To buy or not to buy?

Penny_Racer

Dolce Vita,
Although I didn't like the sarkey comment, I'm sorry about the cage thing.

SquatNow

Lets get this straight... there is NO WAY ANY LENDER would agree a full and final settlement of less than 100% if they knew the debtor had £26k knocking around. They just wouldn't would they.

So SOMEWHERE the debtor is talking crap. Either they have lied to their creditors or they are lieing to us.

gallygirl

To get back to the original question..... PR DON'T do this!!!!

Houseprices are way to unstable at the moment and you could end up in negative equity in 2 yrs if the doom mongers are right, or with a seriously depleted asset if they're partly right. Plus buying costs, stamp duty, running costs (things can & do go wrong, 1 after another!) and the additional top-up on the mortgage.

Fair play to you. You're doing the right thing in principle by wanting to pay off your debts, however (please take this in the spirit it's intended) your financial judgement/knowledge appears to be limited if you're considering such a thing at the moment. You're about 5 years too late hon.

You haven't actually mentioned on here or the other thread if you have an IVA etc. and I don't know what the rules are. However, from reading other threads I've seen that relatively smoothly running IVA's etc can go wrong if the creditors think there is extra money about, and they're not getting what they think is their fair share.

TBH I would whack it into high interest accounts, transfer 3k into your ISA allowance every year, add the £100 a month you could afford to subsidise the BTL with and wait till you have enough to clear the debts.

Good luck!!!!!

Romani_Ite_Domum

I think if it was me and I had debt and money in the bank plus enough extra every month to subsidise a BTL. Then I would use this money to reduce the debt.

If I, (for some reason that I don't understand) was not allowed to do this, I would go to a casino and put my money on black ( or red). I feel this would be a better choice than a BTL right now.

lieutenant_dan

SquatNow wrote: »

Lets get this straight... there is NO WAY ANY LENDER would agree a full and final settlement of less than 100% if they knew the debtor had £26k knocking around. They just wouldn't would they.

So SOMEWHERE the debtor is talking crap. Either they have lied to their creditors or they are lieing to us.

Well no they wouldn't, but how would they find out about it if it's carefully concealed?

There's so much bad debt in this country at the moment, I think more and more creditors are glad to take what they can, even if it's less than the original amount loaned in a final settlement. Also been a drop in CCJs etc, the courts would be overflowing with these if every single debtor was pursued this way!

And to add to the general concensus, your post further up the thread was irresponsible and even a bit cruel.

You may say the debtor has a responsibility to repay what is borrowed, true, but there's been so much credit recklessly thrown at people in recent years, that some of these companies can have little or no complaints if people end up drowning in debt and unable to pay it back, it's totally irresponsible lending, especially when you read in the news about pensioners over £50k in debt, and people topping themselves over extreme debt.

The OP is obviously looking at ways to eradicate the debt, such as buying the property (which is not a good move in the current climate imo), so have a bit more savvy in future with how you respond and the implications of it.

undercoat11

All taking this very seriously - I wondered if the OP was actually one of those creatures that features in the Billy Goats Gruff - but then what do I know. I thought the prozac part was quite funny - sorry!

Turnbull2000

Does the OP not realise that by "releasing equity", he/she is not withdrawing free money, but merely borrowing it against the value of her house?

SquatNow

lieutenant_dan wrote: »

You may say the debtor has a responsibility to repay what is borrowed, true, but there's been so much credit recklessly thrown at people in recent years, that some of these companies can have little or no complaints if people end up drowning in debt and unable to pay it back, it's totally irresponsible lending, especially when you read in the news about pensioners over £50k in debt, and people topping themselves over extreme debt.

So your saying that it's ok to defraud prudent savers because the banks they saved with had some irresponsible staff?

Because that's what were talking about here... it's not the banks money it's their customers money. (albeit there may be a number of middleman banks in between)

ABN

Taken from various posts by Penny Racer

Penny_Racer wrote:

All of the debts are on agreements and I don't pay any interest.

The mortgage is in my husbands name as we have kept all of our debts in my name so that at least one of us is still credit worthy.

It was my idea to put the debts in my name.

I realise that the rent will not cover the mortgage repayments.

The buy to let is my husbands, I just "manage" it for him.

Wish someone would lend me £48k INTEREST FREE whilst having money in the bank.

While SquateFrees post was technically incorrect morally I agree with it.

In the second line of the quotes notice the OUR DEBTS which would seem to imply that they have move joint debts to a single person who can’t afford to pay but the other can. That would, on the face of it, seem like at worst fraud and best morally reprehensible.

I do have sympathy for those who get into debt and can’t afford the repayments but not for those, who as a family, can afford to repay.

It effects all of us and should not be condoned imho.

lieutenant_dan

SquatNow wrote: »

So your saying that it's ok to defraud prudent savers because the banks they saved with had some irresponsible staff?

Because that's what were talking about here... it's not the banks money it's their customers money. (albeit there may be a number of middleman banks in between)

I don't know the exact circumstances of the OP.

But there's a big difference between starting out with the intention of taking the money and no intention of paying it back, or getting into dire straits and at least trying to tackle the debt, which seems to be the attitude of the OP.

I'd turn your argument on its head and suggest the bank are letting down their savers by reckless irresponsible lending to those who are unlikely to be able to pay it back. It's a two way street, it's like being given a loaded gun, someone uses it, they're to blame, but also whoever supplied them has to take some responsibility for it.