DWP mortgage cuts could mean rise in reposessions

ess0two

mbga9pgf wrote: »

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.

The last paragraph,all 30 viewers of this forum have taken this onboard,by the time you've read this your're equity has dropped 2%.

For the rest of the country normal service resumes.

mbga9pgf

I think you will find the majority of EAs, parents, property investors and economists can also fall inline with being completely wrong too.

Graham_Devon

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

And on saying that, I'm still a little stuck with a little problem. This is what mortgage insurance is for.

So in essence, while I can see the need for SMI for say 12 months, I struggle with my own thoughts on that.

Reason being, I personally pay mortgage and income insurance. So, because I do that, I wouldn't get SMI help for x amount of months because I have paid out to cover myself.

Meanwhile, next door neighbour decides to gamble, not pay the insurance, so the taxpayer picks up his interest payments for him.

Maybe insurance....but real proper insurance without a million clauses (such as not ringing them to tell them you had a sore throat in 2007) designed never to pay out, should be compulsory.

Thinking I should maybe just cancel the mortgage insurance tbh.

michaels

This is why:

In cases where the council will have to house the household elsewhere it may be cheaper for them to borrow the money to buy the property (and pay the cheap interest rate for state borrowing) than it would cost for them to pay for a private rental - note it is was only a refusal not an obligation I was proposing. If it was cheaper for the tax payer for the household to stay in their own property than be rehoused then I am in favour, if it also saves the household the cost, and heartbreak of moving then I see that as a plus.

Please state why you want taxpayers to pay more and households to suffer?

dopester wrote: »

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.

Broken_hearted

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Thinking I should maybe just cancel the mortgage insurance tbh.

Ours turned out to be not worth the paper it was written on.

silvercar

The main difference between LHA and SMI is that LHA is paid forever and SMI is only paid for a couple of years.

chewmylegoff

silvercar wrote: »

The main difference between LHA and SMI is that LHA is paid forever and SMI is only paid for a couple of years.

SMI is only time limited when paid to someone claiming jobseekers. for other claimants (on income support, on pension credit) it is not limited to 2 years.

AMILLIONDOLLARS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham_Devon

Thinking I should maybe just cancel the mortgage insurance tbh.

Quote from Broken Hearted: Ours turned out to be not worth the paper it was written on.

I think its hit and miss when you take out one of these policies, its all in the small print. I had a policy that paid out when my partner was made redundant a few years ago, luckily it paid out to cover the mortgage and a few bills on top. I'm presuming that we were one of the lucky ones.

AMD

ultrawomble

Malcolm. wrote: »

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.

But they're not homeowners are they. They're huge debt owners. If they actually owned their home they wouldn't be in danger of repossession.

wherediditallgothen

ultrawomble wrote: »

But they're not homeowners are they. They're huge debt owners. If they actually owned their home they wouldn't be in danger of repossession.

Homeowners is a nicer way of putting it than saying 'people who rent from the bank'.