensible. Instead of risking long, they risked short for a variety of reasons. Shorting for the last 6 years was madness if you believed the media and "No more boom and bust", and much less risky and damaging to the general wellbeing of the economy.

WTF? They took advantage of a situation and people in it? How is that not being a vulture?!

Also which is cheaper? Paying the interest on a family's mortgage (for max 2 years) or full market rent indefinately?!

Edited January 23, 2009 by bloodsucked

[geoffk]

why should people who are being repoed now be treated different to those of the 80s and 90s. i never asked for a bailout i had to get on with it...life still goes on..its not the end of the world to not own your own house...is it?

[shippers]

WTF? They took advantage of a situation and people in it? How is that not being a vulture?!

Also which is cheaper? Paying the interest on a family's mortgage (for max 2 years) or full market rent indefinately?!

Market rent will depress as more and more people are forced into renting from the state through the nationalised banks, who take the house on as a rentable asset, as opposed to a mortgaged one previously owned by the rentor. Pressure will be put on to increase rights for those who are renting privately. Let's just say we need "change" in this country, with a rebalance towards reasonable rents, tenants rights, and a preference towards an economy based on productive assets away from GDP based on increasing property prices supporting a financial services industry who aren't really interested in real long term industrial investment, but more interested in short term returns and "bonuses"

If there's no demonstrable downside to property speculation (take a risk, ****** it up and you can still live there, with your interest paid), then that's no benefit in the long term to everyone.

Why should people who tried to ***** the balloon before it got too big, lose out when it explodes due to overexpansion.

Surely they should be rewarded for taking the risk. It's not being a vulture. They took more of a risk. It's actually more of an entrepreneurial event than someone who took massive top of range loans to go into BTL in a seemingly never falling market, which the power ruling the country saw as the economic answer to everything.

[yourfriendlyestateagent]

Every repossession potentially means one more family getting a more affordable property. Probably a more responsible deserving family too.

OK its not that simple but reposessions are the morally correct thing to do imo. I dont recall too many TV presenters getting bleary eyed over people who want to buy but have been priced out. Why are the financially irresponsible mollycuddled?

Of all the repossession we are involved in selling most sell at at least 10% below current selling prices, and, almost exclusively they sell to serial house buyers, investors, speculators and the already monied types. The first timers are still buying with their heart and dont seek out these bargain properties. If they do have a look they pick holes in the condition or the location and miss out on a bargain.

I heard the government intends to turn those properties that under threat of repossession into 'part ownership' houses, meaning if a family is about to be repossessed they can give up a share of their property to the h.a. and in turn take on smaller repayments. The downside is that the ha wants something from this and its only available to those with equity in their home.

[sleepwello'nights]

rubbish.

i'd like to move into a decent-sized family house.

i've fully paid off the mortgage on my flat, i've got cash saved up to add to the deposit, and my wife and i earn decent money between us.

if there are people living in the sort of house that i want to live in but who blatantly can't afford it, then, unless their bank actively wants to subsiside them or there's a specific charity or something, funded with voluntary donations & set up to hel[p people in that situation, they should be turfed out so that someone like me, or whoever the highest bidder is, can move in. if this happened i would have to sell my flat for whatever the market says it is worth, giving a younger and/or less well-off person a foothold on the housing ladder at a far lower price than they'd have paid in 2008, 2007, and probably almost all of the noughties TBH.

Rubbish?

A very reasoned argument, not.

Why don't you sell your flat, add the proceeds to the cash you saved, get a mortgage with the decent money you and your wife earn between you and buy the sort of house you want to live in. There are large numbers of people that want to sell their house, and I dare say if you even look half heartedly you could find a house that you would like to live in that's empty already.

You can do that so why do you want to see people evicted and dispossessed?

I put it that your attitude is appalling and you have no conception that people's circumstances can change. What was once affordable is no longer affordable. Think accidents, illness, redundancy. I'm glad I'm not as smug and heartless as you.

[threetimesdead]

Rubbish?

You can do that so why do you want to see people evicted and dispossessed?

You do not own the property until you have made the last payment on your mortgage.

One cannot be dispossessed of something one does not own.

[whojamaflip]

Rubbish?

A very reasoned argument, not.

Why don't you sell your flat, add the proceeds to the cash you saved, get a mortgage with the decent money you and your wife earn between you and buy the sort of house you want to live in. There are large numbers of people that want to sell their house, and I dare say if you even look half heartedly you could find a house that you would like to live in that's empty already.

You can do that so why do you want to see people evicted and dispossessed?

