At least 2 out of 3 people declared bankrupt are not home owners.

lemonjelly

I'd say a lot more than 2 in 3 bankrupts are not homeowners. In my job, if a homeowner with large debts comes to me I'd do EVERYTHING possible to find an alternative to bankruptcy, because of the impact/consequences & lack of potential control.

lostinrates wrote: »

Isn't it possible for one person in household to be declared bankrupt but the house to be in another household members name? One of the plces I looked at (and gave details of to another MSE user) it turned out was a three person household (reduced from four people): retired parents, and son. It seems the mother and the departed partner were not bankrupts, then the mother became so and the partner left....

...not that I dig when considering making an offer, or anything.

I could quite happily co-habit with a n other jelly, & provided the asset(house) was not in a n other jelly's name, they could quite happily go bankrupt without affecting the house.

If they have a capital interest in the property, it's a different kettle of fish...

(What exactly is a kettle of fish?)

Back to the point, most bankrupts are renters.

OO's who are going bankrupt, if lucky, will get their home on the market & sell it on their own terms before the bad stuff hits the oscilating air mover.

lemonjelly

Really2 wrote: »

Just looking at the credit action stats.

One person is declared bankrupt every 3.97 minutes

A house is repossessed every 11.5 minuets.

Very sobering figures IMO. Any whingers please take stock...

Really2

I think the main point of this is looking at the stats. It was never just home owners.

Yes they may have the majority of the debt but also have the most to lose.

PN summed it up well. No assets, nothing to lose.
We were often fed on here it was the home owners and that more houses would come on to the market the more people went bust.

But it looks like a lot of those going bust are not carrying any meaningful assets and are insolvent and going to the wall.

There as been a generation of spenders bred you may not believe it on here as most of the younger people on here are sensible, but the figures clearly show a lot are not. (biggest growth in bankruptcy in this recession compared to others is the under 25's, not a dig at them it is true.)

Thrugelmir

Really2 wrote: »

I think the main point of this is looking at the stats. It was never just home owners.

Yes they may have the majority of the debt but also have the most to lose.

PN summed it up well. No assets, nothing to lose. We were often fed on here it was the home owners and that more houses would come on to the market the more people went bust.

But it looks like a lot of those going bust are not carrying any meaningful assets and are insolvent and going to the wall.

According to NR's latest figures they are losing around £26k on every repossession. A sobering statistic. Considering NR's average loan value and target borrower.

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

I think the main point of this is looking at the stats. It was never just home owners.

Yes they may have the majority of the debt but also have the most to lose.

PN summed it up well. No assets, nothing to lose.
We were often fed on here it was the home owners and that more houses would come on to the market the more people went bust.

But it looks like a lot of those going bust are not carrying any meaningful assets and are insolvent and going to the wall.

There as been a generation of spender bred you may not believe it on here as most of the younger people on here are sensible, but the figures clearly show a lot are not. (biggest growth in bankruptcy in this recession compared to others is the under 25's, not a dig at them it is true.)

Where does the money come from, to the system, if they have no assets? Tax? Banking fees? (i'm sure I used to know more about this, weren't we taliking about this a year ago?)

Really2

lostinrates wrote: »

Where does the money come from, to the system, if they have no assets?

Unsecured, nothing to recover. (up a wall and tat.) Banks take full loss on unsecured loans and CC's, so it is fairly heavy on the banks.
But if a house is repoed an it is heavily secured against that is heavy for banks also.

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

Unsecured, nothing to recover. (up a wall and tat.)

Well, presumably its recovered...just not from them.......via charges? Via taxes? Absorbed as commercial loss (back to assumed from charges)

Really2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

According to NR's latest figures they are losing around £26k on every repossession. A sobering statistic. Considering NR's average loan value and target borrower.

shows the problem with 100%+ mortgages if prices fall.

b0rker

I'd go along with Really2 on this one.

I have never been more spendthrift than since I bought a house.

Saving £10K over an 18 month period.

I am not hugely salaried either.

silvercar

Bankrupts can keep their home. For a start if there is no equity in it, or even negative equity, the official receiver will let them buy back the beneficial interest in it for £1 plus legal costs. Even if there is equity in it, this can be bought from the official receiver by an associate of the bankrupt, or even the bankrupt themselves, upto 3 years after banktruptcy. The OR will allow bankrupts to continue paying the mortgage if it is not significantly higher than rent would be.