Realistbear Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/repossession-threat-as-government-reduces-home-owner-support-tele-63755951fb93.html?x=0 Repossession threat as Government reduces home owner support Myra Butterworth, 16:11, Thursday 12 August 2010 More families will lose their homes, charities warn, as the Government prepares to reduce the amount of financial support it provides to borrowers by as much as £200 a month. The latest repossession statistics showed numbers dropping after the Government introduced several measures for home owners who lost their jobs amid the economic downturn. But some of this support is now being reduced. It includes Support for Mortgage Interest, which is paid to those on income-related benefits such as Job Seekers Allowance at a rate of 6.08 per cent. The end of government attempts to keep HPI going. Things should pick up to the downside nicely from here on in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidreign Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Home repossession orders down 29 percent year-on-year (Reuters) - Courts in England and Wales made 29 percent fewer mortgage repossession orders between April and June this year than a year ago, the Ministry of Justice said on Thursday. There were 13,389 orders for home repossession according to seasonally-adjusted second-quarter data, down from 18,813 a year ago and 7 percent fewer than the 14,385 orders made between January and March. However, 46 percent of the orders were suspended, the same proportion as in the previous quarter, meaning the total number of actual home repossessions is likely to be lower. Only 9,800 properties were actually repossessed in the first quarter of 2010, the last period for which data is available. Low interest rates for existing home owners and the absence of a big surge in unemployment to date have meant there has been far less of a surge in repossessions to date than in the aftermath of Britain's previous recession in the early 1990s. (Reporting by David Milliken) http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE67B1AD20100812 And what has been suspended will be the water first through the cracked dam... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Martin Lewis has a piece on his site about it - which means the hoards are being exposed to this repo news. "Home repossessions down but we're 'not out of the woods'" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 ...looks like duplicate thread.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Boy Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 ...looks like duplicate thread.... ...looks like duplicate thread.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCountOfNowhere Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 (edited) Can someone tell me, why I pay tax which is used to support people, to keep them in over-priced houses they cant afford, artificially keeping prices high...meanwhile I am being held back from buying a decent house....please someone explain it to me.....it doesnt seem rigth somehow. It doesn't seem sustainable or sensible. Edited August 12, 2010 by TheCountOfNowhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non frog Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Can someone tell me, why I pay tax which is used to support people, to keep them in over-priced houses they cant afford, artificially keeping prices high...meanwhile I am being held back from buying a decent house....please someone explain it to me.....it doesnt seem rigth somehow. It doesn't seem sustainable or sensible. Simple - its a ponzi scheme and you're last in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realistbear Posted August 12, 2010 Author Share Posted August 12, 2010 http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/us-banks-seizing-homes-at-record-levels-tele-2b5a52a55015.html?x=0 US banks seizing homes at record levels James Quinn, 18:45, Thursday 12 August 2010 Repossessions of houses and flats by major US banks is at close to an all-time high as the American housing market continues to struggle. Major US banks wrote off approximately $8bn (£5.1bn) on mortgages in the first three months of this year, on track to repeat or even surpass - last year's full-year total of $31bn. The news could have severe implications for the wider financial market, given it was problems in the US housing market which triggered the credit crisis back in 2007. Fresh data shows that the number of US homes being repossessed due to mortgage arrears rose to 92,858 last month, up 9pc on June and up 6pc from the same month last year. What happens when the government no longer props up non-pays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minos Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Can someone tell me, why I pay tax which is used to support people, to keep them in over-priced houses they cant afford, artificially keeping prices high...meanwhile I am being held back from buying a decent house....please someone explain it to me.....it doesnt seem rigth somehow. It doesn't seem sustainable or sensible. You used to own a house though didn't you, but chose to sell it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 (edited) You used to own a house though didn't you, but chose to sell it? ...would imagine he is trying to buy back in to market at realistic price but is prevented by these subsidies.... Edited August 12, 2010 by South Lorne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Can someone tell me, why I pay tax which is used to support people, to keep them in over-priced houses they cant afford, artificially keeping prices high...meanwhile I am being held back from buying a decent house....please someone explain it to me.....it doesnt seem rigth somehow. It doesn't seem sustainable or sensible. You and I are paying three times over: Tax, as you said. An inflated price if and when you buy. Rent, in a market inflated by both the above. But I hope things are about to improve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okaycuckoo Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 The really significant figure is percentage of mortgages in arrears. The change in the figure for possession orders is a function of government interference. Lenders have been whipped into shape since 2008, with an increasing tolerance for chronic default. MCOB guideline is that no legal proceedings may be brought before 2 months of arrears have accrued. These days it is common to see that period extended to 8-12 months. NRK seem to be the worst on this. Also their general mandate at the moment is to agree suspended orders on payment of the monthly instalments with nothing paid toward the arrears - strictly speaking that is unlawful, but nobody wants to be the bad guy, so it has become accepted practice. The low end of the mortgage market is a joke, with the courts allowing lenders to erect a Potemkin village at every bend of the river. