Lender forbearance becoming “a sick joke”

ess0two

RenovationMan wrote: »

What is it about then?

Thats what i'm scratching my head at now? hopefully we'll get an answer,only 7 pages in also.

Graham_Devon

Discussion firmly railroaded I guess! Ahh well.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=55094425&postcount=26

Just one of the many posts detailing what it's about that you appear to have missed?

So you don't want people to be reposessed, and you don't have a problem with Housing Benefit, so the only thing you can therefore have a problem with is the discrepancy between the two benefits.

We're in agreement, I keep banging on that SMI should only cover the mortgage interest and should be capped at the same level as HB is. They should be combined into a single benefit called 'Housing Benefit' and they should be paid directly to the landlord (i.e. the bank in the case of a mortgage) so that HB is used for HB and not anything else.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Discussion firmly railroaded I guess! Ahh well.

Only because you've painted yourself into a corner and you're seeking an exit. I thought Joe's question was perfectly valid, so why are you now playing these games?

ess0two

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Discussion firmly railroaded I guess! Ahh well.

Come on were nearly to the root of the issue.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ok, were going to have to go back to basics.

Say for instance someone had a mortgage of £600 a month. They find they can't afford that payment.

SMI comes along, removes all the interest, amd makes the payment £200 a month.

They can now afford £200 a month. However, they are at an obvious advantage to everyone else on their street who still has to pay their interest. Therefore SMI means they keep their home, their equity and any future equity, and the taxpayer chips in month after month.

I'm getting a little aghast and starting to lose patience on this thread. I honestly don't believe people can't see the difference between SMI paying for a PRIVATE ASSET and housing benefit paying for a SERVICE.

I'm bowing out, as it appears we could just be at arguing for arguments sake point here.

how? they just lost their job and are in receipt of income-related jobseekers' allowance.

i think the presumption is that people claiming SMI will need to get their lender to agree to switching their mortgage to interest only (or "SMI only"). No doubt there are some who will be able to afford to make some capital repayments, but i doubt that, as a general rule, people are paying down their capital whilst receiving SMI.

in a rising market they might benefit from increases in equity whilst the govt pays their mortgage interest, but there doesn't appear to me to be a rising market.

if you lost your job, would you claim SMI, or would you instantly sell your house and go and live in a rented bedsit?

if you tried to sell your house but found there were no buyers, would you claim SMI?

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

So you don't want people to be reposessed, and you don't have a problem with Housing Benefit, so the only thing you can therefore have a problem with is the discrepancy between the two benefits.

We're in agreement, I keep banging on that SMI should only cover the mortgage interest and should be capped at the same level as HB is. They should be combined into a single benefit called 'Housing Benefit' and they should be paid directly to the landlord (i.e. the bank in the case of a mortgage) so that HB is used for HB and not anything else.

Were clearly not in agreement. I don't think we ever will be, as you certainly wouldn't allow such a thing.

You are trying now to suggest the bank is the house owners landlord. It's pathetic.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why does it matter how they find it?!

Does it alter the point?!

This isn't about wanting people thrown out of their homes for pities sake. I wish it would stop reverting to that spineless little argument every single time.

You are assuming they can find it I'm saying they would not be able to.

If you don't want them thrown out what do you want to happen to them then.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

You are assuming they can find it I'm saying they would not be able to.

If you don't want them thrown out what do you want to happen then then.

I'm not assuming they can find the money to put towards the capital repayment part of their mortgage.

There are people doing just that on SMI right now, and have been for years. Have a look at the document I posted, and you will see what I am stating is fact, not assumptions.

Ultimately, this discussion is now pointless. It's been completely wrecked by yourself, renoman (again) and ess0two.

Feel free to carry on pretending it's about me wanting people chucked onto the streets. Feel free to completely ignore every point I and others have made. Ignorance afterall, is making up your entire argument on this one. I can't put a sensible argument across when all I get back is complete and utter ignorance.

I odn't see anyone laying into Generali for making the same points? No one is accusing him of wanting people chucked on to the streets, though he implicitly stated that people should lose their homes. It's back to a persanality issue, and that's all this is.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why does it matter how they find it?!

Does it alter the point?!

This isn't about wanting people thrown out of their homes for pities sake. I wish it would stop reverting to that spineless little argument every single time.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not assuming they can find the money to put towards the capital repayment part of their mortgage.

There are people doing just that on SMI right now, and have been for years. Have a look at the document I posted, and you will see what I am stating is fact, not assumptions.

Ultimately, this discussion is now pointless. It's been completely wrecked by yourself, renoman (again) and ess0two.

Feel free to carry on pretending it's about me wanting people chucked onto the streets. Feel free to completely ignore every point I and others have made. Ignorance afterall, is making up your entire argument on this one. I can't put a sensible argument across when all I get back is complete and utter ignorance.

I odn't see anyone laying into Generali for making the same points? No one is accusing him of wanting people chucked on to the streets, though he implicitly stated that people should lose their homes. It's back to a persanality issue, and that's all this is.

You haven't answered my question ie what do you want to happen to them.