Reposessions likely to hit 15-year high.

rosa_luxembourg

chucky wrote: »

so which is it Miss Rosa?

repossessions are much less than the last recession?

or

repossessions are better than was expected or predicted?

Right, that's better.

To ask those questions is to provide answers loaded within them. The questions we should be asking are:

• What measures have been mobilised to support over-extended debtors so far?
• If these measures are to be extended, how can that be achieved? And what are the knock-on effects?

It seems to me that if largesse is to continue to be lavished on those who cannot afford to pay their debts, this will have an effect elsewhere in the economy as spending is re-assigned or taxes raised. There will also be a political cost as rising rage against 'benefit scroungers' has already been mobilised during the election campaign. "Hoi, that's MY money!"

I am asking "What happens next?" not "What has happened so far?"

rosa_luxembourg

lemonjelly wrote: »

Do either of you think that the increasing personal insolvencies (and especially moves by creditors to initiate bankruptcy) is going to increase repossessions?

Yes. Clearly.

chucky

rosa_luxembourg wrote: »

Right, that's better.

To ask those questions is to provide answers loaded within them. The questions we should be asking are:

• What measures have been mobilised to support over-extended debtors so far?
• If these measures are to be extended, how can that be achieved? And what are the knock-on effects?

It seems to me that if largesse is to continue to be lavished on those who cannot afford to pay their debts, this will have an effect elsewhere in the economy as spending is re-assigned or taxes raised. There will also be a political cost as rising rage against 'benefit scroungers' has already been mobilised during the election campaign. "Hoi, that's MY money!"

I am asking "What happens next?" not "What has happened so far?"

i see that you avoided the questions. they were simple questions.

what happens next is that we're in a fragile recovery that needs to be continued for reposessions to not to rise or get out of control. if the fragile recovery continues and becomes a firm recovery is another big topic in itself.

so let me try again

repossessions are much less than the last recession?

or

repossessions are better than was expected or predicted?

rosa_luxembourg

chucky wrote: »

i see that you avoided the questions. they were simple questions.

what happens next is that we're in a fragile recovery that needs to be continued for reposessions to not to rise or get out of control. if the fragile recovery continues and becomes a firm recovery is another big topic in itself.

so let me try again

repossessions are much less than the last recession?

or

repossessions are better than was expected or predicted?

Now that I've had another look at your questions, I'm not quite sure I understand them. Are you offering a choice either/or? Both statements seem to be equivalent. But let me answer them as if they're two different questions..

1. repossessions are much less than the last recession?

I don't know whether repossessions are 'less' than the last recession. I imagine it's possible to play tunes with the terms of reference of that question. Eg, absolute or proportional; value or quantity; We're out of recession now, anyway, and have been for a while, but high levels of repossession are continuing. Why do you think that only repossessions which take place while the economy is contracting are valid for discussion?

2. repossessions are better than was expected or predicted?

I'm sure that by 'better' you mean 'fewer'. And yes, the CML revised down it's prediction last year and *may* do the same again this year. That is not a difficult question to answer. More pertinent are the questions that this answer itself raises:

• What measures were mobilised to support over-extended debtors last year, thus keeping repossessions lower than forecast?
• Can these measures be sustained? If so what are the economic, social and political knock-on effects likely to be?

I'm looking forward to reading what you think...

chucky

they weren't equivalent - one compared numbers of repos to the 90s recession, the other asked whether the predicted number of repos was lower than the actual repos.

good avoidance of answering the question. i like it!!

rosa_luxembourg

chucky wrote: »

they weren't equivalent - one compared numbers of repos to the 90s recession, the other asked whether the predicted number of repos was lower than the actual repos.

good avoidance of answering the question. i like it!!

I answered your questions. I was confused that you offered an 'or' between them. But read my most recent post, I most definately answered both questions.

The thing is, the answers to the questions raises yet more questions, which I'll reiterate here...

• What measures were mobilised to support over-extended debtors last year, thus keeping repossessions lower than forecast?
• Can these measures be sustained? If so what are the economic, social and political knock-on effects likely to be?

I'm looking forward to reading what you think...

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

Oh but Gen, it could never happen here, you know.

Hamish and ISTL said so.

So that's like, the truth. Innit?

Where did I say that?
Or are you speaking out of your @rse yet again

What time of the month is it?
It seems to be rolling round quicker and quicker.

You'd be much better placed not bringing things down to a personal level and stick to debating the topic preferably with facts.

chucky

rosa_luxembourg wrote: »

I answered your questions. I was confused that you offered an 'or' between them. But read my most recent post, I most definately answered both questions.

The thing is, the answers to the questions raises yet more questions, which I'll reiterate here...

