Nurse wins reprieve over repossession.

nearlynew

carolt wrote: »

Not totally fair - she borrowed money partly to set up a "drop-in centre for the elderly and ill" - why she did this out of her own cash is anyone's idea, but it seems unfair to blame her for it.

Starting up a business is always a risk.

She gambled with someone else's money and lost.
End of story.

Gorgeous_George

carolt wrote: »

Not totally fair - she borrowed money partly to set up a "drop-in centre for the elderly and ill" - why she did this out of her own cash is anyone's idea, but it seems unfair to blame her for it.

I agree that she is a victim of an unscrupulous mortgage broker. I'd track him/her down and explain in no uncertain terms how 'disappointed' I am with the product.

The drop-in centre was probably meant to make a profit (no idea how though).

GG

Lance

'Bola has been a practice nurse for more than 20 years and has never had any difficulties with debt. In July 2006 she switched from her lender, Abbey, and increased her £117,000 mortgage to £147,000, partly to clear debts.'

So Bola never had any difficulties with debt and borrowed £30,000 partly to clear debts.

Not totally fair - she borrowed money partly to set up a "drop-in centre for the elderly and ill" - why she did this out of her own cash is anyone's idea, but it seems unfair to blame her for it.

So who is to blame for her borrowing money for a 'drop in' centre? If someone is mortgage free and take out at 90% mortgage on the property and give the money to charity should they be blamed if they get repossesed when they cannot afford the mortgage? As a nurse one hopes she had a reasonable plan and was unfortunate it failed.

carolt

I'm not saying she shouldn't be repossessed. I'm saying we shouldn't sit on here all smugly laughing at her as well.

It's neither kind nor necessary.

Cleaver

HammerSmashedFace wrote: »

Just shows what is waiting on the horizon when rates rise...

...for idiots who take on loands of tens of thousands of pounds directly from the value of their house to pay off other debts and set up businesses. Not the majority of people with mortgages though, who are sensible and don't do this type of thing.

Cleaver

carolt wrote: »

I'm not saying she shouldn't be repossessed. I'm saying we shouldn't it on here all smugly laughing at her as well.

It's neither kind nor necessary.

She did exactly the same as your beloved Wilsons did, who you regulary laugh at on here: she took equity out of a property and used the money to fund a business venture. The only difference is that her business must have failed, whereas the Wilson's succeeded.

Cleaver

Lance wrote: »

So who is to blame for her borrowing money for a 'drop in' centre? If someone is mortgage free and take out at 90% mortgage on the property and give the money to charity should they be blamed if they get repossesed when they cannot afford the mortgage?

'Blame' is perhaps an unfortunate term to use, but yes, anyone who takes out a loan (secured or unsecured) to set up a business is ultimately responsible for ensuring that they pay the money back. So if you secured that loan against your house, you know that you lose your house if the business fails.

carolt

Oh come on Cleaver - you're brighter than that idiotic comment.

Her venture was meant to help elderly people - the Wilsons was meant to enrich themselves and make life miserable for thousands.

More comments like that one and I'll have to seriously wonder whether I gave you credit where none was due.

Cleaver

carolt wrote: »

Oh come on Cleaver - you're brighter than that idiotic comment.

Her venture was meant to help elderly people - the Wilsons was meant to enrich themselves and make life miserable for thousands.

Your opinion of the Wilson's business ideology is just that: opinion. Perception, if you will. I agree with you, they seem horrible people and I don't like the way they've shafted people either. Other people (the vast majority I assume) will just see them as another property company providing rental accomodation to people that want it. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter whether the person in this article set up a nursing home, a car dealership, a sex shop or a cancer care centre. From a business perspective, she took a loan secured against a property to set up a business. Just like the Wilson's.

Banks don't look at the value to society that a business provides and assess whether they write off losses based on how 'nice' the venture is (although it would be nice if they did). They look at whether the loan is being repaid. If it's not, I presume they take the asset that the loan is secured against. That's just life isn't it?

I have a lot of sympthy for this woman as it sounds as though she tried to do a really nice thing and help people. I was just pointing out the irony that you hate another business with vitriol partly because their business was funded by taking equity out of a property, which is exactly the same business plan this lady had.

By the way, I would argue that although this woman's business has a much nicer ring to it that the Wilson's I imagine that both had the same aim with their businesses overall: to make money.

carolt

I don't dislike the Wilsons because they took equity out of a property.

Why would I do that?

I hate the Wilsons because they have a business plan based on screwing over as many people as possible.

Not in any way compaable to this woman.

Arguably, theirs is the better business methodology. Possibly this nurse was too nice to succeed?

Who knows. My point is that she does not deserve to be mocked by a bunch of strangers on the internet, let alone compared to the Wisons, on top of losing her home.