DWP mortgage cuts could mean rise in reposessions

Graham_Devon

MadnessOfHPC wrote: »

A society is defined by the way it treats its weakest members in their time of need.

Believe me. A mortgage holder isn't the weekest in society.

And remember, while you troll away. No one is saying SMI should simply be binned.

MissMoneypenny

AMILLIONDOLLARS wrote: »

I popped over there and noticed that some people were reporting between £50 - £80 shortfall in their weekly payment. On £80 someone worked out, that that person mortgage would be around £180K.

AMD

The one with an 80 shortfall said he went to the CAB and they said he would be able to cut his outgoings. Plus he has just booked a holiday.

Max started a thread a while ago where as a job seeker, he only gets £65 per week cash benefits. Someone under 25 get less than that.

Then someone started a thread on benefits the other month, where she said she claimed high rate disablity, plus other benefits for her disability, plus carers allowance for her husband. She then asked if she could have more benefits as she was pregnant: she knew she could get a lot more when the child was born, but wanted more while she was pregnant. Someone of that board did a calculation of her benefits that she is getting now and it was £250 cash per week (plus housing and council tax). During the winter, they could pick up other cash benefits. Add into that any money for children a disabled person has and that comes to a lot of money. Maybe more than they would have spare if they worked and didn't claim.

I can see why a single or couple without children on job seekers would struggle to find extra money for mortgage interest shortfalls, but a disabled single/couple (with or without children) will have the spare cash to pay for any shortfall.

beth58_2

Bout bloody time last time I had to claim long term IB I ended up having to sell my home rather than it being repossessed. Help was only available after a yr on benefits which in my case was to late.

dopester

michaels wrote: »

And here is another thought - if it gets to repossession why not give the local council first refusal at the best price offered, the previous owners could then stay as council tenants if this were cheaper for the council than housing them elsewhere.

Why should the council have to fork out for what could still be an expensive home - even at best price offered by the private market?

Especially when it's a desirable area. Why should the debtor be allowed to have their former nice house in St Ives turned over to the council and they pay a cheap rent.. .with council responsible for upkeep of house....

When a young man and his wife have worked hard, got qualified, saved hard, and now want to move down from County Durham to St Ives.

Why should St.Ives house owner in mortgage trouble be bailed out by the council (buy the property and put the owners up as council tenants), be responsible for maintaining the property, and block out people who are trying to better themselves who want to move to a more desirable area? The former home owner can go in the direction of the cheaper houses in County Durham and get their council house there.

When I started off in property investment I thought my only problem would be dodgy tenants. Although I have not been caught out by these NMD deals, I have been caught by other offers. One e.g. = buying a cheap property in County Durham, via Property Investment 4U. Despite being upgraded with gas & central heating & some internal redecoration, that property has been empty for 12+ months. I used a solicitor and everything. The property was evaluated. At no time was it pointed out by anyone that the area was blighted with empty properties - desperately iin need of regeneration in fact. WIth the benefit of hindsight I know that I should have attempted to do some independent research from London. But I trusted!

dopester

Graham_Devon wrote: »

SMI for 12 months or so would be good. After that, the government should be looking at a variety of other routes, such as buying out the mortgage owner and taking over the asset at a decent price. The tennants can stay there, paying rent and so on.

So nearly every person who has a home in a desirable area, under strain with changed financial conditions to meet their mortgage commitment they took on, would have little pressure to move.

SMI for 2 years or more, then nice council buys property for them, they pay rent, council maintains it

And loads of people willing and able to pay their own way, wanting to better themselves, blocked out of the market.

olly300 wrote: »

You are presuming that things are black and white.

Not everyone on SMI lives in a large house therefore downgrading would mean moving to a completely different area. if they are sick this means the care burden would pass from their families to the tax payer.

Get over it. What is sicker is no one having any pressure to leave desirable areas because SMI and then lovely-dovely council is going to buy every mortgage debtors house for them at price the private market is offering, maintain it, and let them be tenants.

Broken_hearted

beth58 wrote: »

Bout bloody time last time I had to claim long term IB I ended up having to sell my home rather than it being repossessed. Help was only available after a yr on benefits which in my case was to late.

Just because you failed to keep your house does not mean everyone else should lose out. We went without everything bar minimum food to keep our house, living on nothing more than SSP.
Now we get a whopping £20 a month mortgage relief, so even if they had paid it for the full 25 years it would have totaled £6,000. As it is now if nothing changes have it for 13 years so £3,100. Which in real terms if they had to house us would equate to 6 months rent.

Graham_Devon

dopester wrote: »

So nearly every person who has a home in a desirable area, under strain with changed financial conditions to meet their mortgage commitment they took on, would have little pressure to move.

SMI for 2 years or more, then nice council buys property for them, they pay rent, council maintains it

And loads of people willing and able to pay their own way, wanting to better themselves, blocked out of the market.

True. Maybe the only solution is SMI for a period, say 12 months, then you are on your own.

Still seems fair. As I said in my post, everyone knows the risk of taking on a mortgage.

dopester

And if the figures do show the bulk of SMI is being claimed by older people... it wouldn't be too much of a leap to think in many instances there is a significant chunk of equity in their homes.

With SMI covering what they no longer pay in their mortgage commitment.

Many could probably still sell and probably buy outright in a cheaper areas, or even smaller homes in the same area. I don't want to have a scheme paying some older couple living by themselves, with a 4 bed house valued at £500,000 with £100,000 outstanding on their mortgage, in St Ives, via SMI - or council buying the house for them after 2 years with them paying rent on the amount the £100K they owe.

Malcolm.

Homeowners have media and therefore political protection. Seeing people removed from there homes makes a bigger impression in the human psyche than people being unable to afford in the first place. Homeowners are, and will continue to be, treated more favourably than non-homeowners.

mbga9pgf

I warned about the end to SMI 12 months ago and was laughed off; this, in combination with severe cuts to the public sector economy and the troubles of mortgage finance are going to sh*t on house prices for the next 3-5 years. I may have bought prematurely, although I am more than happy with my decision having 40% equity in the property currently.

I hope for all those gloating little tw@ 's on here, the ones that laughed off the crash, have a good long think about how they got it so wrong.