DM: Plight of 1.1m stuck in homes they can't sell

Graham_Devon

harrup wrote: »

My initial gut instinct was " Duty of care???? How laughable! They aren't doctors,nurses, teachers ... they aren't our PARENTS........but a business... in the business of making money from lending money. So why do they have a duty of care?"

And yet, and yet...

There is something to that assertion. We bestow a degree of trust on banks...and bankers. Since they aren't merely some shady loansharks but a ( at least formerly) respectable institution. And if they deem a loan perfectly acceptable, well then...

Nonetheless, taking on neck deep debt and then holding the bank responsible when it goes pear shaped is irresponsible if not downright puerile.

At some stage, I suppose, we all have to decide whether we should forfit our rights to be fully fledged adults with rights AND responsibilities....or.... decree that we simply can't be held accountable for our actions and thus hand back most of our rights and responsibilities.

What isn't reasonable to expect IMO is to choose at random when we want to be what. That's what kids do. That's what teenagers do. That's why they don't have the same rights or responsibilities.

And nor can they apply for a mortgage.

If you are saying that lenders should share the responsibility, that they have a duty of care, are you thus effectively saying saying we have regressed to be perpetual children?

Scary thought, that one. But likely not untrue.

The banks credit check you.

They are therefore, by default checking you are capable of taking on the loan, and making a decision for us as to whether we can take the loan or not.

An example of "being an adult making your own decisions" would be self certified mortgages, and we've all heard of problems with those I'm sure.

On saying all that, I think there could be some confusion here. I'm not blaming the banks for a person wanting to borrow. Or a person overborrowing (though the banks shouldn't have leant in this case).

What I'm blaming the banks for is the agressive selling tactics and lax control. I will also blame them for inventing ways to get around the system. Especially with mortgages, and allowing a mortgage with a personal loan attached to make it 125%. The banks were speculating, nothing more, nothing less.

So yes, I will blame the banks for stupid lending when they themselves are offering products which even they cannot claw the money back on. I will blame them for making loans attractive and actively trying to push you down the loan route instead of using other means.

I will blame the banks for saying such stuff as "we can't give you anymore unsecured credit, but if you move that credit to a secured loan, we can start all over again on the unsecured loans".

I'm not going to blame the banks for people spending up to their absolute limits then going out to get another card and then doing the same again living well beyond their means.

harrup

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What I'm blaming the banks for is the agressive selling tactics and lax control. I will also blame them for inventing ways to get around the system. Especially with mortgages, and allowing a mortgage with a personal loan attached to make it 125%. The banks were speculating, nothing more, nothing less.

So yes, I will blame the banks for stupid lending when they themselves are offering products which even they cannot claw the money back on. I will blame them for making loans attractive and actively trying to push you down the loan route instead of using other means.

I will blame the banks for saying such stuff as "we can't give you anymore unsecured credit, but if you move that credit to a secured loan, we can start all over again on the unsecured loans".

I'm not going to blame the banks for people spending up to their absolute limits then going out to get another card and then doing the same again living well beyond their means.

All good points.

And difficult to refute.

Good post Graham, thanks. Posts like these make this forum such an interesting place to hang out. When you think " my opinion on this topic is xxx ..." and then someone comes along and broadens your horizon. Cool!

Graham_Devon

harrup wrote: »

All good points.

And difficult to refute.

Good post Graham, thanks. Posts like these make this forum such an interesting place to hang out. When you think " my opinion on this topic is xxx ..." and then someone comes along and broadens your horizon. Cool!

32,000 posts and I finally got there

neverdespairgirl

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I doubt the insurance company would pay up, as I would be being something called negligible. I also doubt I would get much sympathy.

Negligent?

Graham_Devon

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Negligent?

That too. Negigible is far, far worse :A

Luckily less people are negligible

michaels

Thank you for expressing my point of view so eloquently.

Can I just add, do people stop and think who this 'collective' (Govt) that they are willing to give up their personal responsibility to are? Just a group of moderately paid journeymen who have chosen the safe option in life.

harrup wrote: »

My initial gut instinct was " Duty of care???? How laughable! They aren't doctors,nurses, teachers ... they aren't our PARENTS........but a business... in the business of making money from lending money. So why do they have a duty of care?"

And yet, and yet...

There is something to that assertion. We bestow a degree of trust on banks...and bankers. Since they aren't merely some shady loansharks but a ( at least formerly) respectable institution. And if they deem a loan perfectly acceptable, well then...

Nonetheless, taking on neck deep debt and then holding the bank responsible when it goes pear shaped is irresponsible if not downright puerile.

At some stage, I suppose, we all have to decide whether we should forfit our rights to be fully fledged adults with rights AND responsibilities....or.... decree that we simply can't be held accountable for our actions and thus hand back most of our rights and responsibilities.

What isn't reasonable to expect IMO is to choose at random when we want to be what. That's what kids do. That's what teenagers do. That's why they don't have the same rights or responsibilities.

And nor can they apply for a mortgage.

If you are saying that lenders should share the responsibility, that they have a duty of care, are you thus effectively saying saying we have regressed to be perpetual children?

Scary thought, that one. But likely not untrue.

marklv

pjread wrote: »

A lot of people are proving stubborn, but very few people are genuinely "stuck in homes they can't sell"

I'm certain there's a price almost any of them could sell at, they just refuse to. which is their choice so they shouldn't complain about it...

Indeed. In my local area I see a lot of houses stuck at unrealistically high prices but the sellers won't budge.

Davesnave

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That too. Negigible is far, far worse :A

Luckily [STRIKE]less [/STRIKE] fewer people are negligible

Good Lord, man, don't you realise you are replying to NDG!!! :rotfl:

Graham_Devon

Davesnave wrote: »

Good Lord, man, don't you realise you are replying to NDG!!! :rotfl:

No? :A:A:A

sjaypink

Davesnave wrote: »

Good Lord, man, don't you realise you are replying to NDG!!! :rotfl:

I never really understood this until NDG posted the rice example.

Less rice

Fewer grains of rice

(Crikey I hope I've got that the right way round now I've posted it :eek:)