Will! Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Some homeowners caught up in this month's riots say they have been disappointed with the help their mortgage lenders are offering them. Most banks are offering "mortgage holidays" but some riot victims say they are not long enough or have conditions attached. Could this be the straw that breaks the camel's back for the overstreteched? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Of Highbridge Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Frikin Boo Hoo. Whatever happened to saving some money for a rainy day? When we had a mortgage we always has a fund so if anything unexpected should happen eg. lose job etc.. then we had around 6 months to sort it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrFlibble Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 It is not just mortgage repayments Lance and Omar have to worry about. Neither had contents insurance. Tough shit then surely, or is the taxpayer wallet flying open again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Apple Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Why does everyone always demand help when ever something goes slightly wrong? Aren't these people capable of sorting their own problems out without assistance? We really need to remove the stabiliser wheels that the nanny state has attached to everyone's bicycles and let people fall over now and then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Why does everyone always demand help when ever something goes slightly wrong? Aren't these people capable of sorting their own problems out without assistance? We really need to remove the stabiliser wheels that the nanny state has attached to everyone's bicycles and let people fall over now and then. I think having your appartment building burnt to the ground and finding yourself on the street qualifies as more than 'something going slightly wrong'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 I think having your appartment building burnt to the ground and finding yourself on the street qualifies as more than 'something going slightly wrong'. That would be really inconvenient. Surely these people have some insurance, or is this event specifically excluded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcellar Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 That would be really inconvenient. Surely these people have some insurance, or is this event specifically excluded. RIOT = government payout to cover damage. Some 1800s type legislature I believe. Insurance typically excludes riot for this reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcellar Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 (edited) I think having your appartment building burnt to the ground and finding yourself on the street qualifies as more than 'something going slightly wrong'. So do you propose that fires and flooding are also paid for by the publice purse? They too are something going wrong and have the same result, destruction of the premises. Edit: or was it just the phrase you were objecting to, not the argument? Edited August 28, 2011 by Redcellar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcellar Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Could this be the straw that breaks the camel's back for the overstreteched? I think that's generous offering a mortgage holiday. But I guess something for nothing is never enough for some people. I give up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 RIOT = government payout to cover damage. Some 1800s type legislature I believe. Insurance typically excludes riot for this reason. Bizarre! I thought that was what insurance was about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcellar Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Bizarre! I thought that was what insurance was about. Acts of war, riot and terrorism etc excluded from most insurance. I guess most people assume GB is a stable country with a great political system and happy peoples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24gray24 Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 RIOT = government payout to cover damage. Some 1800s type legislature I believe. Insurance typically excludes riot for this reason. Insurance excludes riot, acts of god and war, because the risks cannot be calculated, and because if these events occur, many claims happen at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 That would be really inconvenient. Surely these people have some insurance, or is this event specifically excluded. Damage from civil disturbances is excluded from most policies as the liability is settled by the local police authority. However, as far as I am aware the claim for compensation is still directed via your insurance company. Most of the victims lived in flats so they won't be making the building claim as they only have a lease on the property. The issue is that mortgage payments fall due far more quickly than the compensation is likely to be paid out. Those made homeless also have the problem that they have to pay rent on their temporary residence as well as the mortgage on their burnt out flats. They are in a far worse position than those in short term tenancies who suffered the same fate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 So do you propose that fires and flooding are also paid for by the publice purse? They too are something going wrong and have the same result, destruction of the premises. Edit: or was it just the phrase you were objecting to, not the argument? Fire and flood are covered by conventional insurance. Riot damage, war etc are not. In those circumstances the claim has always been against the publc purse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcellar Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Insurance excludes riot, acts of god and war, because the risks cannot be calculated, and because if these events occur, many claims happen at the same time. Acts of god has been dropped hasn't it? After all, atheists would find it offensive or could argue that it covers nothing at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Acts of god has been dropped hasn't it? After all, atheists would find it offensive or could argue that it covers nothing at all. The contractual word is sometimes "force majeur". 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.