Lepista Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 100% conceded. But we don't know, and neither does Harry. To be fair to Harry, the Op also said that their friend/relative was generally honest, an assertion we also have no proof of. A lot of "honest" people turned a blind eye (or I gess were misled) into taking out a "liar loan", allowing the mortgage advisor to fill in the forms, and just sign at the bottom. after all, everyone else was doing it, right? Doesn't make "going with the herd" an honest thing to do though (as some MP's and peers are currently finding out). My money IS that they took out a liar loan, perhaps had an IO mortgage, and then rode the property bubble, to take out MEW (again at the peak, 9% of UK GDP was from MEW). Why else would they be in NE? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 So you had better ask the OP what he meant by that. Fair enough - however, I would assume something rather less than gleeful triumph given what they are probably losing. Look at it another way - you've lost your job because of a financial crisis brought on by reckless borrowing, lending and spending, much of it by the banks. Those banks are now going to repossess your house (fair enough) AND pursue you for the NE - and you blame them for wanting a way to tell the banks to FO with regard to the latter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim123 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 It's the last option, after looking for more work, drawing unemployment money, and letting it out. Where are they going to live if they rent it out? Do they already have a shop doorway lined up? tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim123 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Did they not consider that they might lose their jobs? Working for the public sector! Of course they didn't! tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Monk Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Fair enough - however, I would assume something rather less than gleeful triumph given what they are probably losing. It is not gleeful triumph but you have to bear in mind that the central tenet of this website is a return to affordable housing, and this can only happen when houses are re-possessed from those who were prepared to pay over-inflated prices using an unrealistic assessment of their prospects of repaying the loan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I-hate-scumlords Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Surely the people on HPC should be thankful for people like this for doing a runner as without this kind of default the market will stand up even longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim123 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I'm pretty sure that a bankrupt can be discharged within a year. That doesn't mean it never happened though. Being discharged does not wipe it from the record. Simply put, the process is that during the period of bankruptcy you will have all of your "excess" income taken away from you to satisfy your debts. Once you have been discharged you have no obligation to make further payments to your debtors but as long as the debt remains unsatisfied it will remain on your record as such. Unless we get back to the situation where anyone who has a pulse can have a loan they will be unlikely to ever get credit again tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozza Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) The European directive on this is that the bank have 12 years from default not a never ending undefined period of 12 years. I am not proposing anything just stating how things are. It is up to YOU if you commit fraud not me. Im not using hearsay im talking from personal experience after being pursued by Eversheds for 75k in the 80's for 12 years. Fair point on the second one (as in you not proposing it) but you are wrong as to how they are the bank can and often does check, but ill clear the first one up for you. the law is this The lender has 12 years from the date of your last payment or contact acknowledging you own the money to pursue you for payment, so if they do nothing then in 12 years time there is no debt. However assuming they start chasing payment for the debt legally (which they will) then you cant just wait it out for 12 years and the debt vanishes! The european directive says the following "No action shall be brought to recover…any principal sum of money secured by a mortgage or other charge on property (whether real or personal)…after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right to receive the money accrued." and in legal terms the word BROUGHT means started If it helps anyone (who needs help, not being sarcastic), then there is info about this here http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/england_wales/factsheet.php?page=11_mortgage_shortfalls#slm5 Edited January 28, 2011 by Rozza Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Reaver Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Being discharged does not wipe it from the record. Simply put, the process is that during the period of bankruptcy you will have all of your "excess" income taken away from you to satisfy your debts. Once you have been discharged you have no obligation to make further payments to your debtors but as long as the debt remains unsatisfied it will remain on your record as such. Unless we get back to the situation where anyone who has a pulse can have a loan they will be unlikely to ever get credit again tim This is correct but it will only remain on your record for 6 years and then it is gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 It is not gleeful triumph but you have to bear in mind that the central tenet of this website is a return to affordable housing, and this can only happen when houses are re-possessed from those who were prepared to pay over-inflated prices using an unrealistic assessment of their prospects of repaying the loan. Have I argued against the repo? My only beef is that banks might be a bit more responsible if they knew that NE would hit them directly (in theory it should make them more wary of stoking bubbles). Aside from that, are you seriously suggesting that no one should take out a mortgage if there is a possibility that they might lose their job prior to paying it off? Who could possibly ever take out a mortgage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 The vast majority of us are no more than a couple of pay-packets away from the street Yes, whether they are buying or renting.....many would be living on the streets or on someones sofa if no other financial help or assistance was available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozza Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Look at it another way - you've lost your job because of a financial crisis brought on by reckless borrowing, lending and spending, much of it by the banks. Those banks are now going to repossess your house (fair enough) AND pursue you for the NE - and you blame them for wanting a way to tell the banks to FO with regard to the latter? I dont look on it with glee at all and think its horrific for anyone to lose their house, but change House for car and see how you feel! For example lets say I borrow 50K to buy a mini because the media keep telling me that the value of it will only ever go up, in a years time i have paid off 2k and the mini is only worth 20k, I then lose my job, should i just be able to hand it back and say "oh well, worth a try"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Reaver Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I dont look on it with glee at all and think its horrific for anyone to lose their house, but change House for car and see how you feel! For example lets say I borrow 50K to buy a mini because the media keep telling me that the value of it will only ever go up, in a years time i have paid off 2k and the mini is only worth 20k, I then lose my job, should i just be able to hand it back and say "oh well, worth a try"? You don't live in your mini with your wife and kids so hardly a good analogy is it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Monk Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Aside from that, are you seriously suggesting that no one should take out a mortgage if there is a possibility that they might lose their job prior to paying it off? Who could possibly ever take out a mortgage? Well yes, that would be dreadful, if that was to happen then house prices would fall to the amount people could reasonably afford to pay with their savings.... the £20,000 house, doesn't bear thinking about! