We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
High Court blow for UK homeowners
Comments
-
Sorry, but you have some more living to do.
A couple more decades of living a perfectly, constructed life that covers all eventualities, whatever they may they be.
When you are 60, you can then decide whether you hold the same view........and then post stuff like the above.....
I bet no 60+'s who post on this forum would post the above.
BTW I am not 60 and confess to having vaguely similar (tho' nowhere near as harsh) views during my 20's.
My daughter has a teen mate whose sister (aged 4 ) was diagnosed with leukamia, mum had to give up a great academic post (Govt. don't pay sick...all contract work now) and your response to a similar situation is totally out of order and reflects a lack of life experience.
Actually I would say differently.
Anyone who doesnt have the life skills to deal with this sort of situation is the one who lacks 'life experience'.
Life is NOT a ride or a game. No-one should expect help, they need to stand of their own two feet and fight. Then others should be happy to help them.
There is a huge difference between expecting and receiving, something that is sadly lost of most people. As my father always says 'I want never gets'.
Are you seriously saying we should live in a 'want want want' society? People need to be resposible for their own actions and situation.0 -
See When not to repay in the Should I pay off my mortgage guide, where the suggestion is 3-6 months emergency fund.
Three months is a lot closer to running out of money than I want to be.
I fully agree it is good to have an emergency fund and f you can have nett savings interest which is higher than the mortgage interest then another reason to save not pay down the debt.
I have a full 3 month emergency fund. This is at my average monthly spend rate. I've already said that this could easily be stretched to 4-5 months by the tightening of the money belt.
I also said that I have tenants, meaning that as they have to give one months notice, in effect this means 4 months mortgage payement cover stretched to 5-6 months with belt tightening.
Take into consideration that on one of my properties, the rent covers both properties mortgages. The other property would cover 73% of both.
Therefore, the 3 month full cover is for losing rent from both properties and is not required if only the lower rent property is tenant free and the cover only is required if the higher rent property or both ecome tenant less.
On top of this, I have almost 2 years overpayments in both BTL mortgages
I think I am well covered and dont need to extend the coverage. Much better in this circumstance to reduce the mortgage debt
:money::wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
There is a huge difference between expecting and receiving, something that is sadly lost of most people. As my father always says 'I want never gets'.
Are you seriously saying we should live in a 'want want want' society? People need to be resposible for their own actions and situation.
So Are you seriously saying when your poor relative got ill you turned away all help and funded the treatment yourself?
Sometimes people need help you more than most should recognise that, I do not know what has started your bitterness with home owners perhaps you could tell us?0 -
Poor abaxas. He's really taken a beating, hasn't he?
TBH, given that this is BTL case, not an owner occupier, the only people likely to be turfed out are the (totally innocent) tenants.
The owner - the landlord - is not losing the roof over his head. So I can see no reason whatsoever why he should be given 'extra time to pay', or whatever - it's a business, like any other, and the same rules should apply to benefit his creditors if he fails to repay his debts on time.
TBH, even if it was a homeowner, I personally can't see any reason why they should be able to live indefinitely in their own home if times are hard and they don't pay their mortgage - as realy says, if renters don't pay, however hard the times are, whatever illnesses they may have or whatever the circumstances may be, they just get turfed out after 2 months.
It may not be fair or at all pleasant, but it's how our society works - we don't live in a communist utopia (yet) and so we are required to pay for our housing.
Obviously, housing benefit will pay towards a renter who loses his job, but not the full amount in many cases - and is equally available to a homeowner who loses his/her home and needs to turn to the rental market. They may not get to stay in the same home - but then, given that renters who DO pay their rent on time can be turfed out with only a month or two's notice, on the whim of a landlord, I don't see why homeowners should get extra protection, when they pay nothing at all!
I personally have no sympathy for the BTL 'investors' in this case.
