Lender forbearance becoming “a sick joke”

homelessskilledworker

ess0two wrote: »

?? A broken wrist is broken whether your fit or fat,i doubt a fit person would pass it off as a stumble.

Yes, but when a person of the same age has a body fat count of less than 25% and keeps fit and alert a stumble usually results in no more than a red face because of the embarrassment and maybe a scratch.
If little Miss Porkpie face trips over with her obese lard !!!! over so much as a fallen twig it nearly results in a major A&E visit everytime.

Thats the difference

homelessskilledworker

ess0two wrote: »

Sounds like you did'nt complete a risk assessment to fully understand the hazards or risks coupled with the fact of poor housekeeping,was the control panel electrical? was it isolated adequately?.

Next time you may not be so lucky,or some other poor sod that'll come a cropper due to your actions.

Yes???

That was the point of the post, EVERYTHING that happend was my fault. I think the word ME highlighted a handfull of times made that point.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

wymondham wrote: »

Why should the tax payer fund someones private asset ?

Why should the taxpayer be forced to spend more for housing benefit than they would for SMI? (on average)

As a taxpayer, I'd be furious if the government decided to waste money by spending more on paying these families rent than they would have had to spend on SMI to keep them in their own home.

The problem here is that governement seem to think a house purchase is 'special' and to be protected at all costs. .

But that's just nonsense.

SMI for owners has far smaller limits and a greater waiting period than housing benefit does for renters. It is also time limited in a way that housing benefit is not.

If anything, the government seems determined to ensure that the type of social insurance that exists for renters is not equally matched for homeowners.

homelessskilledworker

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Why should the taxpayer be forced to spend more for housing benefit than they would for SMI? (on average)

As a taxpayer, I'd be furious if the government decided to waste money by spending more on paying these families rent than they would have had to spend on SMI to keep them in their own home.



But that's just nonsense.

SMI for owners has far smaller limits and a greater waiting period than housing benefit does for renters. It is also time limited in a way that housing benefit is not.

If anything, the government seems determined to ensure that the type of social insurance that exists for renters is not equally matched for homeowners.

And what is your opinion on anyone taking on a responsibilty(in this case a mortgage) where it was way off what they were capable of coping with, should the rest of us bail these people out??

This does not just apply to housing, should any of us just go out into the world and get whatever ever we damm well please and if we are unable to pay the interest payments and capital back the rest of society can pick the bill up.

Back to the texts/emails from parasites, I am forever getting message saying...

"Burdened with debt, WE can get you off what you owe"

SCUM!!!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

And what is your opinion on anyone taking on a responsibilty(in this case a mortgage) where it was way off what they were capable of coping with, should the rest of us bail these people out??

The thing is though, that's pretty much a myth.

The average FTB loan to income ratio never crossed 3.5 times even at peak in 2007.

The number of people who actually got a "recklessly large" mortgage that they "weren't able to cope with" was vanishingly small.

When you lose your job through no fault of your own in a recession, and your income drops to zero, then it's only a matter of time for most people until they need to claim something back from the state to survive and keep a roof over their head.

And given that the costs of SMI on average are far lower than the costs of housing benefits, as a taxpayer I'd be furious if the state wasted money by forcing people out of their home and into more expensive rentals.

We all pay National Insurance so that there is a safety net in place.

Why would you expect homeowners to be discriminated against and not have that safety net?

ess0two

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Yes???

That was the point of the post, EVERYTHING that happend was my fault. I think the word ME highlighted a handfull of times made that point.

Yes next time you wont be so lucky and it aint nothing to be proud of.
Your probably the Mr Bean type character,get away with it yet your actions cause someone else harm.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

A few months ago I had a pretty nasty accident where I put my back out, I went to the hospital and had to take a little time off work.

Idiot ME got access to a control panel in a way that I should not have done, stupid ME then balanced on some steps how I should not have done, then silly ME lost my footing and fell back and wrong footed myself on some MIG cable that daft ME put there.

ME deserved what I got and sometimes sh*t happens.

So in other words, you recklessly cost the taxpayer and your employer money.

Based on your logic with homeowners and SMI, instead of saying, "well yeah, but I pay National Insurance to use the NHS like everyone else", you should have been sent the bill for thousands of pounds of NHS time and had to reimburse your employer for the self-inflicted time off work.

homelessskilledworker

ess0two wrote: »

Yes next time you wont be so lucky and it aint nothing to be proud of.
Your probably the Mr Bean type character,get away with it yet your actions cause someone else harm.[/QUOTE



Ok (-:


But I work for myself, apart from a few visits to the nhs I never had any treatment, and the time I took off was funded out of my own pocket.
Look mate, I am not saying people cannot have accidents or make mistakes(as you well know), what I am talking about people who systematically and deliberately screw the system.

As hard you might try I do not fall into that bracket

Generali

@HAMISH_MCTAVISH

I think you're getting a little carried away here.

In reality, it is mostly FTBs that get repossessed: they tend to have little equity in their homes, are younger so they perhaps don't have much in the way of working skills to sell or savings to back themselves up and they have a habit of getting pregnant and so losing an income, occasionally at an inconvenient time.

Someone who is under 40 really doesn't need to be stuck into a position where they have their mortgage paid for month after month and year after year. They need to be able to get their life back on track and get back uot earning a living.

Perhaps better and cheaper than paying mortgages for someone in that position would be to offer paid or highly subsidised training courses providing vocational skills that are required in the area in which that person resides. That perhaps could be measured as training for a job that pays more than the local average wage for example.

DervProf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So in other words, you recklessly cost the taxpayer and your employer money.

But not as much money if he had took his employer to court for allowing him to put himself in danger. OK, his employer may have provided adequate H&S training, in which case it is his own fault, but at least he recognised that fact and didn't try to get money from someone else to pay for his own mistake. Yes, the NHS had to patch him up, so the taxpayer had to stump up the repair bill. As a taxpayer, I have no problem with that, just as I have no problem with helping to pay for a very serious injury that a friend suffered a few years ago while playing 5 a side football.

Accidents happen, we all make mistakes from time to time. If we try to remove every single element of risk from everything we do, then most things would take a lot longer or not even get done. There's taking small risks, and there is being stupid. I suggest that in this case, a small risk was taken, rather than stupidity.