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Well yes, that would be dreadful, if that was to happen then house prices would fall to the amount people could reasonably afford to pay with their savings.... the £20,000 house, doesn't bear thinking about! Heh - nice idea, but (there was a thread discussing this elsewhere) it would probably just mean that the rich would hoover up all housing and rent it to us serfs... mortgages are the only thing that allow us to compete with them (and, unfortunately, this means that houses will always cost a bit more than they should - if they're cheap, then the rental yield is too attractive). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozza Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 You don't live in your mini with your wife and kids so hardly a good analogy is it. Talk about nit pick the point still stands, if someone decides something is worth £X and borrows that amount, then they should pay it back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 This is correct but it will only remain on your record for 6 years and then it is gone. ...ah but you still have to prove you are credit worthy and can support any debt you want to undertake.....don't want the same thing to happen again now do we. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Reaver Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 ...ah but you still have to prove you are credit worthy and can support any debt you want to undertake.....don't want the same thing to happen again now do we. BUT the same thing WILL happen again. We have our depression and then we WILL have another boom. It's how the game works. The only difference is the next one I will play to the hilt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 BUT the same thing WILL happen again. We have our depression and then we WILL have another boom. It's how the game works. The only difference is the next one I will play to the hilt. ...and how may I ask are you going to do that?....what game will you be playing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venger Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 A good point. I think Harry Monk works on the assumption that we exist in all times at once, like some advanced quantum concept. The fact is in 2005 there were very few indications that borrowing sensibly would turn out to destroy you. You only had to look how much house prices had risen over the previous four years for alarm bells to be loudly ringing. Borrowing sensibly? When the same house was likely to have been valued at less than half the price four years earlier. Shut up. If you feel upset about their circumstances then keep reserves of pity for many similar sob stories coming this year and next. My sympathy is for those who chose to rent instead of buy in 2005. It's our turn to see some rewards for our decisions now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Well yes, that would be dreadful, if that was to happen then house prices would fall to the amount people could reasonably afford to pay with their savings.... the £20,000 house, doesn't bear thinking about! Even with land, labour, and materials resaonably priced, and not a whole heap of expensive red tape to plough through, could a decent house be built for that price? A reasonable price for a house needs to take into account what it could be reasonably built for, and for that to work I think that mortgages will still be needed - just nowhere near the level they are at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 You only had to look how much house prices had risen over the previous four years for alarm bells to be loudly ringing. Borrowing sensibly? When the same house was likely to have been valued at less than half the price four years earlier. Shut up. If you feel upset about their circumstances then keep reserves of pity for many similar sob stories coming this year and next. My sympathy is for those who chose to rent instead of buy in 2005. It's our turn to see some rewards for our decisions now. Might there not be a reasonable middle-ground between, at one extreme, gloating at every repo and, at the other, shedding tears every time someone gets into NE? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D179 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) This thread was started by somebody who has sympathy for a friend. I think that this thread shows that due to the faceless use of forums , some can simply lose all sympathy for somebody that they do not know and so try to tar these people that they must be reckless and should have seen it coming. I too have made this judgment about stories that I have read in the press on the tv etc and had no sympathy and just blamed them for being idiots. but I also have friends that have got into situations but my default position is wanting to assist, sympathy etc.. It's funny how our view changes about people we don't know. Ian not wanting to pick a fight with those who are blaming this couple, they may be right, but if you are honest can think of any friends that may have run in to difficult financial situations and if so were you so hardline or were you a little more sympathetic?? Just interested in the psychology that's all. Edited January 28, 2011 by D179 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 This thread was started by somebody who has sympathy for a friend. I think that this thread shows that due to the faceless use of forums , some can simply lose all sympathy for somebody that they do not know and so try to tar these people that they must be reckless and should have seen it coming. I too have made this judgment about stories that I have read in the press on the tv etc and had no sympathy and just blamed them for being idiots. but I also have friends that have got into situations but my default position is wanting to assist, sympathy etc.. It's funny how our view changes about people we don't know. Ian not wanting to pick a fight with those who are blaming this couple, they may be right, but if you are honest can think of any friends that may have run in to difficult financial situations and if so were you so hardline or were you a little more sympathetic?? Just interested in the psychology that's all. Put another way: all these people will die. You have the chance to save either: - your best friend - ten aquaintances - 100 people in your town / village - 1,000 people from your country - 10,000 people in another country which one group do you choose? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Put another way: all these people will die. You have the chance to save either: - your best friend - ten aquaintances - 100 people in your town / village - 1,000 people from your country - 10,000 people in another country which one group do you choose? depends - will you ever get to meet the teenage daughters of the last two options? 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.