Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
iLegallyBlonde

Another Cheery Thread From Mumsnet

Recommended Posts

I find these threads interesting because they reflect what is actually happening to real people, babygreenhouse has a thread describing how upset she is with her husbands 1.5% pay rise, another 6 people have replied with "that's 1.5% more than mine". It balances out the spin IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The house has been repossessed by the bank/society.

Oh, poor banks/societies - the squatters might mean they cant sell the house on and lose money.

Do we care when they are fleecing us out of billions every year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry that link was for someone talking to themselves about having a repossessed home squatted in??

Nevermind :)

Edited by DabHand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The house has been repossessed by the bank/society.

Oh, poor banks/societies - the squatters might mean they cant sell the house on and lose money.

Do we care when they are fleecing us out of billions every year?

I could be wrong but doesn't the bank put the proceeds of the sale against the outstanding debt - so if the squatters lower the property value directly or indirectly it might affect the person who lost the house.

Just thinking out loud, but it may be a problem for the ex-owner as well as the evil bank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, how many people are able to re-occupy a repossessed house, squatters or no squatters?

I understand the sentiment, no-one wants to lose their house and I feel for anyone who has but generally once its gone, its gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong but doesn't the bank put the proceeds of the sale against the outstanding debt - so if the squatters lower the property value directly or indirectly it might affect the person who lost the house.

Just thinking out loud, but it may be a problem for the ex-owner as well as the evil bank.

It depends on the circumstances. It depends whether their house was worth more than they paid for it or less and if its a firesale auction it may well go for significantly less.

The fact is that if they have had their home repossessed they are probably seriously in the financial poo. They are likely to loose money and although I don't know the details, if it is over 20K and they don't have a reasonable likelihood of paying back in the next 7 years then they are best off declaring themselves bankrupt once the house has been sold. If it was going to be over 20K left over debts anyway, with no reasonable anyway, then 50K or 100K bankrupcy, it really doesn't matter since the consequences are the same. The bank will carry the balance of the burden of loss... and if that is the case frankly, I DON'T CARE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong but doesn't the bank put the proceeds of the sale against the outstanding debt - so if the squatters lower the property value directly or indirectly it might affect the person who lost the house.

Just thinking out loud, but it may be a problem for the ex-owner as well as the evil bank.

Fair point Magpie.

The other scenario is that the bank takes the route of immediate evaluation giving a repossession price there and then allowing the ex-owner to 'move on' as it were.

Agree bankruptcy would be the best route if debt is over 30k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on the circumstances. It depends whether their house was worth more than they paid for it or less and if its a firesale auction it may well go for significantly less.

The fact is that if they have had their home repossessed they are probably seriously in the financial poo. They are likely to loose money and although I don't know the details, if it is over 20K and they don't have a reasonable likelihood of paying back in the next 7 years then they are best off declaring themselves bankrupt once the house has been sold. If it was going to be over 20K left over debts anyway, with no reasonable anyway, then 50K or 100K bankrupcy, it really doesn't matter since the consequences are the same. The bank will carry the balance of the burden of loss... and if that is the case frankly, I DON'T CARE.

Interesting - so it might actually be more of a problem for them if they only owed £10K or so and were hoping to avoid bankruptcy, than if it is so massive that bankruptcy is the only option.

No matter how much it might or might not be their fault, always sad to hear about a repo. So I hope it is the bank that ends up carrying the can one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.