Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Repossessions


Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441
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.

Completely agree. And often it is rich property SPIVs who are benefiting from these cheap repos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 296
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

1
HOLA442
I tend to agree with the O.P.

Using myself as an example the ONLY things I've ever had on tap are my mortgage (which is only £30,000) and a car loan that has now been repayed.

Now the economy is screwed and I might end up losing my job, which in turn would make it a huge struggle to keep up my mortgage payments. Now if I got turfed out of my house I can't see there being any buyers on the horizon so there will be an empty property lying around and the local council will have to find housing for a family of six.

Surely a better scenario would be to 'nationalise' my house and let me stay in it? They've bailed out the fookin banks so if things get tough for me I demand the same treatment!

If I become homeless a few molotovs will be going through the windows of the local banking establishments.

:ph34r:

They might well do that but will be buying at bottom dollar and any shortfall may still come back on you??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443
3
HOLA444
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.

It's worth remembering that the banks are utterly ruthless. Irrespective of the nice warm words that the politicians utter and the crocodile tears the Big Wig bankers shed....they are ruthless in their dealings. Their sole purpose in life is to make money for their shareholders and themselves....and lots of it. A person or family who has a mortgage does not own the home...it belongs to the bank until the last payment is made. If the bank ejects the defaulting mortgagee, for whatever reason, then the resulting social problem is not the banks problem...it becomes the State's (read Tax Payer) problem. That is how the current ruthless system works. :(

But it gets worse..... :blink:

The defaultee is not only repossessed and very miserable but then the home is sold at auction for whatever can be acheived. In a Depression such as the current one, very low sales amounts are/will be achieved and the difference is then ruthlessy sought after. The banks will be doing this for the next 10 to 20 years. 100% guaranteed. They will bide their time....wait for an upturn, say, in several years time.....they know the Sheeples will buy another home somewhere, sometime. HPI may take off again....then the Banks will strike, demanding the outstanding debt be paid as ASAP or court action, forced sales or repossession will ensue again. A double whammy indeed.

Repossession cannot be stopped....the banks are just taking back what rightly belongs to them. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445
5
HOLA446
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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447

Why should I, as a taxpayer and thereby part owner of certain banks, pay for someone else's mortgage because they can't afford it?

This year will only be the beginning imho. The real swell of repos will happen when interest rates return to normal after the election... My money is on 8% interest rates within 18 months. That'll sort the wheat from the chaff.

Btw, I say this as someone with two houses (one which my parents live in) and two mortgages...

I don't expect you to pay my mortgages. I don't expect to pay yours. Otherwise I may as well jack the job in.

Joe public needs to relearn that not everyone can afford to buy even when prices are normal/not vastly inflated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448
8
HOLA449

Why so much sympathy for people with mortgages and no symapthy (or tax payers money) for those who rent?

After all, a renter can be turfed out in 2 months flat without ever having missed a single payment.

No sympathy for those who over-reached or didnt plan or didnt take out insurance. Why should I when society and the government wouldnt fart on me and the wife if we got turfed out on the street by a nasty avaricious landlord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410
10
HOLA4411

Helen, your post shows how little you know about bankruptcy, housing and mortgages.

May i suggest you watch some of the more money oriented threads here.

In particular, when a borrower goes bankrupt, the asset returns to the lender for sale by default if payments are no longer being made, they dont lose their right to sell.

How can a bank rent out a place to its owner?

Its a tough world, and if you overextend its your own fault. 4 times joint income is in most cases, overextension IMHO. 10 times salary liar loans are fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412
I am not brushing over the fact that some of these people were stupid but on the evidence I have seen they are living in pretty grotty places anyway and were probably coerced to up their salaries by the salesman - sorry financial advisers - who assured them this was the norm.

I am first to cheer when I read of a Notting Hill townhouse being repossessed but we are talking about people who just listened to the government and wanted a place of their own.

I have been a long-term renter myself, never bought anything on credit, still drive around in a 1992 banger and only bought when I had saved enough to have a large deposit. A few years ago it was very difficult to find rented accommodation that would house a low paid family - remember social housing had more or less disappeared so many people only did what the government was pushing i.e. home ownership as the be all and end all.