• What measures were mobilised to support over-extended debtors last year, thus keeping repossessions lower than forecast?
• Can these measures be sustained? If so what are the economic, social and political knock-on effects likely to be?

I'm looking forward to reading what you think...

What measures were mobilised to support over-extended debtors last year, thus keeping repossessions lower than forecast?
a bit of Google will give you the answer - the Government acted to keep people in theior homes. if you think it's a good or bad thing. up to you...

Can these measures be sustained? If so what are the economic, social and political knock-on effects likely to be?
In the medium or long term i doubt it. these people that have been affected will find another job you know, they won't be unemployed forever.

do you think they could sell their house to pay off their mortgage or even go interest only?

rosa_luxembourg

chucky wrote: »

What measures were mobilised to support over-extended debtors last year, thus keeping repossessions lower than forecast?
a bit of Google will give you the answer - the Government acted to keep people in theior homes. if you think it's a good or bad thing. up to you...

Can these measures be sustained? If so what are the economic, social and political knock-on effects likely to be?
In the medium or long term i doubt it. these people that have been affected will find another job you know, they won't be unemployed forever.

do you think they could sell their house to pay off their mortgage or even go interest only?

Thanks for answering in a civilised way. I appreciate it.

Do I think it's a good or bad thing that the government acted to help keep people in stay in homes against which they'd borrowed an amount they couldn't repay?

You know, that's quite a tough one to answer and end up looking good. I know you're setting a trap to make me look like a vulture. Any personal distress is of course regrettable, but I'll cry no crocodile tears over folk who've overextended and may now have to face the truth about their unsustainable finances. If they've chosen to bet big stakes...

The fact that, as you point out, unsustainable Govt. action has been used to allow these !!!!less debtors to remain in their fools paradise for so long is without doubt a bad thing which has extended and deepened the fiscal hole we find ourselves in at the moment.

Do I think that people should attempt to re-negotiate their mortgage terms or sell up in order to pay their mortgage?

Of course I do. But I understand that re-negotiation might be a non-starter these days. I welcome more housing stock coming on to the market. If folk feel that they've overextended, they should unwind as soon as possible for their own piece of mind. If they price 'to sell' they'll achieve peace of mind all the quicker.

IveSeenTheLight

dopester wrote: »

If you've exhausted through all the assistance in the help/rescue schemes, or don't qualify for full assistance because you've MEWed on original small mortgage to spend on other things. Or haven't paid a penny in 2 year towards your mortgage owing £280K mortgage on a house worth £270K and defaulting on £30K of loans. Or equity released £150K before coming upto retirement and can't service the mortgage at retirement who are reluctant to sell now to downsize because they don't feel the market will pay them what they think their property is worth. Or taken on a massive mortgage in 2005-07 and are in deep negative equity and hopelessly can't afford repayments.

Quite a bit of speculation here but I get your point.
If you have exhausted all oppertunities, then of course it is right that repossession occurs.
It should however be the last course of action and I wonder if there should be more advertisement of what course can be followed

dopester wrote: »

You really think it is right and proper to expect these people in hopeless financial positions, or in difficult circumstances to which they've contributed through their own actions, to never be repossessed? To be kept in homes they have little right to keeping, whilst there is good money in the market waiting to buy?

They may have not contributed through their own actions though.
Being made unemployed is not necessarily through your own fault.
I do think it is worthwhile exploring ways for people to stay in their own home.

As an example, someone is 5 years through a 25 year mortgage and then gets unemployed.
It takes them 18 months to get re-employed, but they have not been able to pay their mortgage over that time.
Surely it's good if the person can stay in their home whilet they try to resolve their situation and an allowance for the outstanding debt to increase and re-start paying off the capital once gainfully re-employed.
this could mean re-setting the amortization period meaning that it could take another 2-3 years to pay off the mortgage.
I'm sure most would consider that option than being kicked ou of their home.

dopester wrote: »

If one of your tenants has a change of circumstances ISTL, job loss or pay-cuts, finding their commitments to pay your rent impossible, I hope you won't kick them when their down. Let them stay on for years. It's not on expecting them to move out and be replaced by tenants who can pay the monthly rent. Surely it's not on expecting them to move to a cheaper property in a different area which they can afford, allowing those are in a stronger financial position to replace them in Aberdeen. I don't think you'd respond that way.

I have an actual example whereby one of my tenants wished to leave 4 months into a 12 month contract.
He was a professionsal from Australia and wanted to return home.

I released him from the contract and started the process of getting alternative tenants in.
This contributed to my 16 days void in the last 3 1/2 years.

I'm not cold hearted.
In other circumstances, of course you have to cover yourself, but I would see what could be done within a legal frame to help out.