Repossesions threat as Government reduces home owner support - Telegraph

DervProf

chucky wrote: »

banks have been cleverer this time around - it's probably cheaper for owners to be in their property and it not being repossessed than the bank selling it at a loss as a repo.
l

Sorry, I`m not quite sure I quite understand what you are saying here.

While the interest is being paid, yes. If interest stops being paid, then I suspect most banks would want the property back to sell.

chucky

DervProf wrote: »

Sorry, I`m not quite sure I quite understand what you are saying here.

While the interest is being paid, yes. If interest stops being paid, then I suspect most banks would want the property back to sell.

i suspect that they'll find some sort of solution or scheme put in place to have a lease back or rent back of the same property back to the people who were in arrears.

is it cheaper to write off the interest and lease it back to the owners or is it cheaper to sell the property as a repo.

that's just my opinion of course...

michaels

Depends on the accounting method - do they just have to mark down the loss of interest if they don't reposess whereas the repossession and sale might require a much larger loss to be booked?

DervProf wrote: »

Sorry, I`m not quite sure I quite understand what you are saying here.

While the interest is being paid, yes. If interest stops being paid, then I suspect most banks would want the property back to sell.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

chucky wrote: »

there will be an impact if it is removed - it will be interesting to see to what level

Well, I will give that a go........

House prices go down
Repossessions go up
Divorce rate increases
High Street spending goes down

PasturesNew

Damaged wrote: »

Are they though? £200 odd a month is hardly a large sum.

If it is as a result of the help then the scheme has worked, so all good!

It would be, say, for a single person, who gets £250/month JSA.

The_White_Horse

this entire benefit should be scrapped. i don't pay tax to pay some scroungers mortgage (obviously i do, but only because of hateful labour).

if they cant pay, then let the bank repo or if they wont make money, come to some other arrangement.

its a sick joke.

treliac

The_White_Horse wrote: »

this entire benefit should be scrapped. i don't pay tax to pay some scroungers mortgage (obviously i do, but only because of hateful labour).

if they cant pay, then let the bank repo or if they wont make money, come to some other arrangement.

its a sick joke.

YEAH!!!!! We should put them in the workhouse TWH.

I really hope you never end up on the scrapheap. (Mmmmm, or do I?)

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But thats not what the figures show. Some people are in thousands of pounds worth of arrears.

The figures also show a reduction of those in arrears.

The_White_Horse

treliac wrote: »

YEAH!!!!! We should put them in the workhouse TWH.

I really hope you never end up on the scrapheap. (Mmmmm, or do I?)

they could have taken out mortgage payment protection. i think people really need to learn - big time - that in life, "!!!!!! happens" and you have to deal with it, and the tax payer can't come and pay all your bills for you.

as i said, if these people can't pay, and have no insurance to cover it, then it is between them and their bank to sort it out. the tax payer should not be paying for it. its madness.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

The_White_Horse wrote: »

they could have taken out mortgage payment protection. .

Is that one of the types of stuff you have to claim back because its worthless in a lot of cases?