RBS to allow six months of defaults before repossessing.

neverdespairgirl

Annpan wrote: »

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

oooooh

that's me being scared, that is.

silvercar

It is probably realism by RBS that the last thing they need is to be responsible for repossessed houses over the winter with little chance of selling them on. May as well allow people a chance to get back on their feet and avoid repo. The ones they do repo after 6 months they may have a better chance of selling if the market picks up.

Also probably linked to the governments decision to give help with mortgage interest payments after just 3 months out of work from January.

WTF?_2

silvercar wrote: »

It is probably realism by RBS that the last thing they need is to be responsible for repossessed houses over the winter with little chance of selling them on. May as well allow people a chance to get back on their feet and avoid repo. The ones they do repo after 6 months they may have a better chance of selling if the market picks up.

Also probably linked to the governments decision to give help with mortgage interest payments after just 3 months out of work from January.

Might also have something to do with the fact that they are now 58% owned by the British state and this gives a nice political boost to our Great Leader.

pickles110564

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.

Rubbish all he cares about is the British Citizen.:rolleyes:

pickles110564

!!!!!!? wrote: »

in the pickle too.

No one gets into me without paying a hefty fee!

WTF?_2

pickles110564 wrote: »

No one gets into me without paying a hefty fee!

Pickle surprise!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NgWn7zbgxZ4

My eyes, they bleed :eek:

scousethife

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Isn't this a bit like a childs argument of 'They started it' ?

But they are the funniest arguments though

_bankrupted

In the States where whole streets/districts have been repossessed, the properties have been left empty, attracting crime, vandalism etc and causing other properties in the street that have not been repossed to become almost worthless.

That's an extreme case, but the idea of a bank repossessing a property for it then to stand empty is simply ludicrous.

I think a far better system would be one whereby once the court has been granted legal possession back to the bank, the bank then allows the owner to stay until it is sold. Of course the owner is free to continue to make payments on the loan (at whatever rate he can afford). The bank also allows the situation to be reversed if the owners fortunes change whist the property still remain unsold, logically that would be up to the point the bank accepts a offer on the property.

In this situation I believe most reasonable people would still make payments to an affordable level and do whatever they could in the hope that the situation will improve before the bank sells the property.

The other aspect is that once homeless the taxpayer then funds emergency accommodation.

So repossession is really the worst outcome for everyone. The owners losing their property, the taxpayer having to fund "other" accomodation and the banks receiving less for the property, in terms of sale price and debt repayment.

We just need a system that allows the above.

The current property I own was repossessed and it sat empty in the early 90's for over 2 years, until I bought it.

That can not be logical or the best solution for society.

aqueoushumour01

oh great - so those who are living in a house they can't afford get to stay there while I can't get on the housing ladder due to others taking on too much debt and fuelling the housing bubble that made house prices out of my reach. that seems fair

kennyboy66_2

aqueoushumour01 wrote: »

oh great - so those who are living in a house they can't afford get to stay there while I can't get on the housing ladder due to others taking on too much debt and fuelling the housing bubble that made house prices out of my reach. that seems fair

I think the clue was in this part "I think a far better system would be one whereby once the court has been granted legal possession back to the bank, the bank then allows the owner to stay until it is sold."

So they lose the house but get a roof over their head as a stop gap measure. It might have some practical difficulties but not the worst idea I have heard, bearing in mind they have to be housed somewhere.

Some people can't get past the red mist of revenge.
What next, put their children in the work house ?
Be forced to sell a kidney ?