Will I be made `homeless`

neas

sexymax wrote: »

This could now become policital : Instead of recieving advise as a lay down and accept the blade ! I`m searching for solutions in any way i can.
(you know the type of thing, instead of saying these jordain terroists can stay here receiving benifits indefinitly just incase they may be tortured ) I`m talking about an English man who`s lived here all his life is trying to stay in his home) you know the sort of thing I`m talking about...ANYWAY I CAN GOT THE MESSAGE.? NOT LAYING DOWN AND DIYING

im i the only one who finds this hypocritical and offensive. in my opinion to be fair to both british and foreign nationals all benefit should be scrapped... so people cant blame foreigners for their own situations.

lets face it u and ure ex wife has done well so far off the system... i could take a similar generalisation view of u and every other benefit receiver in the country...... as a tax payer who actually pays for my own way and it seems part of your upkeep too... that u all should budget and plan for ure own retirement.

just ure post displays the usual bigotry we get in the uk. the most claimants in the welfare bill are 98% british... which includes u and ure ex. subsidised by the rest of us... so dont dare get high and mighty about foreigne blame... when the problem is lazy britisg citizens and not the immigrants.

just stop all ure benefuts i say.... then be no problem.

silvercar

Bad day neas? Certainly a bad post.

Is it a fact that most claimants are 98% british? I thought a lot of EU citizens were able to claim benefits in the UK.

As a society we help the less fortunate. Whereas career benefit claimants are not deserving, people who have fallen on hard times are.
Even if you do believe no-one should get benefits, that leaves you with a society where you have to step over the homeless as you leave your front door and make your way to work - not the sort of country I want to live in.

RenovationMan

This from the Council of Mortgage Lenders:

"The number of borrowers that have a shortfall at the end of their term is extremely low.

Generally, where they do, the lender will seek to extend the term of their mortgage and, if possible, move the borrower onto capital repayment terms.

It is extremely rare that the lender will move to take possession of the property.

To further mitigate this risk the CML is proposing to produce good practice for members when dealing with customers who have a shortfall in their mortgage at the end of their term"

neas

silvercar wrote: »

Bad day neas? Certainly a bad post.

Is it a fact that most claimants are 98% british? I thought a lot of EU citizens were able to claim benefits in the UK.

As a society we help the less fortunate. Whereas career benefit claimants are not deserving, people who have fallen on hard times are.
Even if you do believe no-one should get benefits, that leaves you with a society where you have to step over the homeless as you leave your front door and makei your way to work - not the sort of country I want to live in.

Total non british venefit claimants acording to bbc news was 384000 which was some 2 to 3% of total claiming. ( includes child benefit etc)


I dont have sympathy for those we who use scape goats for their own problems... And wat the op has received thus far (and will prob cobtinue to receive) has been alot... He should be grateful for it not making silly generalisations that a libyan terrorist will be housed but not him. As others havw said not like this issye came out of nowwhere.

Thrugelmir

RenovationMan wrote: »

This from the Council of Mortgage Lenders:

"The number of borrowers that have a shortfall at the end of their term is extremely low.

Generally, where they do, the lender will seek to extend the term of their mortgage and, if possible, move the borrower onto capital repayment terms.

It is extremely rare that the lender will move to take possession of the property.

To further mitigate this risk the CML is proposing to produce good practice for members when dealing with customers who have a shortfall in their mortgage at the end of their term"

The OP has no means of repaying the capital. Neither is it a shortfall, but the entire mortgage balance.

property.advert

I think the issue of the OP's ex partner never contributing to the mortgage should preclude her from receiving any of the capital upon sale. I would be starting at this point to be honest.

As to Santander wanting their money back. Well, you do have a contract but with 70k owned on a 250k property and a LTV at a little over 25%, they have next to zero risk. They are being repaid interest and have low risk exposure, certainly less of a risk than advancing at 70% LTV at the same rate.

BoGoF

property.advert wrote: »

I think the issue of the OP's ex partner never contributing to the mortgage should preclude her from receiving any of the capital upon sale. I would be starting at this point to be honest.

Unfortunately for the OP what you think and what the law says are completely different. Incidentally, the OP has actually contributed nothing to the mortgage if they borrowed £72k and still owes £72k.

Even in the unlikely event they agree to extend on an interest only mortgage what happens when interest rates go up and OP has to find more money.

Barny1979

BoGoF wrote: »

Even in the unlikely event they agree to extend on an interest only mortgage what happens when interest rates go up and OP has to find more money.

I presume the state will keep paying the mortgage.

BoGoF

Barny1979 wrote: »

I presume the state will keep paying the mortgage.

Ah but the maximum rate they will pay is capped, so what does the OP do when the mortgage rate exceeds the government rate?

Barny1979

BoGoF wrote: »

Ah but the maximum rate they will pay is capped, so what does the OP do when the mortgage rate exceeds the government rate?

Come on here and moan again? When he already has an option of selling the property and using the equity to downsize and be mortgage free?