Support for mortgage interest benefit cut by thousands of pounds

carolt

It should also be fairly obvious if you've failed to pay any mortgage payments.

Don't mortgage applications contain wording to the effect that 'your home may be at risk if you don't keep up with mortgage payments'?

Is it really any more of a surprise to a homeowner in that situation to lose his home than a tenant who likewise doesn't pay?

chucky

carolt wrote: »

It should also be fairly obvious if you've failed to pay any mortgage payments.

Don't mortgage applications contain wording to the effect that 'your home may be at risk if you don't keep up with mortgage payments'?

Is it really any more of a surprise to a homeowner in that situation to lose his home than a tenant who likewise doesn't pay?

AST's or Housing Act tenancy agreements don't have penalty notices to evict tenants or do they...

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

so you'd rather that they were a burden on the state that is already stretched far enough?

i'm all for people only spending as much as they earn or able to - but this is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

They wouldn't be a burden on the state if houses were cheaper.

Tada, reason no.1449 for cheaper houses.

are we up to reason no.2 for higher house prices yet?

carolt

chucky wrote: »

AST's or Housing Act tenancy agreements don't have penalty notices to evict tenants or do they...

No idea. Does this matter?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They wouldn't be a burden on the state if houses were cheaper.

Tada, reason no.1449 for cheaper houses.

are we up to reason no.2 for higher house prices yet?

so paying more LHA than SMI is a better financial solution?

Where I am LHA 2 bed £747 per month, 2 bed house £150,000 interest at 3.63%, £454 per month what would rather your tax paid for?

Still might as well pay BTL landlords mortgage

that's nearly £300 paid more a month on LHA than SMI - are you still saying this is a better solution?

i'll leave it with you...

chucky

carolt wrote: »

No idea. Does this matter?

obviously not - it wouldn't meet your agenda...

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

so paying more LHA than SMI is a better financial solution?
that's nearly £300 paid more a month on LHA than SMI - are you still saying this is a better solution?

i'll leave it with you...

As has been said, probably about 56 times by now, many of those on SMI will have thousands, tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands equity in the house they cannot afford.

Which means, many of those on SMI, can, once sold, take their equity, and live within their means, without relying on LHA payments.

Some with need help with rent, sure, but not every single person on SMI.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As has been said, probably about 56 times by now, many of those on SMI will have thousands, tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands equity in the house they cannot afford.

Which means, many of those on SMI, can, once sold, take their equity, and live within their means, without relying on LHA payments.

Some with need help with rent, sure, but not every single person on SMI.

really? and this was said on this forum right?

that's obviously why it isn't the case and hasn't been put into practice in the real world...

silvercar

chucky wrote: »

AST's or Housing Act tenancy agreements don't have penalty notices to evict tenants or do they...

You contract to pay the rent in full on time each month. Should you breach your side of the contract then the LL is entitled to go to court to secure an eviction (subject to serving notice etc ). So basically once you start not paying your rent you are on the same slippery slope as someone who doesn't meet their mortgage payments.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

really? and this was said on this forum right?

that's obviously why it isn't the case and hasn't been put into practice in the real world...

Yes, on this forum.

And it's not the case, because SMI is currently paying. :idea: