Repo's fall further

Thrugelmir

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Agree and it doesn't count those backpaddling like crazy at the top of the waterfall.

Lenders can only remain benevolent for so long.

chewmylegoff

I know this is really petty, and no-one likes a grammar pedant, and I expect that this post is ironically full of split infinitives (and also an incorrect use of the word ironically) but I like being unpopular. Graham, learn how to use bloody apostrophes. At least get them right in thread titles. This must be the 100th time!

Mr._Pricklepants

And when using Latin (in an effort to appear wise, I imagine), please do so correctly.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It has been discussed ad nauseum, but what's ignored ad nauseum is equity. Anyone with over 16k won't get housing benefit.

Generali

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I know this is really petty, and no-one likes a grammar pedant, and I expect that this post is ironically full of split infinitives (and also an incorrect use of the word ironically) but I like being unpopular. Graham, learn how to use bloody apostrophes. At least get them right in thread titles. This must be the 100th time!

Hmmm. Isn't "repo" a contraction of "repossession"?

If so, the apostrophe shows the contraction and is thus correct. It's working in the same way as the apostrophe in e'er or ris'n, words much used by hymn writers in the C18th and C19th. Either you're wrong or you're calling Charles Wesley an idiot and don't go messin' wi' Charles Wesley, fool.

The first rule of internet grammar pedantry is that the pendant is either wrong or has made a simple grammatical error himself. Call it Generalis rool if you like.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

Aberdeenangarse wrote: »

Please follow the rules and be nice to other moneysavers. Failure to do so will mean I'll have to put you on ignore. I'll be for your own good.;)

Hi shortchanged :wave:. I'd welcome you putting me on ignore with this and all your other usernames. You won't though because then you'd have no reason to be on MSE, would you?

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Fair enough point. Could be that these people get helped along, only to find when they do eventually have to sell up, the house is worth even less than it would have been at a previous point, making it all the worse.

Wonder where the banks would stand in such a situation if the family finally being repossessed tried to claim it had all been strung out to their disadvantage?

Most people will be helped along and will then get back on their feet. You guys who advocate repossessions seem to be solving a short-term problem with a long-term solution. Often by the time someone could have marketed their house and have it under offer, they may well have gotten a new job. SMI, unlike Housing Benefit is a short-term benefit for people on job seekers allowance.

If the problem is more long-term, such as a disabling illness or injury, then various other benefit mechanisms come into force to keep the person in their home - I doubt too many of the 'repo men' on here will publicly call for these people to be repossessed?

System

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I know this is really petty, and no-one likes a grammar pedant, and I expect that this post is ironically full of split infinitives (and also an incorrect use of the word ironically) but I like being unpopular. Graham, learn how to use bloody apostrophes. At least get them right in thread titles. This must be the 100th time!

Hah, it's a pet hate of mine as well. Graham constantly types "fee's" which does my head in. Some people think an apostrophe is used to warn the reader that as "s" is coming.

wotsthat

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Graham, learn how to use bloody apostrophes. At least get them right in thread titles. This must be the 100th time!

It caught me out. I wanted to find out what possession belonging to Repo was falling further.

Then I found it was about people who were being repossessed - very disappointing.

I hope Repo is alright though.

antrobus

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

... You guys who advocate repossessions seem to be solving a short-term problem with a long-term solution. ...

I don't see anyone advocating repo here; simply a recognition that sometimes repo is the debtor's best option. In the same way as some people are often advised to go bankrupt. It depends on the arithmetic of debt.

And don't forget that back when life was 'normal', something like a quarter to a third of repos were voluntaries. And the remainder are largely unopposed.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

...Wonder where the banks would stand in such a situation if the family finally being repossessed tried to claim it had all been strung out to their disadvantage?

Don't know is the answer. Although I'm sure that someone will probably try that one at some time in the future.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

antrobus wrote: »

sometimes repo is the debtor's best option.

Can you give me an example when repo would be the debtor's best option?