I just think it is totally immoral that the bankers can be bailed out at our expense but families cannot. These families would have to pay back the original loan in the future but could they not be given a chance of a reprieve until this mess has an end in sight.

Sadly, I appreciate that the 'end' is many years away.

Please.... space things out.

Sounds like you got sucked in, as I almost did just before I joined the site back in April of last year. Thank god I found this site and the graph on the front. Despite always thinking that whilst houses prices had risen xx% and wages hadn't risen at all, I was convinced by friends, family and co-workers that it was time to get onto the ladder. Luckily I saw sense and pulled out.

Perhaps your anger should be aimed at the government for allowing house prices to rise so much. They even used to boast how far house prices had risen, increasing the wealth of the house owners of the country...... what a joke.

I know what you mean about bailing out the bankers, but if that hadn't happened, a lot of people would have lost money, many people who sold to rent on these forums included. Even though many of us were moving money around 5 or so months ago to keep up with the risky bank situation.

Not sure what the answer is, I just know I'm p155ed off and the country is fooked.

Ultimately though people should take responsibility for their own actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413
Why should I, as a taxpayer and thereby part owner of certain banks, pay for someone else's mortgage because they can't afford it?

Why should I, as a taxpayer with no savings to speak of, be expected to bail out the savers who in theory should have lost all their money in a banking system collapse that was only averted by taxpayer intervention?

Swings and roundabouts mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414
Why so much sympathy for people with mortgages and no symapthy (or tax payers money) for those who rent?

After all, a renter can be turfed out in 2 months flat without ever having missed a single payment.

No sympathy for those who over-reached or didnt plan or didnt take out insurance. Why should I when society and the government wouldnt fart on me and the wife if we got turfed out on the street by a nasty avaricious landlord.

If it was up to me there would be no renters - I bould ban BTL.

Why should housing, a basic necessity, be monopolised by tosser landlords?

Edited by Setantii
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415
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.

I'm with you on this one. 'What no games console?' 'You've only got five channels!'... Boy have we been looked down on by some people. I've not let it get to me, but it's taken some explaining to the children.

The tales of woe are starting to surface, and they are looking for sympathy, wanting validation that everyone else has been living their lives the same way.

The realisation that we have a safety net is a real slap in the face. 'What, no savings?' 'What, no redundancy insurance?' 'Already on interest only?' 'You don't pay your credit card at the end of the month?'

Edited by mitchbux
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416
Why should I, as a taxpayer with no savings to speak of, be expected to bail out the savers who in theory should have lost all their money in a banking system collapse that was only averted by taxpayer intervention?

Swings and roundabouts mate.

Amazing this, amazing!

Apparently, credit needs to flow again. Where do you think this credit will come from, the debtors of the country?

Perhaps banks should have been allowed to fail, at least the ones that were obviously insolvent (as things get worse, most seem to be however). On these forums, and others, people have kept pace with the changing stabilities of various banks and moved money around to spread the risk.

Oh, and I'm sure you know which way interest rates will go if debtors are going to find it harder to find savers to lend from.

Edited by Ted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417

Surely we should have a situation that, if a house is repossessed then the previous occupants go and rent. The problem is that rents are also currently unaffordable to someone on a wage even slightly below average. I believe this is because of the housing benefit fiasco much discussed on this forum.

The bottom line is that we all pay too much into an overly bureaucratic tax system whose resulting output is far from satisfactory, and us taxpayers do not want to pay any more irresponsible peoples' mortgages.

Edited by Oh Dear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418
Why so much sympathy for people with mortgages and no symapthy (or tax payers money) for those who rent?

After all, a renter can be turfed out in 2 months flat without ever having missed a single payment.

No sympathy for those who over-reached or didnt plan or didnt take out insurance. Why should I when society and the government wouldnt fart on me and the wife if we got turfed out on the street by a nasty avaricious landlord.

