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

tinker77

I agree if someone lies to obtain money or services they should not be rewarded for their dishonesty I have not bought a house because I knew I could not afford to pay the huge inflated prices why should I pay for someone being greedy sorry but that's how I feel.

CluelessJock

tinker77 wrote: »

I agree if someone lies to obtain money or services they should not be rewarded for their dishonesty I have not bought a house because I knew I could not afford to pay the huge inflated prices why should I pay for someone being greedy sorry but that's how I feel.

Here is a symptom of how bad it is getting; we have someone who was able to assess the affordability of a loan and called it right apologising for being sensible. What's it coming to?

tinker, you have nothing to apologise for, it's not you who should be feeling apologetic!

MortgageMamma

why don't we waste a sh-t load more money and time finding out the small proportion of mortgage holders that lied then, so we can have the administrative burden and additional costs of devising a system so that they are not helped by the taxpayer. Not read the entire thread and no intention of doing. I stopped coming on this site because of peoples small mindedness and obviously nothing has changed.

Peelerfart

"Not read the entire thread and no intention of doing. I stopped coming on this site because of peoples small mindedness and obviously nothing has changed."

I agree MortgageMamma , perhaps you should stay away from this site.

Personally I find this thread to be quite interesting, illustrating perfectly,two well argued points of view.

CluelessJock

Peelerfart wrote: »

"Not read the entire thread and no intention of doing. I stopped coming on this site because of peoples small mindedness and obviously nothing has changed."

I agree MortgageMamma , perhaps you should stay away from this site.

Personally I find this thread to be quite interesting, illustrating perfectly,two well argued points of view.

Well put peelerfart!

Please expand on how you feel there are two well argued views. Do you not find that one side is the result of selective argument from both the points made on the forum and the reality of life itself?

Desperate_Housewife_2-2

I have just read this thread with interest and felt I had to comment.

I have been trying to pay off my mortgage for the past few years in order to give me and my family choices about choosing work, reducing hours etc and as past times have been good and there has been lots of ready cash for people to borrow and spend, quite a few people at work thought I was a bit of an oddbod for doing so. Meanwhile they racked up debts, bought BTL properties and went on expensive holidays etc, now the credit crunch has bitten some of them are finding it quite tough and facing repossessions and unable to pay back debts. Some others are still spending at their previous rate and quite oblivious to the economic realities of the present day, for example, one work colleague is one step away from being put out on the street with her 2 kids as she can't pay the mortgage and the bailiffs are poised to act as soon as she defaults, this doesn't stop her from going out every weekend for weekends away, booking holidays, smoking, drinking, living on takeaways, spend, spend, spending... I have tried to help her but it seems impossible but she blames everyone, the government, her ex hubby...

There are others at work who work extra hours, work hard, don't go into debt and live a frugal lifestyle too and they are coping at this time and managing to stay afloat.

My feelings are that each individual should be responsible for their own financial life, if only people realised that there isn't a white knight on a shining charger who will rescue damsels in financial distress. That's real life.

I remember in the '80s when me and OH lived in one room for 18 months to save money (we didn't earn a great deal in those days) everyone kept on at us to buy a house which we couldn't afford anyway as it was the property boom and prices down south were really beyond our price range, we got through it and scaped enough together to buy a house but the people who had already bought were stuck in negative equity for years and couldn't move. That experience stuck with me and I never lost that feeling, I would rather eat bread and water and not have any debt than eat sirloin steak every day and it to stick in my throat because I owe money out. If I sound harsh then I am sorry as I know there are genuine people out there who are finding it hard at present and I feel for them, I am no angel, I did get into some debt when I was in my twenties and I remember the feeling of not being able to breathe, its awful. That's probably why I am debt averse now.


Another thing I don't understand, why is Gordon Brown borrowing money so banks can carry on borrowing? Surely we should be looking at ways to regenrate manufacturing industry in this country and getting into a position where we can actually sell things overseas. Its a shame he didn't help out the Rover car industry if he was going to bail anyone out for this very reason. I can't help thinking that we as a nation are on a slippery slope down for the next few years, buckle up, its going to be abumpy ride!!!

Peelerfart

"Please expand on how you feel there are two well argued views. Do you not find that one side is the result of selective argument from both the points made on the forum and the reality of life itself? "

If I was to be drawn onto one side or another I would have to agree with the OP.

Having said that the case for helping genuine needy cases is strong,and it is difficult/impossible to seperate the needy from the greedy.
The banks are not blameless but my wife and I, and countless others, did without cars and holidays to pay our mortgages and didn't draw equity.

I do have a little bit of insight, as my own brother made some bad mortgage decisions and blamed the banks for lending him the money. I could never understand the argument as no-one forced him.
He is still suffering and is a little bitter about it still ,15 years on.

You make your own bed, just make sure you can afford it.

seven-day-weekend

Why do people let their houses get repossessed anyway? If they know they can't afford it any more, why not sell it on the open market before it's repossessed? That way they may get more money for it.

We did this when we could no longer easily afford the mortgage on an investment flat (after we had to both go part-time at work) -as soon as we realised it was going to be a struggle to pay the mortgage we told the bank, they gave us a six-month payment holiday. We put the flat up for sale at a realistic price for a quick sale - it sold the same day and the sale was completed within three months. This was in 2005.

(Edited to add - I suppose if you are in a negative/no equity situation what I have said above isn't that easy).

CluelessJock

Peelerfart wrote: »

Having said that the case for helping genuine needy cases is strong,and it is difficult/impossible to seperate the needy from the greedy. The banks are not blameless but I, and countless others, did without cars and holidays to pay our mortgages.

Very well put.

domcastro

I've never lived in a house that I would say is "nice" - they've been adequate and I've liked them but they're certainly not my dream home. I've never spent more than 1500 on a car, I don't go on holidays (though this is more because of the dogs). I've already started saving for the London Olympics (I want to go to lots of events, and would need train fares, lunches etc and I have a better wage than my sister who has a family so my savings are for her too so she can come with me)

I seem to be slowly working up the property ladder (and hopefully will make a couple of rung increase if the house prices continue to go down!). One of the posters above said it's bad if there's children involved - well, this just shows how even more irresponsible these people have been. People shouldn't have children if they can't afford them, and people shouldn't borrow vast amounts of money that they can't afford and then use their children as an excuse. If they cared about their children and not what the Jones' think, they wouldn't have done it in the first place. So, I don't understand why people will be allowed to continue to live in these super houses that they never could afford. I'll be paying more taxes for them to live somewhere much better than me.