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zngland Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Can someone tell me, why I pay tax which is used to support people, to keep them in over-priced houses they cant afford, artificially keeping prices high...meanwhile I am being held back from buying a decent house....please someone explain it to me.....it doesnt seem rigth somehow. It doesn't seem sustainable or sensible. because socialism is about doing the right thing with someone[ mugs] else's money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiges Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 (edited) People will still be getting their mortgages repaid at 3.5% interest rate, they're just not getting their capital repaid too. It's still a prop, one that should be kicked away, or at least the repayments should be a loan recouped when the house is repossessed/sold Edited August 12, 2010 by exiges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 The really significant figure is percentage of mortgages in arrears. The change in the figure for possession orders is a function of government interference. Lenders have been whipped into shape since 2008, with an increasing tolerance for chronic default. MCOB guideline is that no legal proceedings may be brought before 2 months of arrears have accrued. These days it is common to see that period extended to 8-12 months. NRK seem to be the worst on this. Also their general mandate at the moment is to agree suspended orders on payment of the monthly instalments with nothing paid toward the arrears - strictly speaking that is unlawful, but nobody wants to be the bad guy, so it has become accepted practice. The low end of the mortgage market is a joke, with the courts allowing lenders to erect a Potemkin village at every bend of the river. ...invisible bad debts....for now...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenubracon Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Won't somebody think of the overleveraged homeowners? Jill Treanor in today's Guardian says the coalition should think again on this to help them out: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/13/housing-market-viewpoint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twatmangle Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Typical Guardian .... The coalition intends to almost halve the benefit that helps redundant homeowners maintain mortgage interest payments at a time of mounting job fears They are not homeowners they are people who borrowed lots of money and did not take steps to be able to pay it back. If they have been made redundant surely their insurance policy will pay ... oh didn't have one .... then why should I bail them out. Because you would expect a bail out and your rent paid, and I bet you've got no insurance. BTW. They are homeowners, the bank has an financial interest in the house that's all. The house isn't on HP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenubracon Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Because you would expect a bail out and your rent paid, and I bet you've got no insurance. Yes, but not at the more than 6% rate that everyone gets regardless of the rate they actualily pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiges Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 BTW. They are homeowners Who has the deeds ? You'll find the lender does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twatmangle Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Yes, but not at the more than 6% rate that everyone gets regardless of the rate they actualily pay. Sure, but the question was 'why should I bail them out'. The answer is: Because renters expect to get bailed out too. It shouldn't make a difference. People shouldn't automatically be made homeless because they've lost their job. Should you help out people who become ill? What about the fatties and the smokers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twatmangle Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Who has the deeds ? You'll find the lender does. Sometime and sometimes not. Who has the deeds to my houses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiges Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 I think the free insurance from the government that pay a flat 6.08% irrespective of the actual mortgage rate is a very good deal for those that receive it. Can't find anything else to match it in the real world. Assuming your SVR is 2.5%, the goverment paying 6.08% on a £200k mortgage would give you a capital repayment of £8160 over 2yrs, or £680 a month for free ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 I have no issue helping people who lose their job for a period, say 6 months, but 200k at 6.08% is over the top. Do you have an issue with the fact that at present, the taxpayer helps homeowners who lose their job for a period (regardless of their level of savings) but not private tenants? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikthe20 Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Do you have an issue with the fact that at present, the taxpayer helps homeowners mortgage holders who lose their job for a period (regardless of their level of savings) but not private tenants? EFA - big difference! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twatmangle Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 EFA - big difference! As already mentioned, they are home owners, but they have a loan secured against it. They are the owners regardless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.