Lender forbearance becoming “a sick joke”

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well it was you that suggested most people approaching repossession would be FTB-s.

And they're the ones most likely to be in negative equity.

That's because it's the FTB's who wouldn't have any choice but to get reposessed.

The older people on SMI will have equity, and in some cases, huge amounts. Therefore, they have the choice to either deal with their situation and sell or go through a long drawn out repo where the outcome is the same, but they get a lot less.

Therefore, any sane person is likely to sell, move somewhere a bit cheaper they can afford and avoid reposession.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's because it's the FTB's who wouldn't have any choice but to get reposessed.

The older people on SMI will have equity, and in some cases, huge amounts. Therefore, they have the choice to either deal with their situation and sell or go through a long drawn out repo where the outcome is the same, but they get a lot less.

Therefore, any sane person is likely to sell, move somewhere a bit cheaper they can afford and avoid reposession.

Or just take a bit of equity release and pay off outstanding mortgage in fact I wouldn't be surprised if orginal lender would be prepared to convert existing loan to equity release type loan. I think you would be surprised at how attached people get to thier homes.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Or just take a bit of equity release and pay off outstanding mortgage in fact I wouldn't be surprised if orginal lender would be prepared to convert existing loan to equity release type loan. I think you would be surprised at how attached people get to thier homes.

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

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

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Are you actually reading what's stated Hamish?

Graham, this thread was discussing forbearance from the banks, and then evolved into discussing people on SMI as a result of the recession.

You've now tried to divert it into a discussion about a totally different topic, of pensioners who average about £20 a week from SMI as part of pension credit, and you want to force them to sell up and downsize.

Now personally, I don't actually have much of an issue with a sensible approach to wind down pensioners SMI credits over time. It does seem silly to have them on that scheme long term, for a variety of reasons.

But if you think in reality this or any other government is going to expose themselves to the horrific PR backlash from being seen to be responsible for turfing pensioners out of their homes, then all I can say is...... good luck with that.:rotfl:

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You've now tried to divert it into a discussion about a totally different topic, of pensioners who average about £20 a week from SMI as part of pension credit, and you want to force them to sell up and downsize.

Now personally, I don't actually have much of an issue with a sensible approach to wind down pensioners SMI credits over time. It does seem silly to have them on that scheme long term, for a variety of reasons.

But if you think in reality this or any other government is going to expose themselves to the horrific PR backlash from being seen to be responsible for turfing pensioners out of their homes, then all I can say is...... good luck with that.:rotfl:

Eh? You having a giraffe? Divert the discussion?!

Come on now Hamish, accusing me of diverting the discussion is poor at best!! I'm bang on topic....it's just you have been shown figures which have gone against everything you have stated throughout.

People will just be switched to housing benefit....wrong. SMI is only temporary....wrong. If SMI is removed, they will all get repo'd....wrong.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

People will just be switched to housing benefit....wrong. SMI is only temporary....wrong. If SMI is removed, they will all get repo'd....wrong.

No Graham, that's the case with the young folks on SMI as a result of losing a job in the recession.

Which is what we were discussing on this thread.

If you now want to talk about the pensioners, fine, but that's a very different situation.

For the people of working age who went on SMI as a result of the recession, it is temporary, it is time limited, and many/most of them would get repossessed and end up on HB.

If you want to get worked up about pensioners claiming £20 a week, crack on.... It's not what we were discussing, but fire away.

thriftychap_2

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.

Is this bloke for real????

thriftychap_2

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.

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.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

If you now want to talk about the pensioners, fine, but that's a very different situation.

Sorry Hamish, no age is defined on any of this thread.

All my points stand. You are just backpeddling after being proven utterly wrong on most things you have stated. You've stated some completely false "facts" and at no point have you defined the age of the SMI claimant you are talking about.

You are right that it's the case for young people on SMI, who have no equity, but no one has disagreed with you on that. I suggest you read post 25, where you talk about SMI as a whole, and where I started responding to you. You never defined an age, and it's clear you weren't trying to....rather you are trying to define an age now and claim you were only talking about 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".

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

at no point have you defined the age of the SMI claimant you are talking about..

Ummmm.......

I think this makes it pretty clear.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

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