lost the house, now they want more money. please help!

A_Guard_Swine

dunstonh wrote: »

It isnt difficult to understand the phrase "YOUR HOME MAY BE REPOSSESSED IF YOU DO NOT KEEP UP REPAYMENTS ON A MORTGAGE".

If they dont understand the risks of borrowing money then perhaps there ought to be a common sense test that needs to be added to applications.

Q1 - You are borrowing £100,000. Which of the following is correct
a - you dont have to pay this money back
b - you have to pay this money back
c - its a gift from a friendly lender for you to blow on Sky tv, 5 takeaways a week and 3 overseas holidays a year.

C ?
I know it sounds harsh but if there were no repossessions there aould be no mortgages.
Some people forget that by not paying up it effects us all.

A run on a high street bank!!!!!

InMyDreams

dmg24 wrote: »

Including that one?!!

That's what I love about stats, they can be manipulated to mean pretty much whatever you want! x

Apparently a third of all motor accidents are caused by people who have been drinking.

Wow!

So that means two thirds are caused by people who are stone cold sober. So to reduce accidents we'd better be getting rid of the sober drivers rather than the drunk ones then. Where's my beer?

petermb_2

The lenders use the laws and the opportunities to make as much money out of us as they can.

Repossessions are a national disgrace. Many have been carried out with unenforceable contracts. Worse still, lenders knew their agreements were faulty and still kicked families out on the street.

I have caught one lender red handed doing this very thing with documentary evidence to prove it.

This will come back to haunt them over and over again and very soon.

petermb_2

The point is that it is unenforceable. The lender really has little option although they have been getting away with this practice for some time in the courts. What they do currently is carry on enforcing the agreement regardless.

In such circumstances the lenders have a security on the property and could easily back off until the client either sells or comes to an arrangement.

They could make repossession an absolute last resort, which is of course what it was supposed to be. This certainly is not so in the secured loan market where I have seen properties repossessed for arrears of £700 or £800, which is a disgrace, especially when the agreement is faulty.

By continuing to enforce such agreements will only ultimately end up with potential litigation with the client seeking and very likely winning redress and compensation as consumers realise this course is readily available and a viable option.

petermb_2

This will be for courts to decide ultimately or what lenders do to offer redress in such cases.
My opinions on such issues as outcomes are just those, my opinions.

mightymouse

petermb wrote: »

The point is that it is unenforceable. The lender really has little option although they have been getting away with this practice for some time in the courts. What they do currently is carry on enforcing the agreement regardless.

Hi

It is enforceable and if you challenge the current way of realising the equity then costs will rise 10 fold.

The lender loaned the money and in equity it will be recovered.

I do agree that lenders repossession charges should be scrutinised.