High Court blow for UK homeowners

Heyman_2

Crikey.

Have any of you seen or read The Merchant of Venice?

carolt

Yes. And the relevance is...?

Dithering_Dad

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

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.

Excellent, you can join !!!!!! as one of the people who make a great song and dance about putting people on ignore and then always being the first to comment on whatever they say. :rotfl:

I'll be amazed if 'abuse' do anything about my post. Everything in there is true. !!!!!! did try defend his view that it's aceptable to call black people 'negros', he did try and defend his view that it's acceptable to call disabled people 'retards' and he does revel in the misfortunes of others on a regular basis.

Perhaps you could enlighten us on which part of my post was abusive? Or are you one of the many people on MSE who come on onto an internet forum and are appalled when people have the temerity to hold a viewpoint contrary to yours?

I see !!!!!! and his 'mates' are now rushing to abaxas's aid. They hate the fact that this part of the forum is now attracting caring people who take offense to views that people should be turfed out into the streets, even if their financial problems are caused by illnesses such as leukemia. It beggars belief and you lot should be ashamed of yourselves, especially you MissMoneyPenny. You're a disgrace and I will be putting you on 'ignore'. You are history's greatest monster!!! :mad:

Heyman_2

Should have quoted an earlier post - wasn't referring to yours Carol.

I was going to make a point but I've decided I actually can't be a'rsed

carolt

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

I see !!!!!! and his 'mates' are now rushing to abaxas's aid. They hate the fact that this part of the forum is now attracting caring people who take offense to views that people should be turfed out into the streets, even if their financial problems are caused by illnesses such as leukemia. It beggars belief and you lot should be ashamed of yourselves, especially you MissMoneyPenny. You're a disgrace and I will be putting you on 'ignore'. You are history's greatest monster!!! :mad:

What, worse than Hitler, say? Or Stalin, or.. I could go on?

Possibly a tad OTT?

Or does saying that make me a monster too?

Really2

carolt wrote: »

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:

Carol although I agree with most you have said "Self Cert" is a very, very, very, very small amount of mortgage reposessions.

But the main felling from the OP is if you buy a house and lose your job you are iresponsable!
But If you rent a house and lose your job surely you are just as iresponsible.

neverdespairgirl

Really2 wrote: »

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.

Actually, it's usually the other way round. OOs get a lot more slack. Typically, it takes several hearings and broken repayment plans before eviction in the case of a mortgage.

neverdespairgirl

Heyman wrote: »

Crikey.

Have any of you seen or read The Merchant of Venice?

[SIZE=+1]The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes. [/SIZE]

carolt

Really2 wrote: »

Carol although I agree with most you have said "Self Cert" is a very, very, very, very small amount of mortgage reposessions.

But the main felling from the OP is if you buy a house and lose your job you are iresponsable!
But If you rent a house and lose your job surely you are just as iresponsible.

That is the reverse of what I said.

Neither may be irresponsible - both may be unlucky - but both should be treated equally insofar as both are being funded by the taxpayer.

As a taxpayer, and a renter, I resent strongly the idea that homeowners should get an extra leg-up than I would in their situation, just because they're owners.

And you forget - whilst self-cert may well be a small percentage of total mortgages, they're probably - I suspect - disproportionately involved in repossession - for bleeding obvious reasons.

So it's likely to be particularly the dishonest rather than the honest homeowner that the taxpayers will be asked to bankroll.

Dithering_Dad

carolt wrote: »

What, worse than Hitler, say? Or Stalin, or.. I could go on?

Possibly a tad OTT?

Or does saying that make me a monster too?

lol, nice one carol. Nail on the head.

Deliberately OTT to make a point. I roll about laughing when I see the words 'That's the most abusive blah blah' and 'You're the first person I have ever put on Ignore because you're a monster. You monster!'.

:rotfl: <-look, this is me rolling about laughing at MissMoneypenny.

As far as you're concerned carol, I think you're turning into a teddy bear. I can't remember the last time you posted a remark that made me splurt my coffee over the keyboard. C-, do try harder.