Who saw bbc panarama britians hidden housing crisis

exarmydreamer

I know when my mother was having treatment for breast cancer, she was very tired and could not concentrate on what was in front of her. My mother had a lot of chemo too.

She was probably so confused with everything and it became to much, such as her confusion over the paperwork before seeing the temp accn. It is very difficult to deal with heavy chemo drugs and know which day of the week it is, I do feel for her.

Local authorities never show accn before signing for it, as no one would except it. I have known people live in it due to domestic abuse.

She should of sought help from a charity or CAB but no one knows what/how she was coping with the drugs.

andy.m_2

I made a point of watching it on the iPlayer last night due to all the internet discussions about it.
There were a number of things that I picked up on, maybe others did as well, maybe not.
Here is my own precis.

1) The family of 4 in the 1/2 million house.
10 years in a half million pound house? They must have really mortgaged the tits of it as they would have seen a phenominal increase in value due to the market.
They lived well beyond their means for far too long, holidays, lexii. yet at no point was there any provision for their futures, they alone were responsible for their daughters' suffering but there was no admission of the problem being their fault.

2) The lady who unfortunately had cancer.
We never got to find out the extent of her mortgage, yes she was 9k in arrears, how much equity did she have? She still had her husbands name on the eviction letter (although it was blurred out).
I have sympathy for her current plight, but the problem was much deeper and had gone on much longer than she had had cancer.

3) The family from hell, She deserved all she got, you got the impression she had never worked a day in her life, he tried harder and got the bus driver job, their sense of entitilement killed off the sympathy from me.
So sad to see the little boy crying, it is not the kids' fault that those are his parents, he didnt pick them

4) Kevin the banker, seemed to accept his lot as his own doing and was grateful for help, I had real sympathy for him and get the sense that of all of them, he is the one most likely to bounce back.

We do not know the full extent of the facts of any of the stories though.


Of all the families shown, the one that is most representative of the country, and the one that is most likely to occur up and down the land is the 1/2 million family.
Couples that have mortgaged the !!!! out their home, riding the wave of boom and not worrying that eventually someone will want that money back. Zero or 5% deposits are swallowed up in agents fees alone let alone a volatile market.
This is the hidden crisis that is waiting to burst out and you hope that the show kind of highlighted to the millions in question that they are only 3 pay cheques from eviction notice!

I would like to see a follow up from Croyden council and Barclays with their own side of the story, sadly I dont think that would make the air as it wouldn't be good copy.

Bigmoney2

the_flying_pig wrote: »

to be clear... the woman with cancer who was evicted for owing £9K on a £180K house - presumably the bank would sell it & then present her with a cheque for £171k [less a few overpriced fees, no doubt], right?

Wrong I'm afraid.

As i understand it once a house is repossesed by a bank, it is theirs, any profit after it has been sold and outstanding loan paid, is also theirs.

This is why it is always better to sell yourself even if you have to reduce the price, assuming there is some equity in the house.

Happy to be corrected if I've got this wrong.

N1AK

The issue with shows of this nature is that you always get a skewed version of events. Anyone who ever loses their house could put together a sob story and lob blame at others. The issue is that short of the government guaranteeing protection there's nothing you can do. The issue with the government doing that is that it is basically a kick in the nuts for the people who are currently living responsibly. Some will resent it and some will decide that they might as well spend the savings anyway and act like the irresponsible people who are being rewarded.

I would be tempted to see the government take the same policy with home insurance that they are now taking with pensions. Some form of auto-enrolment system (perhaps paid to government who contract out) added to the monthly payments.

grizzly1911

Bigmoney2 wrote: »

Wrong I'm afraid.

As i understand it once a house is repossesed by a bank, it is theirs, any profit after it has been sold and outstanding loan paid, is also theirs.

This is why it is always better to sell yourself even if you have to reduce the price, assuming there is some equity in the house.

Happy to be corrected if I've got this wrong.

What happens to the money from the sale of a repossessed property?

When the property is sold, your lender is entitled to use the money from the sale to recover what you owe. This will include any outstanding debts and any money your lender has to spend when selling your home, such as:

• legal fees
• estate agents' and/or auctioneers' fees
• bills for any repairs that are needed.

If you have other debts that were taken out on your home – such as a second mortgage – these creditors may be entitled to a share of the proceeds, but your debt to your mortgage lender will need to be paid first. Any money left over after everything you owe to your creditors has been paid will be yours.




http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/repossession/ordered_to_leave/sale_by_a_mortgage_lender#3


Depending on the ethics of the lender or recovery intermediary the fees and costs may escalate rapidly.

Pennysmakepounds

Having come from a poor background, it always amazes me that people who have money seem to fritter money it away on STUPID things without any regards for the future.

Having read some of the recent stats - ‘That most families are 3 pay-checks away from eviction’.

Some people just need a lesson in how to live within their meas.

Having watched this, I do feel sorry for the kids. They have to live with the mistakes of the parents. Some people are just stupid and just don’t know how to budget.

Take the 2 families that were featured in the show. One on the high earning scale and the one on the bottom.

In my opinion both those sets of parents need a good slapping.

The ‘Bus Driver’ family, from what I could see both parents have come from a social background (eg. on Benefits all their life) and just expected the state to fund their life style. iPhone !!!!!!….even I don’t have an iPhone…lol

The other family, well what can you say about them……stupid as they come….earning that much and no provision for the future. DOWNSIZE…..it’s not just a word…..

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but having to work hard since the age of 19, I think some people just are stupid when it comes to money…..

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

The issue with the government doing that is that it is basically a kick in the nuts for the people who are currently living responsibly. Some will resent it and some will decide that they might as well spend the savings anyway and act like the irresponsible people who are being rewarded.

I would be tempted to see the government take the same policy with home insurance that they are now taking with pensions. Some form of auto-enrolment system (perhaps paid to government who contract out) added to the monthly payments.

The government is already kicking many people in the nuts who have lived prudently, responsibly. Forcing interest rates down, Finance For Lending; QE affecting pensions, annuities.They don't care.

Yep been tried before used to be called NI. NI is no longer enough and is sued on many other things. Mortgage Interest payments used to be part of the benefit system, which was removed (in that form) because it couldn't be afforded.

red_devil

these programmes could be never ending. Next week you could have another 4 cases and so on.

somepeople have too many children they cant afford.

N1AK

grizzly1911 wrote: »

The government is already kicking many people in the nuts who have lived prudently, responsibly. Forcing interest rates down, Finance For Lending; QE affecting pensions, annuities.They don't care.

Yep been tried before used to be called NI. NI is no longer enough and is sued on many other things. Mortgage Interest payments used to be part of the benefit system, which was removed (in that form) because it couldn't be afforded.

I wouldn't argue that many government policies do prudent people no favours. As with all things it is a case of balance. People are used to the state propping them up whatever and pulling the rug out causes a lot of suffering that could be avoided by a gradual and informed transition.

NI was originally a sound idea that has become redundant now that government raises tax from the point of least resistance and spends as it goes. If the government agreed some kind of payment/sickness etc protection agreement with insurers and then had banks collect that as part of mortgage payments (with an opt out) it would solve the issue for most without requiring society to carry the burden. Most people wouldn't really notice an extra £30 on their mortgage and arguably the people who do are those most likely to be at risk should they get fired, made redundant etc anyway.

The truth is that many people don't live in a way that protects them from risk. Either society can step in to avoid people including children living on the street or we need to make it easier to live responsibly than not.