Lender forbearance becoming “a sick joke”

ukcarper

ILW wrote: »

The point is that the person should have taken out insurance or put away some savings whilst they were working to cover such eventualities. It's called taking responsibility for oneself.

Should renters save and get insurance so they can pay their rent in the event of them losing their job.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Then I don't understand what your issue with SMI is, apart from your annoyance that it allows people to stay in a home rather than rented accomodation, which just makes people think you want people to be repossessed. Explain yourself.

ess0two

ukcarper wrote: »

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

Anyone got a spare shovel for Devon.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

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

I've said it so many times Carper. Honestly, I'm not trying ot be difficult, but it's tiring going over and over the same thing several times only to be accused of wanting families chucked to the streets so that you can pick p a cheap house.

I've stated personally I wouldn't be able to afford the house at the moment or in the near future anyway, so it's a none point only used to have a pop.

For about the fifteenth time to clear this up. I believe SMI should be available for an 18 month period.

This gives people time to A) find another job look at selling and moving C) look at other ways to secure their home.

After that, the terms and the big bold writing in capital letters on your mortgage statements and any written communication takes place. Reposessions starts.

The only people getting repo'ed will be those who have failed in A, B or C above. They may not have equity, and in that case, it's harsh, BUT life.

If they have equity and they have still failed, then that's their problem.

The people who get repo'ed and who qualify for housing benefit should get housing benefit. Anyone else outside of that who does not qualify for housing benefit has too much money to do so (possibly due to sale of the house). They should use that money for their living expenses.

I've said this so many times that I'm loosing the will to live.

ILW

ukcarper wrote: »

Should renters save and get insurance so they can pay their rent in the event of them losing their job.

No, but they are not buying an asset using a finance agreement.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I've said it so many times Carper. Honestly, I'm not trying ot be difficult, but it's tiring going over and over the same thing several times only to be accused of wanting families chucked to the streets so that you can pick p a cheap house.

I've stated personally I wouldn't be able to afford the house at the moment or in the near future anyway, so it's a none point only used to have a pop.

For about the fifteenth time to clear this up. I believe SMI should be available for an 18 month period.

This gives people time to A) find another job look at selling and moving C) look at other ways to secure their home.

After that, the terms and the big bold writing in capital letters on your mortgage statements and any written communication takes place. Reposessions starts.

The only people getting repo'ed will be those who have failed in A, B or C above. They may not have equity, and in that case, it's harsh, BUT life.

If they have equity and they have still failed, then that's their problem.

The people who get repo'ed and who qualify for housing benefit should get housing benefit. Anyone else outside of that who does not qualify for housing benefit has too much money to do so (possibly due to sale of the house). They should use that money for their living expenses.

I've said this so many times that I'm loosing the will to live.

I really don't have an issue with your argument, I just have a problem with how un-even handed it is. Why should the 18 month rule not apply to all housing benefits?

And once the home owner has sold/been reposessed, would it not cost the state more money to have people on housing benefit than on SMI?

ess0two

RenovationMan wrote: »

Would it not cost the state more money to have people on housing benefit than on SMI?

Yeah and would'nt this just strengthen the BTL culture that many on here resent so much?

ILW

RenovationMan wrote: »

Would it not cost the state more money to have people on housing benefit than on SMI?

Possibly, but cost is not the only factor. Changing behaviour could save even more over the medium term.

wotsthat

I was just wondering about SMI being a prop. SMI costs £400m/ year and there are 26.3m households. If it was withdrawn and 100% of the £400m fell off house prices that would be £15 for each house.

Housing benefit, however, costs £20bn in each year.

The taxpayer would want to ensure that SMI is delivered at lowest cost and that undesirable incentives are not introduced i.e. the ability to claim indefinitely or to make it so generous that there's a disincentive for the recipient to improve the situation themselves. Some fine tuning is needed.

On the other hand it's entirely possible in the UK to spend a lifetime on benefits with 100% of living and housing costs covered by the taxpayer. The medical cover's great too and the resulting lifestyle is better than most people on the planet can even dream about.

I know what I'd be doing if I was in government.

1) trying to increase the level of owner occupation so people at least arrive at retirement living in a mortgage free house

2) trying to remove incentives that allow people the option to choose between supporting themselves or letting the state do it.

SMI would be causing me very little vexation in the grand scheme of things.

RenovationMan

ILW wrote: »

Possibly, but cost is not the only factor. Changing behaviour could save even more over the medium term.

What behaviour do you want to change?