I put it that your attitude is appalling and you have no conception that people's circumstances can change. What was once affordable is no longer affordable. Think accidents, illness, redundancy. I'm glad I'm not as smug and heartless as you.

-1

its a free market. waiting to help out forced sellers is no crime.

bad things happen to good people who do stupid things, so the saying goes.

[Hip to be bear]

Congratulations HelenReed, you certainly pressed a few buttonson the forum. I agree that it is very sad that many human tragedies are taking place BUT:

A mortgage is a legally binding contractual agreement. The banks are within their rights to reposess and not allowing them to protect themselves financially would merely add cost to all mortgages.

When you take out a mortgage to buy a property you are made fully aware of the risks and are usually advised about the various insurance options available to help you in the event that you are unable to meet your contractual obligations.

You can also take out life insurance to cover other eventualities.

In the event that you find yourself unable to meet your obligations on the mortgage you can always sell your house. If you cant find a buyer there are even companies out there that will buy your house from you and rent it back to you although they can be unscrupulous and pay BMV (I hate that term).

It would seem therefore that there are plenty of options for the mortgagee to protect themselves and mitigate their losses. If they have failed to do so then there is also the safety net of the welfare state and whatever other protection schemes GB has cooked up to protect mortgage holders that are conspicuously absent for tenants.

If they already find themselves in negative equity then they have either bought at the top of the bubble or have mewed to the max in which case your sympathy should be limited :angry: . If the worst comes to the worst they are fortunate that we have incredibly lenient bankruptcy laws in this country. In Victorian times it would have been the debtors prison.

In conclusion.........................you are wrong.......... If this all gets TFH bad a lot of the protection that we take for granted will vanish and our society will be leaner and meaner. Get used to the new reality.

[the flying pig]

...Why don't you sell your flat, add the proceeds to the cash you saved, get a mortgage with the decent money you and your wife earn between you and buy the sort of house you want to live in. There are large numbers of people that want to sell their house, and I dare say if you even look half heartedly you could find a house that you would like to live in that's empty already.

You can do that so why do you want to see people evicted and dispossessed?...

there is no way on this earth that i am going to buy at today's prices, just no way.

my wife and i both worked hard to get to top universities, and do well there, and have worked hard since to move up the career ladder. we're not top city folks or anything like that but do OK and our household income must easily be in the top 1% in the country. we've been, i would say, incredibly careful with money all of our working lives. and yet the best place we could afford is really nothing at all. i currently live in a place that's considerably smaller than the place that my dad, a minicab driver, lived in at my age. comfortably off as we are, and lucky as i know we are in most ways, we are victims of this incredibly pernicious bubble, just by a quirk of our birthdates our standard of living is vastly poorer than it would have been if we'd been born literally 3 years earlier, and incomparable to what it would have been if we'd been born 6 years earlier. it makes me very angry, especially when i think of the myriad of ******** factors, rather than fundamentals that has inflated this bubble to its current preposterous state. i want a nice, affordable place to live. and if this will happen sooner by us buying directly from the various beleaguered banks but currently occupied by idiots who've overstretched themselves, rather than from desperate, deluded sellers, still holding out for 2007 prices, then i am very happy to trample them to move in. both sides would be getting what they deserved.

Edited January 23, 2009 by the flying pig

[sleepwello'nights]

Depression is not potential, it is already there. So, stopping repos will not prevent something that already has happened.

For the economy to start moving again the credit bubble and the asset price bubble has to burst.

Repos are our means to that burst and to a catarsis for the economy, a new beginning.

By not allowing the burst to happen we will only delay it and make it even more painful in the future.

Not sure that I agree we're in a depression already, a recession yes no question. We were in recession early to mid 2008, its just that the figures aren't prepared until after the event.

The problem as I see it is that the repos are part of the downward spiral. The forced sale of repossessed properties causes more pain. Can you explain why delay will make it even more painful in the future?

[messychopper]

I would have sympathy really I would but the same little bastards have tortured my 8 year at every opportunity about her lack of forgein holidyas, my 3 year old car, your baby wears cloth nappies, you name she's had it thrown at her and of course it's been overheard from the parents so not really the kids fault but there are some bloody horrible "middle class" brats I cannot wait to see eating asda's value beans and it might just save them.

