BBC 1 'Repossesed - Upsetting To Say The Least!

missk_ensington · 7 January 2009 at 2:35AM

'bricks and water' haha, I laughed my head off when she said that, given the fact her husband was a builder I bet he was cringing like mad!

As I have said on another thread, it is not a banks responsibility to shelter us from temptation! Just because you CAN get money you cant afford to repay, doesnt mean you should accept it! I have about £17,000 of available credit on credit cards but wouldnt dream of utilising it when Im currently only bringing in about £800-900 a month whilst starting my new business. My mortgage is £350 with insurance and my business loan repayments £250 a month, but I can get by...just!

One things for sure, so long as I always have at least £350 a month coming in my mortgage will get paid...they can cut off the gas/elec, Ill leave my car unused, live off beans on toast/forage/scavenge for food...but I wont let them repossess my house! Ever!

PolishBigSpender · 7 January 2009 at 3:04AM

BYALPHAINDIA wrote: »

WE HAVE TO LIVE IN A HOUSE.

You can quite easily live in a smaller house. Many of these problems, particularly in the UK and USA have been caused by idiots who feel that they MUST live in a bigger house, that their children absolutely must have seperate bedrooms and then a playroom and that they absolutely must have a living room, a dining room and an entertaining room.

Quite simply, anyone who took out a 75%+ mortgage when house prices were ridiculously high now deserves all they can get.

It's not pretty having your house reposessed - but if you had lived within your means and didn't try to overdo it, then you probably wouldn't have a problem. Gordon Brown used to preach about prudence, didn't he?

For instance, me and my boyfriend could probably afford to live in a rather big house. It would cost us 70% of our monthly income - but we could probably afford to do it. Public transport costs are cheap, and with some extra work, we could do it easily.

But we won't. It's not worth it - because we won't be able to save for a rainy day, as they say on this site. It's much better to live in a flat and know that we should never struggle - even in a much poorer country than the UK.

zack1978 · 7 January 2009 at 3:16AM

Saw the documentry earlier

One of the couple had got their house for £40,000, but ended up owing £150,000 . they just kept re-morgaging, as they wanted to repair the house.

Why re-morgage, just take your time, only do the jobs that you have money coming in for, put some money by from your wage and then do the repairs, dont get a loan or re-morgage.

Inactive · 7 January 2009 at 3:17AM

Sadly, all 3 couples featured in this programme, only had themselves to blame for their situation.

They were all living above their means, brought on by their own actions.

Nobody has the right to live in a house, if they cannot pay for it.

PolishBigSpender · 7 January 2009 at 3:35AM

zack1978 wrote: »

One of the couple had got their house for £40,000, but ended up owing £150,000 . they just kept re-morgaging, as they wanted to repair the house.

How on earth can anyone be so stupid? Or was it simply jealousy of one's neighbours that caused it?

We're starting to see the same thing here, unfortunately.

harryhound · 7 January 2009 at 3:39AM

Over in what used to be called the "nutters" section, now known as "doom & gloom", this topic has been reviewed with the attention to detail that would be expected:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1396271

mb444 · 7 January 2009 at 9:58AM

What I don’t get is that one of the couple was supposedly paying 11% on their mortgage. What kind of mortgage attracts 11%.

Whatever their circumstances it is clear that the most venerable are being exploited by the lenders. Off course at the end of the day the lenders did not force these people to take the loan, however I still felt very sorry for them

As the lenders are now introducing collars with the falling BOE base rates maybe there should also be a maximum ceiling on how much lenders can charge if they operate in the mortgage market. It is quite clear that lenders are incapable of regulating themselves/managing their business and it is quite perverse that we the public collectively are now having to bail them out. In this case the borrowers can not in my opinion be blamed, the ultimate responsibility lies with the lenders to make prudent business decisions. They chose to lend to people who were high risk. I for one would rather my tax money went to help these people rather than the institutions that gambled and lost.

bacardi. · 7 January 2009 at 10:05AM

zack1978 wrote: »

Saw the documentry earlier

One of the couple had got their house for £40,000, but ended up owing £150,000 . they just kept re-morgaging, as they wanted to repair the house.

They aslo said that they had seen only £17,000 of it and the rest was charges. If they had spent all that money on the house why was the wallpaper hanging off. He had two vans and a motorbike, why not try selling the bike and the motorhome thing to cut costs

agent_orange_2 · 7 January 2009 at 10:20AM

Did I hear correctly? A last minute offer of £165000 was placed on one of the subjects property and the bank refused to let them accept the offer.
How much was their mortgage !!!!!!?

PinkPig · 7 January 2009 at 10:25AM

The bailiffs are normal people doing their job. If you can't afford to pay for your house then you can't keep it - that's the way our society works. House ownership isn't a right, and people should (and generally do) understand that if you buy a house with a mortgage then keeping up payments on that mortgage is a condition of owning that house. I completely understand that it's very upsetting to have your house repossessed - after all, home security is a big reason that people buy in the first place - but the OP's comments about bailiffs are completely unreasonable.