My sympathy is reseved for their tenants, if any - they are the ones who will be made homeless by this decision.0 -
TBH, even if it was a homeowner, I personally can't see any reason why they should be able to live indefinitely in their own home if times are hard and they don't pay their mortgage - as realy says, if renters don't pay, however hard the times are, whatever illnesses they may have or whatever the circumstances may be, they just get turfed out after 2 months.
.
The thing is with this Carol it can cost the tax payer more to re-home a family than covering the IO mortgage.
Even if a family fall behind when renting and are threatened turffed out they still have to re-homed or would more than likely have their rent paid by DHSS(or what ever they call it now)
But I have no problem if it is a BTL or second property as that is adding risk to your personal cirumstances.0 -
So Are you seriously saying when your poor relative got ill you turned away all help and funded the treatment yourself?
Sometimes people need help you more than most should recognise that, I do not know what has started your bitterness with home owners perhaps you could tell us?
No bitterness towards homeowners. I just expect them to pay for it.
You shouldn't have assumed.0 -
-
Dithering_Dad wrote: »Lol, here comes hyena !!!!!! again.
Hello !!!!!!, seems strange to find you on a thread where someone is picking on those less fortunate than themdelves. Oh hold on, this is your idea of hogs heaven isn't it?
For those who don't know, !!!!!! (who likes to call black people 'Negros' and disabled people 'Retards') is the resident wallower in other people's misery. Mr. Shadenfraude as we like to call him. The man of a hundred Usernames. The virgin internet soldier.
!!!!!! is also part of the demographic who live with their parents, pay a peppercorn rent while they save up their stash and pour scorn on people who are living independantly and might be struggling at the moment. Perhaps everyone should lodge with !!!!!!'s mummy and daddy's too and then no one will have financial concerns. :rotfl:
I never thought I would be putting a poster on ignore, but after reading this venomous, deranged rantings, I now have my first on ignore.
I've reported this post to abuse too.RENTING? Have you checked to see that your landlord has permission from their mortgage lender to rent the property? If not, you could be thrown out with very little notice.
Read the sticky on the House Buying, Renting & Selling board.0 -
Is it not equal protection? Housing benefit. A home owner stands to lose more than a renter if they are two months behind but still recive the same benefits. I don't think the law favours either but you can refuse to leave a rented property (they have to get cort order etc) you cant do that on a repo so you could argue the law has a bit more slack in it for renters.Obviously, housing benefit will pay towards a renter who loses his job, but not the full amount in many cases - and is equally available to a homeowner who loses his/her home and needs to turn to the rental market. They may not get to stay in the same home - but then, given that renters who DO pay their rent on time can be turfed out with only a month or two's notice, on the whim of a landlord, I don't see why homeowners should get extra protection, when they pay nothing at all!
.
0 -
Yes, but I don't believe people should have a 'right' to live in a house they own.
Everyone, on the other hand, should have a right to a roof over their head of some description, preferably secure.
Like I said, a homeowner who loses their 'own' home is entitled to the same rights, housing benefit etc as any renter - I just don't see why they should get more.
Why, if you take someone, for example, on a low wage, who lied-to-buy an unnnecessarily large house he would never realistically be able to afford the payments on, should be indefinitely bailed out by the taxpayer to continue living there?
S/he should clearly be turfed out and given the housing benefit to rent somewhere more appropriate - if they cannot get a job and pay for it themselves, that is.
I just don't see why, as a taxpayer and renter, I should be expected to pay for those who unwisely bought somewhere they couldn't afford. I chose not to - why should I pay for someone else to live in luxury, when I decided it was imprudent for my own family to risk it.
There is extreme moral hazrd in this approach. You end with a situation where lie-to-buy becomes the norm, because it is the only way to get a secure home of your own, knowing you will not even be required to keep up mortgage payments.
In a world where renters are not secure, I see no reason why homeowners should get 'special' rights.
Particularly as in this case - as seems to have been largely overlooked on this thread in the rush to criticise abaxas - the homeowner concerned was not even an owner-occupier, but was just in it for a quick buck, as a BTL 'investor'.
He made the wrong call.
Tough. No-one made him 'invest' in property. :mad:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards