What's wrong with letting people get repossesed ?

Benefits_Blagger

Homeowners will have enough support to ensure that their homes are not repossessed, the government says. The comments came after key mortgage industry figures met Chancellor Alistair Darling and Housing Minister Caroline Flint at 11 Downing Street

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7361137.stm

If someone gets repossesed, the house gets auctioned off, someone else buys it; net result ? Same number of houses in circulation and same number of homeowners. Only difference is that those who have been sensible with their finances will be rewarded and those who have been reckless punished. Why should it be the other way round ?

Kez100

I am with you, although I do think there are *some* measures banks could do to help. For example, I have heard they take reposession proceedings after a couple of months late payment this should, perhaps, be extended - it seems mightly short. I don't think they should take social responsibility though, as people do have to learn from their own actions and mistakes.

LillyJ

Don't forget though, that if someone is made homeless (and remember there are often children involved here) they become priority for social housing and will therefore be emergency housed followed by long term housing. This all costs money and there is a finite amount of housing available. It MAY be cost effective to give someone the leg up to stay in their house rather than subsidise their rent for life.

Zammo

Benefits_Blagger wrote: »

Homeowners will have enough support to ensure that their homes are not repossessed, the government says. The comments came after key mortgage industry figures met Chancellor Alistair Darling and Housing Minister Caroline Flint at 11 Downing Street

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7361137.stm

If someone gets repossesed, the house gets auctioned off, someone else buys it; net result ? Same number of houses in circulation and same number of homeowners. Only difference is that those who have been sensible with their finances will be rewarded and those who have been reckless punished. Why should it be the other way round ?

But getting repossessed hurts their feelings and they need lots of luv and (((hugs))). We can't let that happen to them after all nobody is allowed to take responsibility for their own stupidity in the world of Nu Labia.

Benefits_Blagger

LillyJ wrote: »

Don't forget though, that if someone is made homeless (and remember there are often children involved here) they become priority for social housing and will therefore be emergency housed followed by long term housing. This all costs money and there is a finite amount of housing available. It MAY be cost effective to give someone the leg up to stay in their house rather than subsidise their rent for life.

but what about the families with children who dont have a home now ? why should they be prevented from being able to enter the property market just to save the reckless ?

m00m00

allowing house prices to drop to a level where people don't face bankruptcy with a single point interest rate hike, seems to me to be a far more sensible long term solution than trying to keep a bubble inflated.

Ephemera

What about those of us who are single, without children (because we would like to be able to buy a home in which to raise them but cannot afford to, and are now just cash cows, supporting politically correct Government waste..erm spending) and have been priced out of the housing market?

Now it seems we also get to subsidise those who have overstretched themselves!!!!

...while watching our ever dwindling savings disappear due to inflation as a result of the massive cash injections into the economy, devaluing the £...

I'm not, in principle, averse to helping those who help themselves but my money should NOT be used to shore up the political aspirations of any Government.

Rant over...oooooh I need a cuppa!

LillyJ

Fine then, we will use your money to support them all in social housing instead then, while you struggle even more?

LillyJ

Benefits_Blagger wrote: »

but what about the families with children who dont have a home now ? why should they be prevented from being able to enter the property market just to save the reckless ?

But they do have a home. Most people do, there are very few homeless children for whom the council has not provided housing. And those that are in such housing are hardly going to have 10% deposit even if prices do drop so it is a pointless argument. If house prices do drop they will not be able afford private rented as the rents would go up.

Benefits_Blagger

LillyJ wrote: »

Fine then, we will use your money to support them all in social housing instead then, while you struggle even more?

if they have jobs, they can rent like the rest of us plebs, if not then they should live in a hostel.

SingleSue

There are several posts on here that are pretty hurtful.

We were repossessed in the early 90's, we were not reckless or stupid, we planned, we could afford (easily) the mortgage etc but circumstances beyond our control came into play ...totally unforeseen circumstances.

Yes there are some who may have their spending out of control, rely on never ending credit etc but we were never like that, we fought and fought to keep our home even to the extent where I was threatened with being removed to the local mental hospital as I was seen as being a danger to myself as I was going completely against medical advice and taking on more and more jobs when I was really in no fit state to be working even the most sedentary of jobs.

Being repossessed was hard, it was a complete shock to our pride and god did it hurt to have gone from such a bright start to a completely desperate state of affairs due to completely unforeseen changes in our lives.

Please have a thought for others, not everyone is the same and their reasons for losing their homes is not always down to people being silly with money.