High Court blow for UK homeowners

SingleSue

abaxas wrote: »

God, this boils my blood.

Why should we feel sorry for people who don't pay their debts! The answer is, we shouldn't.

What kind of society find default acceptable? Sadly one that is dying :<

Take it from them if they dont pay. Simple as

So say you lost your job tomorrow and it took you 6 weeks or so to find another one (or maybe even longer!), or a partner suffered a serious illness/accident and could not work, you would still subscribe to that view then?

Sh*t happens and sometimes you need a little helping hand when it does, as in a little time to sort out the finances after a catastrophic occurance in your life.

Not every debtor (and every person who holds a mortgage is a debtor) goes through life with the view of not paying their way, sometimes things happen which make it difficult for a short while.

Tightmartin

kennyboy66 wrote: »

I think this shows how (rightly in my opinion) courts will discern between BTL and owner occupiers.
There is plenty of case law that gives owner occupiers time to make alternative arrangments (eg paying arrears over the life of the mortgage etc).

However there is no way of people keeping their home and dodging their debts or getting bailed out by the taxpayer.

Can't get too excited about BTL investors getting treated like this. The whole BTL philosophy is driven by greed - a money for nothing dream. Unfortunately life is not like that, and people should have forseen the property crash.

abaxas

SingleSue wrote: »

So say you lost your job tomorrow and it took you 6 weeks or so to find another one (or maybe even longer!), or a partner suffered a serious illness/accident and could not work, you would still subscribe to that view then?

Sh*t happens and sometimes you need a little helping hand when it does, as in a little time to sort out the finances after a catastrophic occurance in your life.

Not every debtor (and every person who holds a mortgage is a debtor) goes through life with the view of not paying their way, sometimes things happen which make it difficult for a short while.

Been there, done that.

It's called living within your means.

BlondeHeadOn

kennyboy66 wrote: »

It was for a buy to let property & hence a business mortgage.

It is extremly unlikely that a court would apply this ruling to a normal owner occupier home.

But what about the poor tennants of a BTL property? Does this mean that they are more likely to be turfed out with little notice?



Can't see that the fact that the ruling relates only to buy to to let means that it doesn't have some worrying implications.....

mystic_trev

kennyboy66 wrote: »

It was for a buy to let property & hence a business mortgage.

It is extremly unlikely that a court would apply this ruling to a normal owner occupier home.

True but............

However, the ruling does give GMAC, along with all other mortgage lenders, the right to do so with a residential loan if they so wished.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/3415307/Lenders-can-sell-borrowers-homes-after-two-missed-payments-High-Court-rules.html

Voyager2002

abaxas wrote: »

God, this boils my blood.

Why should we feel sorry for people who don't pay their debts! The answer is, we shouldn't.

What kind of society find default acceptable? Sadly one that is dying :<

Take it from them if they dont pay. Simple as

This kind of decision should be made by a court.

As we know, banks sometimes make mistakes. It is entirely possible that a computer glitch could mean that one or two payments get lost in the system. In this kind of situation, the requirement that the lender produces evidence of missed payments in court could prevent needless repossessions.

IveSeenTheLight

kennyboy66 wrote: »

I think this shows how (rightly in my opinion) courts will discern between BTL and owner occupiers.
There is plenty of case law that gives owner occupiers time to make alternative arrangments (eg paying arrears over the life of the mortgage etc).

However there is no way of people keeping their home and dodging their debts or getting bailed out by the taxpayer.

I think each case should be judged on its own merits.
I have 2 BTL's and have 3 months emergency cash put away, however if things turned really horribly wrong for me I would hope that the lenders would take into consideration other factors into consideration such as the overpayments I have made and that I have LTV's of 53% and 38%.

Obviously if I did come into difficulties, I would immediately start discussions with my lender while utilising my 3 month emergency funds. I would hope that after the three months funds, I would have in place an alternative agreement.

There is no black and white.
It is not OO or BTL to judge the precedent.
Each case is judged on it's own unique specifications

StevieJ

mystic_trev wrote: »

True but............



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/3415307/Lenders-can-sell-borrowers-homes-after-two-missed-payments-High-Court-rules.html

It is not beyond the government to bring in a new law if they so wished, some of the people on this forum :eek:

abaxas

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

There is no black and white.
It is not OO or BTL to judge the precedent.
Each case is judged on it's own unique specifications

Incorrect.

Each case should be judged on the original contract and current laws.

Black and white is the ONLY way to deal with it. You cannot give advantage to those who have been disadvantaged.

Really2

Is it Ok for renters not to pay then?

When some renters do not pay does that mean all renters don't pay and that they are "rent dodging CHAVS"?

Some renters manipulate the law to live rent free!

Is there a moral outcry against these people on here and do mortgage holders brand them as CHAVS? No

Of course all mortages holders default to try and pull a fast one!:rolleyes:
If they could they would steal houses also.:rolleyes: