Repossessions drop to 18-month low

Graham_Devon

I'm gonna shutup for a while in a min, but my point about downsizing is confirmed here, and is within the plans for a claim on the property:

As an illustrative example, an individual receiving £20 worth of SMI per week with their PC would receive just over £1,000 worth of SMI over the course of a year. If they remained on SMI for five years before deciding to downsize, they would have received £5,200 in SMI payments. Under the current SMI scheme, they would receive this as a grant. However under a charging regime, they would repay the sum they received by way of SMI plus interest to cover costs to government from the equity in their property. The level of interest charged to cover the cost to Government of providing SMI is a crucial design question still to be answered, however, as an illustration, if the Government charged an interest rate of 5.63

What the government appear to be suggesting is that SMI is nice, but people can afford other routes, so will charge SMI as a service, rather than giving it as a grant.

I'd have no problems whatsoever if they did this. I can't really see anyone wanting to build up a charge on their house. So they would, like anyone else, decide to downsize or do whatever else they could.

I don't feel it's fair to be paying out millions of pounds to people of pension age just so they don't have to make a decision to downsize and use their own money like everyone else has to.

Let's face it, if the government was sending me money each month that could only be used to cover the costs of running around in a 2 year old Range Rover, I wouldn't choose to drive a 5 year old focus and do away with the free money.

Sapphire

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't feel it's fair to be paying out millions of pounds to people of pension age just so they don't have to make a decision to downsize and use their own money like everyone else has to.

I don't feel it is fair for taxpayers to be paying millions of pounds to anyone who has over-extended themselves (not just pensioners).

People should be made to take responsibility for their decisions, and should be only be given state aid in paying their mortgages under exceptional circumstances that occur after they have taken out a mortgage, e.g. loss of limbs and thus inability to work to pay mortgage.

Graham_Devon

Sapphire wrote: »

I don't feel it is fair for taxpayers to be paying millions of pounds to anyone who has over-extended themselves (not just pensioners).

People should be made to take responsibility for their decisions, and should be only be given state aid in paying their mortgages under exceptional circumstancesthat occur after they have taken out a mortgage, e.g. loss of limbs and thus inability to work to pay mortgage.

Well yes. I did take out insurance to cover my mortgage for 6 months. Had it around 2 years. Must confess, I got rid of it as I didn't see the point. I may aswell just fall back on the taxpayer and save me some money on the insurance. This train of thought it wrong on so many levels - but ultimately, it's what's encouraged today.

Not likley it would have paid out anyway, considering the PPI stuff.

Rinoa

wotsthat wrote: »

Every year there's great excitement when the CML repossession forecast comes out.

And every year the bears lap it up, only to be disappointed when the actual figures are released.

Will they never learn.

michaels

Nice graph, it says to me that the number in arrears peaked in Q2 2009 and has declined steadily since then to be 20% down so far. Is it telling you a different story?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

.

I'd have no problems whatsoever if they did this. I can't really see anyone wanting to build up a charge on their house. So they would, like anyone else, decide to downsize or do whatever else they could.

I think you are wrong lots of pensioners would take the charge rather than face the uncertainty and upheaval of moving . In your case the cost of moving would negate at least the first 5 years of smi payments.

Graham_Devon

michaels wrote: »

Nice graph, it says to me that the number in arrears peaked in Q2 2009 and has declined steadily since then to be 20% down so far. Is it telling you a different story?

It was to make the point about those in serious arrears steadily (allbeit slowly) increasing.

ukcarper wrote: »

I think you are wrong lots of pensioners would take the charge rather than face the uncertainty and upheaval of moving . In your case the cost of moving would negate at least the first 5 years of smi payments.

Well the government and lords are wrong too then. Not that it matters, so long as they repay the SMI, I have no issues.

I honestly can't see a current 62 year old sitting in their home watching the equity slowly being hacked away each and every month that passes though. Worries over care at a later date, passing down to children etc would be a fair concern.

wymondham

ess0two wrote: »

Lesser of two evils,the government would have to pay either way to house these families.

I disagree, the tax payer should never fund someones private purchase/investment. Pay their rent is fine, but not purchase.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It was to make the point about those in serious arrears steadily (allbeit slowly) increasing.



Well the government and lords are wrong too then. Not that it matters, so long as they repay the SMI, I have no issues.

I honestly can't see a current 62 year old sitting in their home watching the equity slowly being hacked away each and every month that passes though. Worries over care at a later date, passing down to children etc would be a fair concern.

Men will still be working at 62 people who would be inclined to downsize would anyway. Lots of people would find it difficult to downsize not all pensioners are in big houses and selling to rent would eat into their money very quickly.

But like you I think a charge would be fair especially for people's with a lot of equity. Mind you if prices are going the way you think they are their equity will be reducing anyway.

As for government being wrong I don't think that would be much of a surprise.

Thrugelmir

wotsthat wrote: »

Every year there's great excitement when the CML repossession forecast comes out. Every year they get it wrong by quite a long way.

No excitement. Just interest as to the views of the major lenders. The CML is a collective group of some 90 lenders. So the annual forecast will be based on the submissions of all the members.

The continually high forecasting suggests nervousness. As lenders know that the troubles which have already lasted 5 years are far from resolved.