Hallelujah

Bring it on, hundreds of thousands of repos

Make it a lesson for the next 3 generations

For those who lied on their mortgage applications

For those who thought houses are for making a profit, not for living in

For those who had no brain of their own and followed the herd

For those who bought a new plasma every 6 months and a new 3 series outside ex-council grot every 3 years

For those who went on holidays of their life that they could not afford

Do I need to go on?... Yes, because that will eventually change the culture and atitudes to property and debt in this country

And we all need this change to happen

Edited by threetimesdead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419
I tend to agree with the O.P.

Using myself as an example the ONLY things I've ever had on tap are my mortgage (which is only £30,000) and a car loan that has now been repayed. (The car was second hand BTW).

Now the economy is screwed and I might end up losing my job, which in turn would make it a huge struggle to keep up my mortgage payments. Now if I got turfed out of my house I can't see there being any buyers on the horizon so there will be an empty property lying around and the local council will have to find housing for a family of six.

Surely a better scenario would be to 'nationalise' my house and let me stay in it? They've bailed out the fookin banks so if things get tough for me I demand the same treatment!

If I become homeless a few molotovs will be going through the windows of the local banking establishments.

:ph34r:

Oh for a £30,000 mortgage I could have paid the IO on that with my bar job at Uni (only wish I bloody had lol).

We are talking about what, £130 a month ?

Edited by Girly girl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420
Amazing this, amazing!

Apparently, credit needs to flow again. Where do you think this credit will come from, the debtors of the country?

Perhaps banks should have been allowed to fail, at least the ones that were obviously insolvent (as things get worse, most seem to be however). On these forums, and others, people have kept pace with the changing stabilities of various banks and moved money around to spread the risk.

Oh, and I'm sure you know which way interest will go if you debtors are going to find it harder to find savers to lend from.

Credit needs to flow again?

Seeing as credit equates to debt and we are in the mother of all bubbles, a global debt bubble, how will taking on more debt help anything?

As for spreading your money around it would be nice to have money to spread around! Being a lowly prole I don't have the luxury of spreading money around anywhere.

Actually, seeing as the government is willing to protect up to £35,000 of savings' and all my 'savings' are tied into my property, shouldn't my house be secured by the same token? I mean it only cost £30,000 so there should be £5,000 to spare!

Edited by Setantii
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421
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.

Girly Girl..... where in Cheshire do you live may I ask... I can definatley relate to your experience. I'm in Runcorn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422
22
HOLA4423
This film was released in 1984, probably made in 1982/3, but it was not by chance that this observation was made in 1980/81 and written down and scripted soon after:

Bud (the archetypal, all-wise repo man who only makes a brief show at the beginning of the film):

Look at 'em,

ordinary ******ing people,

I hate 'em.

Repo Man

Life of a Repo Man is always intense....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424

So little sympathy from those who acquired vast STR funds from 'suckers' who had to over borrow to buy THEIR houses at an over-inflated price, the same suckers who are now facing repossession.

The hypocrisy on this site at times is beyond belief.

Yes, no one forced a gun at their heads to buy your ridiculously overpriced asset off you, and a fool is easily parted with their cash. But please ffs if you've benefited in any way from this boom, then DO NOT take the moral high ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425
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 think that you're assuming that the borrowers have just one, combined, form of relationship with both the lenders and the state when, in fact, there are two, very different, ones.

Repossession is the result of legal action taken by the lender when the borrower has been unable/unwilling to meet their contractual obligations. The lender cannot take on the responsibilities of the state to adequately house people - that's not their job. The money that's at risk is, largely, not the bank's own funds but that of the bank's savers and if bank's just write off bad debts ('freezing their debt' as you say) then savers will take away their hard-earned funds and put it elsewhere. Deposit-takers - whether banks or building societies - who don't take care of their savers' money quickly go out of business - perhaps as a result of a short, sharp bank run. People will only deposit their money with banks who'll take very good care of it and who are likely to give it back, when asked.

The state, on the other hand, has a totally different aim. If it wants to give money to 'needy' people to keep their homes, that's up to them (and us, of course). But the funds must come from government/taxpayers pockets and not forced out of the pockets of careful savers.

p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information