Deductions from carers allowance

benniebert

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Mortgage lenders are very prepared to make all sorts of concessionary arrangement to see customers through a sticky patch. Reduced payments, longer terms, reduced interest, interest "holidays", etc etc etc. Taking back the property is very much the last resort.

It's the same story with unsecured loans.

If you think that they are that accommodating, don't ever get into debt with either. Miss 3 monthly payments on your mortgage and it won't be long before you are in court. Been there and done that. 4 months in arrears due to illness (in hospital from Jan - May £3000), resulted in a suspended repossession order! That was the Abbey National in 1998. Thankfully the Income Support part for mortgage help kicked in at the 12th hour and I got a stay of execution.

Not forgetting the credit card being taken from me and the account being closed - told to pay the outstanding amount (£2500) within 28 days - couldn't so received a CCJ!!!
So don't tell me that it wouldn't happen and they would be 'understanding'.


Some people must still believe in fairies.

AsknAnswer2

benniebert wrote: »

Well follow that through to say a mortgage/bank loan. Say the agreed repayments should be £1000 a month, but the homeowner can only afford £100 a month. Are you suggesting that it is reasonable to expect a bank to accept only 10% of the agreed monthly amount?


Methinks that repossession (mortgage) County Court summons (loan) will be winging its way to the homeowner.


So why should a similar debt be treated any different just because it is the DWP?


At the end of the day it is taxpayers money that should have been repaid by now - why should they have to wait when banks and such like don't?


And presumably 'knocking' the DWP loan won't appear on a credit file?

I'm not suggesting anything other than the DWP act within the percentages that are set. I'm not interested in having a discussion of morality on the topic; I'm simply advising the OP on where they actually stand and since you asked a question, I answered it factually. The Social Fund have set percentages for what they can deduct from a person's benefit in repayment of a Social Fund loan and the reason they have that in place is because the Social Fund was set up to assist the financially vulnerable. If you disagree with that then that's fair enough - you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. I haven't said what my opinion is on the matter and I don't care to give it so I'm at a loss as to why you appear determined to entice me into a discussion of the morals of it.