Lender forbearance becoming “a sick joke”

homelessskilledworker

thriftychap wrote: »

I actually think he is being serious!

The op knows he was a plonked, that's the point he was making. Only he was harmed. Get off your high horse and interpret the post the way it was meant.

Oh don't worry about it, but thanks:)

I know what he was trying to do, and it has nothing to do with health & safety

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

the tiny percentage of young SMI claimants.

Just 29% of SMI claimants are under 49. If you were talking about these people, you should define them, instead of just stating "people on SMI".

OK.

Next time I talk about "families" and "people losing their jobs in a recession" I'll be sure to mention I'm not referring to retired pensioners if that'll help.

(wow, I miss the roll-eyes smiley)

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Ummmm.......

I think this makes it pretty clear.



By talking about people losing their job in the recession, I'm obviously not referring to the legacy pensioner claimants from the old system.

Why did you not respond to Generali in the same vane then when he talked about people with equity being able to sell and move?

There were no actual facts proving you wrong at that point, so you just continued spouting the housing benefit issue. When the facts come to light, you dissapear for hours and then decide all along, you were only talking about the 29% of younger people on SMI....

Trouble with this is that it makes your earlier posts in response to people with large amounts of equity in response to Generali look a bit silly. You could have trounced what he said by simply stating you were only talking about the tiny amount of young people on SMI. You didn't...because there was nothing proving you wrong at that point.

The rest of us are simply talking about SMI and forebearance. The first time an age range was defined was by you on page 5.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

OK.

Next time I talk about "families" and "people losing their jobs in a recession" I'll be sure to mention I'm not referring to retired pensioners if that'll help.

(wow, I miss the roll-eyes smiley)

LOL, so theres an age limit on being a family now?! Pray tell, whats the age!?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Trouble with this is that it makes your earlier posts in response to people with large amounts of equity in response to Generali look a bit silly. You could have trounced what he said by simply stating you were only talking about the tiny amount of young people on SMI. You didn't...because there was nothing proving you wrong at that point.

Again Graham, next time I talk about people losing jobs in a recession, I'll be sure to clarify for you I don't mean retired pensioners.

The rest of us are simply talking about SMI and forebearance. The first time an age range was defined was by you on page 5.

Oh !!!!!!....

I don't think you have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

You've gone into full blown muddle-mode.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Seems daft to me.

You want to force the taxpayer to pay more in rent than we do in SMI, just to house people in need. People have all paid into the system via National Insurance, expecting a safety net to be there. Why should homeowners be discriminated against? Particularly when doing so will result in an increase in cost to the taxpayer?

Like I said, seems daft.....

.

Posts such as that Hamish.

Were you defining an age range there too!? Talking about JUST young people?

I would think most people would see you simply comparing the costs of SMI against housing benefit. These costs include pensioners, indeed pensioners make up the most part of SMI payouts. The removal of SMI would not cost the same in housing benefit.

I mean come on, you even stated it was Generali who suggested most people approaching reposession would be FTB's. So one one hand claim you were talking about these people all along, but on the other hand suggest Generali was the one defining an age range. (post 68). You can't have it both ways.

You were wrong, it's as simple as that chap

Keep backpeddling

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How can you pay off your existing mortgage with equity withdrawal?!

Equity withdrawal would make problems worse...not better?

Equity release is used quite often by the over 60s as a way of releasing capital the interest just accumulates and is paid of when property is sold I surprised you are not aware of such schemes.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Equity release is uses quite often by the over 60s as a way of releasing capital the interest just accumulates and is paid of when property is sold I surprised you are not aware of such schemes.

I'm aware of such schemes.

You can only release a certain percentage though. The younger you are, the less you can release. If they released enough to pay off the 20k mortgage, there would be hardly anything left....making problems worse in my view, as they are now losing a percentage of their home each month.

Depends very much on age, but equity release really isn't reccomended as a way of paying off the mortgage, especially for those aged under 75....which most would be, as realistically how many would have got mortgages which would run past 75 years old?

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm aware of such schemes.

You can only release a certain percentage though. The younger you are, the less you can release. If they released enough to pay off the 20k mortgage, there would be hardly anything left....making problems worse in my view, as they are now losing a percentage of their home each month.

Depends very much on age, but equity release really isn't reccomended as a way of paying off the mortgage, especially for those aged under 75....which most would be, as realistically how many would have got mortgages which would run past 75 years old?

I agree it's a bad deal but you are talking about £20 a week or just over £1000 a year probably more as interest rates are higher so if you lived 20 years there would be plenty of equity left to leave to your children. £20k would be 12.5% of £160k so within limits of what you could borrow.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

I agree it's a bad deal but you are talking about £20 a week or just over £1000 a year probably more as interest rates are higher so if you lived 20 years there would be plenty of equity left to leave to your children. £20k would be 12.5% of £160k so within limits of what you could borrow.

After 20 years there would be hardly anything left unfortunately.

The rates are usually around 6%.

However, it doesn't rely on the taxpayer, and it's a personal choice, so they could certainly do it if they wished to.