Repo's fall further

ukcarper

How many of those pensioners would be reposessed if they lost SMI most would probably convert to equity release. I would imagine a large proportion of those being reposessed would have less than £16k after there property is sold as a reposession and fees taken.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

How many of those pensioners would be reposessed if they lost SMI most would probably convert to equity release. I would imagine a large proportion of those being reposessed would have less than £16k after there property is sold as a reposession and fees taken.

It's a very valid point actually, and you're right, people probably would turn to equity release, leaving the remaining with no option to sort something out or get repo'd, with some taking housing benefit.

But, that does leave the rather obvious question as to why were giving these people SMI forever in the first place....and also suggests the housing benefit bill caused by a lack of SMI wouldn't be as much as SMI costs, or anywhere near that.....as people would be taking equity instead of SMI.

(Don't really want this threrad to turn into another SMI thread btw!)

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's a very valid point actually, and you're right, people probably would turn to equity release, leaving the remaining with no option to sort something out or get repo'd, with some taking housing benefit.

But, that does leave the rather obvious question as to why were giving these people SMI forever in the first place....and also suggests the housing benefit bill caused by a lack of SMI wouldn't be as much as SMI costs, or anywhere near that.....as people would be taking equity instead of SMI.

(Don't really want this threrad to turn into another SMI thread btw!)

Deja vu...

What happens to the pensioners when their equity release money runs out? How do they pay the mortgage?

What happens to the family when their equity money runs out, how will they pay the rent?

Graham_Devon

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

What happens to the pensioners when their equity release money runs out? How do they pay the mortgage?

They wouldn't have a mortgage to pay, the equity pays it off

What happens to the family when their equity money runs out, how will they pay the rent?

They will either provide an income for themselves like everyone else in the UK, or get housing benefit.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's a very valid point actually, and you're right, people probably would turn to equity release, leaving the remaining with no option to sort something out or get repo'd, with some taking housing benefit.

But, that does leave the rather obvious question as to why were giving these people SMI forever in the first place....and also suggests the housing benefit bill caused by a lack of SMI wouldn't be as much as SMI costs, or anywhere near that.....as people would be taking equity instead of SMI.

(Don't really want this threrad to turn into another SMI thread btw!)

I can't see a good reason why a pensioner with a large amount of equity should be given SMI but I still think this is a side issue.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

I can't see a good reason why a pensioner with a large amount of equity should be given SMI but I still think this is a side issue.

Yep, which is why I said theres a combination of stuff, SMI just being one small mention in my OP.

It's part of a picture. The bigger picture includes loads of other stuff. SMI though is the only one we can actually state a known cost to, which was the only reason I mentioned it...as I'd like to look into the costs of what we have achieved.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They wouldn't have a mortgage to pay, the equity pays it off

I think you need to think that one through.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They will either provide an income for themselves like everyone else in the UK, or get housing benefit.

If they get housing benefit then it would cost the taxpayer more than if they stayed in the family home.

Graham_Devon

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

I think you need to think that one through.

If they get housing benefit then it would cost the taxpayer more than if they stayed in the family home.

Look, will you give it a rest?

It would cost a lot less in housing benefit over x amount of years if the taxpayer just bought everyone a house. That's basically where we could take your continual nonsense.

Come on...quit with the incessant twisting and confusion tactics which are obviously aimed a getting rise or trying to imply something about a posters mentality. It's obvious you are trying to get to a point where you can say "so you want families and their young children thrown to the streets? You nasty man". It's the same everytime.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Look, will you give it a rest?

It would cost a lot less in housing benefit over x amount of years if the taxpayer just bought everyone a house. That's basically where we could take your continual nonsense.

Come on...quit with the incessant twisting and confusion tactics which are obviously aimed a getting rise or trying to imply something about a posters mentality. It's obvious you are trying to get to a point where you can say "so you want families and their young children thrown to the streets? You nasty man". It's the same everytime.

Deja vu...again....

And so the SMI discussion ends at exactly the point the last SMI discussion ended. Last time you just 'ghosted' out of the discussion, this time you have a hissy fit. The result is the same.

grizzly1911

", the lowest quarterly number since 2007."

Part of the reduction may also be down to low number of high LTV mortgages and high risk groups, granted since 2007 who could have been early defaulters?