Repo's fall further

Graham_Devon

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!

I think it's actually correct, as has been pointed out by someone else too.

Indeed, others on the very thread are also using it, so although I understand I wrote the title, it's not just me using the word.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Didn't the CML originally estimate increased repo's again for 2012.
I'm confident at some point repo's will rise again.

Sorry if it's offended you or anything like that....but considering the spelling and grammar of some around here, maybe theres others you can go and enforce the law on? Indeed, maybe yourself? Capital letters are not hard. (Not that I care how you write, you get the point across and thats all that matters, but if were gonna play this game....)

chewmylegoff wrote: »

he doesn't think that's where the top rate of tax applies. that's all just part of labour's strategy to convince people that the reduction in the top rate of tax is a tax cut which benefits millionaires by writing them all a "cheque for £40,000".

and him being tipped as britain's obama is just terribly lazy journalism frankly. "oh look, he's black and a man, let's call him 'britain's obama'". whatever.

Give me a break eh?

Graham_Devon

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

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

Wrong person, direct your concerns at dithering dad...was responding to his very use of the word.

I love this forum

Mr._Pricklepants

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Wrong person, direct your concerns at dithering dad...was responding to his very use of the word.

I love this forum

So you parroted another poster's (*) mistake.
Silly boy.


(*) not plural

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Wrong person, direct your concerns at Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu...was responding to his very use of the word.

I love this forum

Actually, I used the phrase correctly:

Ad nauseam is a Latin term for something unpleasurable that has continued "to [the point of] nausea". For example, the sentence, "This topic has been discussed ad nauseam", signifies that the topic in question has been discussed extensively, and that those involved in the discussion have grown tired of it.

What I love about this forum is that according to your post the other day, I'm supposed to be Pricklepants (amongst a whole host of others) and yet I seem to be haranguing myself for the misuse of a phrase that I know I have used correctly. :rotfl:

I'll be happy for you to retract your accusation graham, unless you think this is some sort of genius double bluff?

Mr._Pricklepants

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

Actually, I used the phrase correctly:

Ad nauseam is a Latin term

Hello person who is supposed to be me.

Ad nauseam is indeed correct
Ad nauseum is not

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Hello person who is supposed to be me.

Ad nauseam is indeed correct
Ad nauseum is not

Ahh, sorry I thought you were complaining about the use of the phrase, not the spelling.

Sorry, my bad, I dashed that response off quickly and spelt it pho-net-i-cally. I'll try to do better next time.

Mr._Pricklepants

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

Ahh, sorry I thought you were complaining about the use of the phrase, not the spelling.

Sorry, my bad, I dashed that response off quickly and spelt it pho-net-i-cally. I'll try to do better next time.

No worries.
I'll bow out now before devon, shorty and associated sockies come along to tell me (us) I'm talking to (our)myself.

antrobus

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

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

Try;
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/57108897#Comment_57108897

Or basically any situation where your income isn't sufficient to at least service the interest due on the debt.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

antrobus wrote: »

Try;
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/57108897#Comment_57108897

Or basically any situation where your income isn't sufficient to at least service the interest due on the debt.

How is making himself homeless going to help him?

If a property is repossessed, the bank sells it at 'fire-sale' prices in order to cover as much of the outstanding debt as possible, with any remaining unpaid balance to be claimed from future income from the former home owner. Unlike other debts, mortgage debts don't have a limitation of 6 years, but stay active for 12 years.

Repossession is often the creditor's best option but is never the debtor's best option.

antrobus

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

How is making himself homeless going to help him?...

He isn't homeless, he's "living in a family home rent free". You didn't actually read that thread did you?

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

...
Repossession is often the creditor's best option but is never the debtor's best option.

It appears that is your point of view, but the reality is different. As I said before, if your income isn't sufficient to at least service the interest due on the debt, then the debt is just going to compound. Getting out now can leave you owing less.

That's why people are often advised to allow repo to take place. That's why people are often advised to go bankrupt.