RBS to allow six months of defaults before repossessing.

Cannon_Fodder

I don't believe it should be construed as revenge, when people ask for the same level playing field that existed during the time that the market was allowed to run its course, in the creation of the bubble.

If its so morally wrong to turf people out of their house, now, then that was also the case throughout the last 10 years, not just in the last 12 months since the Govt have been scrabbling around for ways to redeem their mis-management of the previous decade.

There will be individuals who lost their jobs and suffered repossession prior to the credit crunch - where was the help for them, then?

It didn't exist because there was no PR/votes in it.


If there had never been mortgages over 100%, then tens of thousands of indebted people would not now be at risk of negative equity, and in many cases would not have been able to outbid more conservative wannabe-buyers.

Those wannabe-buyers would instead have been successful with their offers, and not have been stuck down-the-ladder/renting/living-with-parents etc. Now for the first time in recent memory, they have an opportunity, if the market is allowed to operate as it previously did, to be the ones who take a step onto the housing ladder.


For the future, despite the obvious "excuberance" of the lenders and borrowers, even now the Govt are not saying they will step in, to enforce LTVs, salary multiples, affordability. The only thing they seem to wish to encourage is the return to 'normal' lending by the banks, as though keeping prices high is good for everyone, when that simply is not the case.

No-one wants to see repossessions. But in an age where personal responsibility has been thrown out of the window in so many walks of life, maybe this process is a necessary learning curve for the population as a whole.

purch

Some people can't get past the red mist of revenge.

The answer must be, whatever is best for the Economy as a Whole.

This should not be a time for dogma, and the promotion of personal agendas

maybe this process is a necessary learning curve for the population as a whole.

Maybe it is, maybe not. But what we cannot afford is for that lesson to be taught at the expense of the nations economic future.

Cannon_Fodder

According to some, like Mitchaa, its not that big a number being made unemployed, so it must be a pretty small amount of money after the billions that have already been spent in our name, to pay for temporary accomodation for the repossessed...?

Not enough for it to be a factor in the country's economic future, for sure.

lostinrates

kennyboy66 wrote: »

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 ?

I agree with the moral arguement but the practical problems are HUGE!

First thing that occurs to me is viewings:

viewer to 'owner': lovely house, I think I'll make an offer
'owner' to viewer (panicing about where they'll live, while they have this home they love rent free): well, it didn't tell you on the details about the lack of underpinning and the violent neighbours, but yeah, we like it.


Second thing is liabilty:

Scenario: 'owner' realises his debts are mounting and is terrified and scared, turns on tv to hear 'have you been hurt in an accident that was not your fault' leaves front door and tiles fall from roof to head. Owner has no impetous to maintain, bank has no financial impetous to either, who is liable for accident and injury?

Cannon_Fodder

I think you need to clean your keyboard, especially the E...!