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

Graham_Devon

silvercar wrote: »

If the lender refused to extend the term of the mortgage and the little old lady was not in a position to repay the loan, the lender has 2 options:

1. to continue to take payments
2. to apply to court to repossess the property.

A judge then may or may not grant repossession, a judge may instruct the little old lady to place her house on the market, a judge could order a suspended repossession order ont he condition that the little old lady continued repayments.

The little old lady could make a complaint to the lender, and ultimately the FOS at the way she has been treated. Assuming the lender has signed up to Treat Customers Fairly the ombudsman could rule on whether the lender had behaved reasonably or not.

And if the court ruled that the lender was behaving unreasonably, it would set a massive precident.

You'd have millions of people suddenly able to stay in their homes they can't afford paying a token interest payment.

The banks would be screwed. Lending would sieze up. The younger generation would be absolutely screwed over. Others who have already had to downsize would be claiming compensation. Madness.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And if the court ruled that the lender was behaving unreasonably, it would set a massive precident.

You'd have millions of people suddenly able to stay in their homes they can't afford paying a token interest payment.

The banks would be screwed. Lending would sieze up. The younger generation would be absolutely screwed over. Others who have already had to downsize would be claiming compensation. Madness.

FROTH ALERT!!! FROTH ALERT!!!!

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You'd have millions of people suddenly able to stay in their homes they can't afford paying a token interest payment.

GD is trying to muddle the discussion. At no point has anyone said that this lady is in arrears with her mortgage payments and making TOKEN payments (like the £10 token payments made to creditors as advised on the DFW board).

The lady in discussion is making FULL interest payments, not token ones.

Graham_Devon

Oh I hate the personal embarasment of watching a breakdown aired in public

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And howcome evicing someone renting if the landlord wants to get more cash, or wants to do whatever he likes with the house, is fine.

I stand corrected.

Is it commonplace for landlords to evict someone so they can get another tenant to pay a higher rent? I'm not a BTL landlord but wouldn't it be easier to just put the rent up?

I'm not sure why it's relavant to our lady. Why should she be treated badly just because some other people are?

What a warped sense of justice.

shortchanged_2

wotsthat wrote: »

I'm not sure why it's relavant to our lady. Why should she be treated badly just because some other people are?

I'm sorry but I fail to see why she is being treated badly. She has a debt. The term of that debt is now up and she needs to repay the balance that she should have been fully aware of when she signed the contract of an IO mortgage.

silvercar

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And if the court ruled that the lender was behaving unreasonably, it would set a massive precident.

You'd have millions of people suddenly able to stay in their homes they can't afford paying a token interest payment.

The banks would be screwed. Lending would sieze up. The younger generation would be absolutely screwed over. Others who have already had to downsize would be claiming compensation. Madness.

The courts judge on what is right, not whether this sets a precedent and what effect this may or may not have on others.

If millions of people are able to stay in their homes by paying the full interest on their mortgage, I haven't a problem with that.

As to your last point, the banks are already screwed and lending has been siezing up, don't you read the newspapers?

Graham_Devon

silvercar wrote: »

The courts judge on what is right, not whether this sets a precedent and what effect this may or may not have on others.

If millions of people are able to stay in their homes by paying the full interest on their mortgage, I haven't a problem with that.

As to your last point, the banks are already screwed and lending has been siezing up, don't you read the newspapers?

The courts wouldn't even rule that she is being treated harshly anyway.

There must have already been hundreds of people facing the same issue. Courts haven't ruled in their favour.

Courts would just suggest she has the money to sell and pay off the loan. No different to any other form of debt.

Infact, secured loans have succesfully been taking assets for a while, or forced the owner into bankruptcy. I don't know why anyone see's this as any different.

It seems to me it's just a case of those with large interests in property values take issue. Not over this old lady, but the many millions of other inevitable cases in the future.

wotsthat

shortchanged wrote: »

I'm sorry but I fail to see why she is being treated badly. She has a debt. The term of that debt is now up and she needs to repay the balance that she should have been fully aware of when she signed the contract of an IO mortgage.

I'll accept that being treated badly is up for debate.

Maybe you can explain why tenants, who according to GD, are being treated terribly is any way relevant?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Courts would just suggest she has the money to sell and pay off the loan. No different to any other form of debt.

Would or might?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Would or might?

Would.

Theres not a cat in hells chance of a court ruling in favour of this one.

The amount of business and personal loans out there that would just be renegaded on would be massive. Suddenly, no lender would be able to sieze an asset.

It'd be anarchy.

Imagine the compensation claims from those already having had their assets siezed.

Let's not get carried away eh.