RBS to allow six months of defaults before repossessing.

lostinrates

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

Looking behind the headlines (and the left & right wing rhetoric on this thread), I suspect the reality will be that the RBS will offer help to more prudent home owners who simply find themselves out of work in a recession and will help out until they find a job and get on their feet financially.

It's actually much better business sense to help people who have been good customers until they were hit by a recession (not of their causing) than to take their houses off them at the first default and sell it for a pittance, turning a drama into a crisis.

No doubt that once these people are back on their feet any defaults will simply be added to their mortgage, where they will pay for it themselves, probably many times over.

Ahh, as I had first hoped then, the kind of people who [STRIKE]would[/STRIKE] should have qualified for a mortgage...?

I genuinely hope this will be exactly how it works, and that people who really will justly benefit do so

Dithering_Dad

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Are RBS qualified to tell the difference between say;

- that couple who MEW'd to buy a business that turned out to be a poor investment.
- JCB/builders - hit by house-building collapse, directly caused by the credit crunch.
- Woolworths employees - it has been argued that it was just a case of when, not if...

?

Which of the 3 are most deserving? Some of each type depending on being good payers? All of one type, none of another...?

= a minefield, I would suggest. Though a complicated bureaucracy, failing to be implemented accurately sounds right up the Govts street.


As for RBS "having less cash to lend" - that's a good thing for house prices, as less lending = greater affordability, I thought?

I would imagine that their selection criteria doesn't discriminate between which customer is 'deserving' and which is not. It would be easy for the bank to see if a person has been in constant mortgage arrears or to be able to discover why they have financial problems. I would suggest that a mortgage lender would be more agreeable with someone who has a good mortgage payment history and who is in financial difficulty due to losing their jobs rather than due to lack of cash because of poor investments.

In the cases you mentioned above...

1) couple that MEWed their house - not sure if the problem is with their house or the rental property. If it's the rental property, 6 months breathing space in this case will allow the couple to find a new tenant or to sell the property. If the problem is their home because the chief wage earner lost his/her job then 6 months will allow them time to find another job.

2) Builders - it will give them time to find another job.

3) Woollies - it will give them time to find another job.

kennyboy66_2

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Are RBS qualified to tell the difference between say;

- that couple who MEW'd to buy a business that turned out to be a poor investment.
- JCB/builders - hit by house-building collapse, directly caused by the credit crunch.
- Woolworths employees - it has been argued that it was just a case of when, not if...

?

Which of the 3 are most deserving? Some of each type depending on being good payers? All of one type, none of another...?

= a minefield, I would suggest. Though a complicated bureaucracy, failing to be implemented accurately sounds right up the Govts street.


As for RBS "having less cash to lend" - that's a good thing for house prices, as less lending = greater affordability, I thought?

They will surely just look at things like;

1) any past history of missing mortgage payments.
2) estimated equity in house
3) other assets
4) other secured / un secured loans.
5) income
6) the fact that a householder may be paying something rather than nothing.
7) Ability of individual to get similarly paid employment if currently unemployed.

WTF?_2

kennyboy66 wrote: »

a thinly disguised "I want a cheaper house & don't care who suffers for it" thread.

You haven't even bothered to disguise the fact that you aren't the least bit interested in discussing the news and would just prefer to make a personal snipe.


Still: If you want to actually debate/discuss something, my position is that this is another bloody stupid move from our increasingly desperate government. Now that the government own over half of UK mortgages they are desperately trying to prop up a falling market with our money. This is stupid and futile, you can't bail out everyone in sight. Grabbing yet more from the taxpayers is taking their productivity and spending power away and throwing it down a great big hole of debt on an overpriced asset.

This move will not fix anything, it will just prolong the recession slowing the pace down and severely impeding how quickly we can get out of it afterward (because people will be loaded down with an increased tax burden).


So what's it going to be Kennyboy66? Are you going to take up any of my points or are you just going to throw out another barbed little epithet?

WTF?_2

ad9898 wrote: »

I disagree, Brown is doing everything he can within the law to save the indebted part of the nation, the part of the nation that if he can keep going he might be able to scrape another term, if he's lucky.

There are plenty of people out there who have been prudent, have saved, have not over stretched themselves, that are on fixed incomes, who have just seen their income slashed by 33% with the rate cuts, does he think that these people are more likely to vote Tory and so doesn't particularly care for them ??, it's starting to look that way.

I think 40% of the housing stock in the country is mortgaged, only a small percentage of these people are in trouble at the moment, yet Brown is hellbent on using any measures possible to save them, yet really he doesn't give a toss, he's only out to save himself.

There is now so much debt out that that there seems little possibility that those who irresponsibly took it on can actually pay it back. Leaving those who irresponsibly loaned it in the pickle too.

Therefore, Brown and Co. who through their stupid policies were complicit in the creation our debt culture have decided we ALL can shoulder the burden. i.e. The non-debtors and savers are going to have to bail the debtors out.

Currently the line is that it will be taken from our future selves through taxes - ultimately they'll start printing money and steal the wealth directly from savers as well, through inflation.

setmefree2

!!!!!!? I don't believe you did put this up for a discussion. You started this thread to give us another lecture on your point of view. When we do try to discuss anything with you, you just keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

We get it - you just want the government to do nothing. You don't want them to help mortgage holders or anyone else for that matter. It's all the governments fault. It's not a global problem. We are all going to hell. We should just take our medicine like good children.

You don't want anybody to do anything, so what is there to discuss?

neverdespairgirl

kennyboy66 wrote: »

you, and whose army ?

Are yer talkin' ter me or chewin' a brick?

Annpan

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Are yer talkin' ter me or chewin' a brick?

You'll be laughing on the other side of your face in a minute.

ad9898_3

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Are yer talkin' ter me or chewin' a brick?

As either way you will lose your teeth.

ad9898_3

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Currently the line is that it will be taken from our future selves through taxes - ultimately they'll start printing money and steal the wealth directly from savers as well, through inflation.

If he presses the 'print' button, I will just put everything I have into NS&I, unless of course in his next 2000 page budget report, paragraph 8, section 2, subsection, 1.2.2.3 he puts a sub-clause stating a limit of £100 per person, which knowing how Brown works he will probably do.