Sign of the times... I also hope for big changes

[sleepwello'nights]

there is no way on this earth that i am going to buy at today's prices, just no way.

my wife and i both worked hard to get to top universities, and do well there, and have worked hard since to move up the career ladder. we're not top city folks or anything like that but do OK and our household income must easily be in the top 1% in the country. we've been, i would say, incredibly careful with money all of our working lives. and yet the best place we could afford is really nothing at all. i currently live in a place that's considerably smaller than the place that my dad, a minicab driver, lived in at my age. comfortably off as we are, and lucky as i know we are in most ways, we are victims of this incredibly pernicious bubble, just by a quirk of our birthdates our standard of living is vastly poorer than it would have been if we'd been born literally 3 years earlier, and incomparable to what it would have been if we'd been born 6 years earlier. it makes me very angry, especially when i think of the myriad of ******** factors, rather than fundamentals that has inflated this bubble to its current preposterous state. i want a nice, affordable place to live. and if this will happen sooner by us buying directly from the various beleaguered banks but currently occupied by idiots who've overstretched themselves, rather than from desperate, deluded sellers, still holding out for 2007 prices, then i am very happy to trample them to move in. both sides would be getting what they deserved.

My wife and I didn't go to top universities, the opportunities for us by a quirk of our birth dates were far fewer than if we had been born three years later and incomparable to what they would have been if we had been born 6 years later. But then I don't resent those who had the opportunities from taking advantage of them. We have both worked hard but never really moved very high up the career ladder. Our combined income is nowhere near the top 1% in the country. We've been careful with our money and have lived comfortably. Sometimes I wonder what might have been if the myriad of factors, rather than fundamentals, that prevented us from getting the education we could have benefited from had not conspired against us. It frustrates me when I see the low standard of presentation from those that had the privilege of a university education.

Nevertheless, we love the house we live in, we've stretched ourselves to buy it, and are now working hard to earn the money to enable us to keep it. We made our choices, and we spent a high proportion of our income on our houses over our working lives. We have friends and contemporaries that have much bigger houses than we could afford, I don't consider them idiots who've overstretched themselves. Nor do I wish to trample them to move in.

Instead of being so resentful and envious look to your blessings and stop wishing ill to those you perceive are better off than you in terms of housing. I can't see that you have anything to complain about at all. If your claims are true then a house that suits your desires is within your reach, why not rent until prices are at a level you are comfortable with, after all its cheaper to rent than buy currently.

[okaycuckoo]

.What on earth is the point of turfing people out of their homes, those homes remaining empty for months on end, going to auction and if selling at all, going very cheaply

The point is that the people turfed out move in to other homes - rented - and that house prices fall and become affordable. Not cheap - affordable.

That way sensible buyers don't run the risk of getting turfed out in future.

And if renting seems unattractive, then pick up the phone and bawl out your useless NuLab customer services representative. You will be put on hold, until you vote them OUT.

Not rocket science.

[the flying pig]

...Instead of being so resentful and envious look to your blessings and stop wishing ill to those you perceive are better off than you in terms of housing....

you're twisting what i've said.

i'm not "wishing ill" on anyone. i'm constantly surprised at the seeming cheerleading on this site over every piece of bad news in the economy... unemployment, failing firms, exchange rates nose-diving, all this stuff is incredibly damaging to all of us and i don't want to see any of it happen.

all i was saying, in response to the OP, was along the lines of - it would not be fair, and would not be not in the long-term interests of our society, to artificially prop up the 'ownership' of housing by somehow artificially staving off reposessions, which are a perfectly natural market mechanism.

[notthereyet]

Am I the only person who thinks this repossession business has to stop? OK some families took out too much on their mortgage (who now hasn't) but many have lost jobs or become ill and this is often the reason for their plight. What on earth is the point of turfing people out of their homes, those homes remaining empty for months on end, going to auction and if selling at all, going very cheaply. The onus is then on the council to rehouse these people and one can only guess at the stress-related problems which result in visits to doctors, social workers etc. Seeing the children of these families in this state is heartbreaking. All the time the government is telling us how kids need stable backgrounds in order to succeed, saying that no child should live in poverty whilst still trying to fine us for overfilling our bins! I have no immediate idea of how this can be solved but surely allowing families to stay in their homes, freezing their debt, paying an affordable 'rent' in the meantime must be a better way for the government to proceed. Bear in mind that the building societies and banks lose out big time as well with this current procedure as they sell the house for peanuts and, if the mortgagee goes bankrupt then they do not get anything back. Whilst I have no sympathy with banks even I can see that the current practice is a lose/lose situation.

I feel sorry for anyone who gets reprossesed especially were children are involved,but when i see a couple who buy a house 10 years ago for £40000 pounds with a £40000 mortgage but now owe £160000 my blood boils.They have just got theirselfs into debt fullstop.