Why should we help the liars who are going to get reposessed?

PasturesNew

I bought a house when I was earning good money and had been for 3 years. I was approaching 40. I had the house a year and got caught up in the dot com bubble bursting, rates in the work I was doing dropped so low I couldn't afford to get to the work any more, so I tried to sit it out and make do.

I could not have bought an insurance policy as I had been on a temporary contract (like a lot of people, you take whatever work is on offer and many employers will only take on contractors/temps or want you to invoice them and be self-employed, so you do it).

I sat indoors, pretty much with the lights out, doing nothing but waiting and working when/where I could, for 6 years.

It annoys me therefore that some people have lied, lived the high life, laughed in the faces of those that hadn't lied and didn't have what they had ... and then they come out with a sob story (plasma screen in the back, photos from their foreign holidays on the walls) and bleat until they're helped.

I finally sell the house, head oop country to look for work - and damn me if there isn't a banks collapse, a recession and no work

hearts

CluelessJock wrote: »

Hearts,

Are you actually arguing that in a market with interest rates so low there was only one way they could go, that those who knowingly lied to increase their borrowings (often on discounted rates they knew would end even if rates didn't move) should not in any way be held responsible for their own predicament?

If so, do you consider those who did not borrow beyond what they felt comfortable with as foolish?

CJ

I am not arguing this. What I am saying is that it is naive to think the banks didn't know this was going to happen when they created Self Certs. It is naive to think that they didn't know people were inflating their salaries. They did very little to prevent or discourage this. They were EXTREMELY GUILTY OF IRRISPONSIBLE LENDING.
A person is responsible for the debts they incur. I don't excuse anyone for making desicions that were wrong. They will have these debts with them for life. That is the price they will pay.
What I am saying is. The banks are in no position to now start complaining of fraud when they were the instigators of the fraud in the first place.
It was their money (or their shareholders). They should have taken far more care of who they were giving it to.
A simple (but seemingly ignored) rule of business I would have thought, is to check out thouroughly those with whom you are dealing. How can you possibly lend vast amounts of money to someone, without definite proof that they can pay you back. The banks didn't care. The reason being they assumed wrongly that the property was good colateral.

Getting back to the OPs original question. I think we will find that there will be some of these people yes but the vast majority of defaulters will be honest folk who have just fallen on hard times.

CluelessJock

I see, how do you work out the vast majority of defaulters will be honest folk, what makes you think all those that the banks have been irresponsibly throwing money at won't default?

hearts

CluelessJock wrote: »

I see, how do you work out the vast majority of defaulters will be honest folk, what makes you think all those that the banks have been irresponsibly throwing money at won't default?

I'm not saying that either ;-) There will sadly be many people defaulting. (although I hope not).
Percentage wise I'm assuming that the bad loans were far far less than the good ones. If I remember right only 15% (or less) of all mortgages were Self Cert. So although there may be a greater percentage of the bad ones defaulting, numerically the vast majority will just be ordinary people who have lost their jobs, or borrowed 6 times their salary or borrowed 125% of their purchase price, or had one of the many other "legal" loans the banks devised to increase their bonuses.

The reality is nobody cared. The only thing that mattered was to increase the business. Turn a blind eye was the order of the day.
We now have a situation where the government step in to bale out the cause of the problem. Corporate greed. Sadly there seems no other alternative.

The whole point of my posts was not to excuse those who may have cheated but to try to keep people focused on the real "criminals" in this calamity.

CluelessJock

Hearts,

I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

Your use of the word criminals gives me the impression it's going to take more than simple explanations.

CJ

neverdespairgirl

milliemonster wrote: »

you are being very presumptious that because jointly we have almost £40k of unsecured debt that this is a major problem situation?

I would have thought that £40k of unsecured debt was pretty much by definition a major problem!

10past6

uzubairu wrote: »

It's easy to see how people were encouraged to spend/borrow beyond their means if they didn't have self control/discipline or education about money management.

I agree

The banks acted irresponsibly based on pure greed, greed, greed the onus was on the banks to check if such an applicant was lying or not.

I have the upmost sympathy for anyone facing repossession whether they lied or not, especially if children are involved.

People should stop being judgmental on someone else’s downfall

Oh, btw, yes, my signature may well say we're in financial difficulties which have been brought on through the current climate, however, one thing that’s not in question is my mortgage.

domcastro

Greed works both ways. Greedy banks, greedy borrowers. And as I've said before, if the bank tells you to jump off a cliff, would you?

koexelek

10past6 wrote: »

The banks acted irresponsibly based on pure greed, greed, greed the onus was on the banks to check if such an applicant was lying or not.

Some of them actively encouraged clients to inflate their income.

I used to have reps of certain banks visit me, saying "they can put down whatever income they want... we guarantee we won't check it :eek: "

I pride myself in saying I have never submitted a mortgage application to any lender if I genuinely felt the applicant could not pay it though.:A
Yes, I've done self certs and fastracks in my time, but I needed to know the clients could afford it.

CluelessJock

milliemonster wrote: »

you are being very presumptious that because jointly we have almost £40k of unsecured debt that this is a major problem situation?

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I would have thought that £40k of unsecured debt was pretty much by definition a major problem!

Undoubtedly there is opportunity for people in debt to offer help and advice to others, but care needs to be exercised when giving and receiving such advice.


I think there is a great danger in these forums; that people with 7 credit cards and 3 loans amounting to £47 000 worth of debt, who don’t consider it a major problem, are advising others on debt management. Let’s face it this kind of debt is not accumulated in one afternoon of retail therapy.

I think there is an issue with too many like minded people fuelling the notion that it’s not their fault. Many of these threads start off sensibly only to deteriorate to such an extent that the posters end up truly believing that they are victims of some terrible crime.

The challenge is that they become so cosy in their state of delusion that many shun those who can offer some good advice. With those in a similar position telling them not to worry, it’s not their fault they don’t see why they should make any sacrifice to rectify the situation.

10past6 wrote: »

I have the upmost sympathy for anyone facing repossession whether they lied or not, especially if children are involved.

Apparently it’s OK to lie AND then not be responsible (it’s the lack of responsibility that gets me)

hearts wrote: »

There is only one criminal here and thats the banks. We shouldn't let them fool us in to accepting the "big bad fraudsters" did it, as an excuse for their ineptitude.

Guess that’s why it’s ok to lie then.

So for the avoidance of doubt the banks are not criminals

and

If, for whatever reason, you believe you are more able to judge the affordability of a particular loan than the bank and lie to get it fine, just don’t deny responsibility if it goes wrong.