Lender forbearance becoming “a sick joke”

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But in the meantime they'll be costing the state more on housing benefits than they would on SMI.

I just think you've got a blind spot on this one Gen, putting principle before pragmatism.

Right, Hamish. Read the SMI or Reposession threads that are active at the moment.

53% of people on SMI are over 60 years of age. The average mortgage these people have that SMI pays for, is 20k. Based on averages prices, if they sell, they will have approx 130k to either buy another place, or rent.

You appear to suggest on this thread that SMI is a short term thing. It's not. I put the figures up on one of the other threads and the majority have been on it over 2 years (70% of SMI claimants having been on SMI for over 2 years). It's currently indefinate for anyone over 65 or anyone on IS.

The majority of people therefore would NOT QUALIFY for housing benefit. So please stop beating that drum. It's untrue. You are extremely misinformed on this subject.

How many times does this need saying?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Completelty and utterly untrue, not that it matters, as you'll just keep peddling it. .

Oh really.

So where are these hundreds of thousands of rental houses going to come from then?

The house fairy?

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Oh really.

So where are these hundreds of thousands of rental houses going to come from then?

The house fairy?

There would be no change in houses or households, merely a change in ownership.

shortchanged_2

wymondham wrote: »

Agree 100% with Generali in this thread. Support for a few months max, any longer than that it becomes expected and relied upon and then becomes part of the problem.

Why should the tax payer fund someones private asset ?

The problem here is that governement seem to think a house purchase is 'special' and to be protected at all costs. Nonsense - a house purchase is the same as a car purchase/holiday etc.... they all NEED to be paid for or you can't have them!

In the scenario "I have a car on HP but can't now afford the payments" - would you expect the person in street to pay for it for you in their taxes? of course not!! It is the same as with a house, since it is a private purchase, and hence not a 'we need somewhere to live' argument, as they have chosen to keep their asset and not change their circumstances to something more manageable.

Repossession is a bit like having vultures - it's not nice, but it cleanses and is necessary in the grand scheme of things. Remove the vulture (repossession) and the rot just grows.

Good points from wymondham.

I seem to remember many people thinking it was a good thing that many businesses were going into liquidation over the past few years because it was weeding out all the poor businesses.

Is it any different for the housing market?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

There would be no change in houses or households, merely a change in ownership.

Exactly.

So for every 100K households you repossess and force into rented, investors have to take 100K houses out of O/O and into rented to house them.

Because Graham's assumption, that somehow 100K people from rented will suddenly be able to get a mortgage and buy, is nonsense.

100% of the funds available for lending are already being lent. A million houses have been added to the rental supply from O/O in the last few years, because Generation Rent can't get mortgages.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Oh really.

So where are these hundreds of thousands of rental houses going to come from then?

The house fairy?

Why would you need extra houses?

One house goes up for sale, they buy another for sale, and sell theirs to a buyer.

Theres no net change in houses required, just buying and selling to each other, as is completely normal.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Exactly.

So for every 100K households you repossess and force into rented, investors have to take 100K houses out of O/O and into rented to house them.

Because Graham's assumption, that somehow 100K people from rented will suddenly be able to get a mortgage and buy, is nonsense.

100% of the funds available for lending are already being lent. A million houses have been added to the rental supply from O/O in the last few years, because Generation Rent can't get mortgages.

Are you actually reading what's stated Hamish?

We have been here before, with you railroading the discussion with your facts that were not facts, and it appears were here again. Last time you called me for evidence that people on SMI were on it over 2 years and that they had equity. I duly gave it to you and you dissapeared and didn't say another word on the thread. You've been discussing this on the other threads devoted to this, but seems again you have simply blanked out what you don't want to see, and keep stating it over and over.

Now it appears you are back doing the same thing, only this time, no taking any notice of anything anyone is saying to you, but simply regurgitating that anyone on SMI will cost more on housing benefit.

Here, read the TRUTH:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/support-for-mortgage-interest-call-for-evidence-ia.pdf

If you don't wish too (as it seems you didn't last time) then fine, but please stop peddling falsified information.

Table 4 is a good place for you to start.

The statistical article states that people could "decide to downsize using their equity" instead of choosing SMI. The facts are clear.

Graham_Devon

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I duly gave it to you and you dissapeared and didn't say another word on the thread.

Can't knock your consistency.

crash123

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Are you actually reading what's stated Hamish?

We have been here before, with you railroading the discussion with your facts that were not facts, and it appears were here again. Last time you called me for evidence that people on SMI were on it over 2 years and that they had equity. I duly gave it to you and you dissapeared and didn't say another word on the thread. You've been discussing this on the other threads devoted to this, but seems again you have simply blanked out what you don't want to see, and keep stating it over and over.

Now it appears you are back doing the same thing, only this time, no taking any notice of anything anyone is saying to you, but simply regurgitating that anyone on SMI will cost more on housing benefit.

Here, read the TRUTH:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/support-for-mortgage-interest-call-for-evidence-ia.pdf

If you don't wish too (as it seems you didn't last time) then fine, but please stop peddling falsified information.

Table 4 is a good place for you to start.

The statistical article states that people could "decide to downsize using their equity" instead of choosing SMI. The facts are clear.

And Hamish has disappeared. Shall we have a thread where we put all the threads that he has disappeared from.

Graham_Devon

crash123 wrote: »

And Hamish has disappeared. Shall we have a thread where we put all the threads that he has disappeared from.

He's too busy suggesting pensioners downsize on other threads (exactly what he is arguing against here!) to be posting on this thread any longer.

Couldn't make it up...

You get on as FTB-s at the bottom, move up as 2TB-s, cross the top in your family home, downsize on the way back down the other side, and then get off permanently. Passing your ticket to your heirs, who then do the same.

This is because someone said the housing market is a pyramid scheme.

But no no no, not on this thread, people should just live in the houses they can't afford as pensioners on behalf of the taxpayer. Asking them to downsize is hideous. They'll have nothing left don't you know!

:wall: