People in thier 60's being forced to sell homes.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I can't see the hypocrisy in that and demanding that tenants pay their rent.

Nor can I. But then that's clearly not what I stated.

RenovationMan

Classic Devon attempt at muddling up the whole discussion with one of his bizarre analogies that make no sense at all.

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

Classic Devon attempt at muddling up the whole discussion with one of his bizarre analogies that make no sense at all.

What I said wasn't even an analogy. It's pretty clear what I stated, in that you call for less regulation and allowing people to take care of their own finances, choosing products to suit, but when it goes "wrong" (client in this case can't stick to her side of the contract), argue for more regulation and claim it's the banks fault for not checking clients mid contract.

That's a statement, not an analogy.

You are just stuck for a response.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Astounding.

You have been arguing for ages now that people should be able to make whatever decisions they like about their mortgages.

You have argued that the removal of self cert and the higher regulation on IO mortgages only serves to create a nanny state, punishing those adults for whom these mortgages work.

But when IO doesn't work, and someones left high and dry, you argue that banks should be checking up on people, which means more regulation, and impose a new set of conditions half way through the mortgage.

The same mortgages you argue should not be be dumbed down by the nanny state.

To me it seems you haven't got a clue which way to turn. You obviously don't truly believe what you write, otherwise you wouldn't be totally contradicting yourself.

The very people calling for less regulation, ask for more regulation when the lax regulation goes "wrong".

Phew, so much muddle! Let's take it a bit at a time Graham so that we don't descend into one of your muddlefests (determined as you are to do so). Right, so where am I contradicting myself?

I'm ACTUALLY saying that the FSA should not ban self cert mortgages and IO mortgages but should simply apply the safeguards and criteria that they already had in place. Like really checking incomes in self cert mortgages rather than taking people's word for it. This isn't rocket science.

In this case I am saying that the bank knew this lady was a pensioner. She must be at least 10 years into her pension as women were allowed to retire at age 60 and I believe she is 71? They also knew that this lady could not repay the balance and were happy to let her mortgage continue on an IO basis into her retirement (which we have established was 10 years ago).

The point I am therefore making is that if they were really concerned about it, they should have done something about it at the point when they knew this lady was becoming a pensioner and had no way to repay the debt. What they actually did was allow her to remain on IO for a further 10 years into retirement and then change their minds.

So there we have it, no contradiction.

Jimmy_31

RenovationMan wrote: »

Classic Devon attempt at muddling up the whole discussion with one of his bizarre analogies that make no sense at all.

Im sure you can make something up (lie) to comeback to him.

RenovationMan

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Im sure you can make something up (lie) to comeback to him.

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

What they actually did was allow her to remain on IO for a further 10 years into retirement and then change their minds.

What have the changed their mind on?

It's an IO mortgage. Balance payable at maturity. They are asking for the balance to be paid (we assume, at maturity, but OP won't fill us in any longer).

Jimmy_31

RenovationMan wrote: »

At the exact time you posted your little picture, i was responding to your p3eadophile accusation in the other thread, and lo and behold:rotfl:

Liars are very very predictable.

RenovationMan

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

At the exact time you posted your little picture, i was responding to your p3eadophile accusation in the other thread, and lo and behold:rotfl:

Liars are very very predictable.

Yes, you are. Very.

Tiresomely so. :rotfl:

Jimmy_31

RenovationMan wrote: »

Yes, you are. Very.

Tiresomely so. :rotfl:

Oh are you getting tired of all the lies again, better log off and let this thread slip back a few pages then hadnt you.