What's wrong with letting people get repossesed ?

LillyJ

SingleSue wrote: »

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.

Don't worry, some people will always take pleasure in another's downfall, especially when the person involved is losing something the other wishes they had.

Guy_Montag

LillyJ wrote: »

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

Surely they'll be able to claim HB & move into the flat the FTBer has just vacated when they bought their repo

LillyJ

Benefits_Blagger wrote: »

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

You clearly don't have kids then do you?

Also, rents would then go up. If people have been repossesed they may also be bankrupt in some cases and find it hard to rent. they may also have been repossessed as they have lost their jobs or become ill.

I thought you didn't have a job anyway BB?

Ephemera

LillyJ wrote: »

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

If I'm answering something not addressed to me...too bad.

...and what is wrong with them selling up and renting like most socially responsible people would do?

Yours is a good point, however how about if these families used their brains and downsized from their probably unneccessarily big home in an expensive area and bought or rented something within their means? Or are they entitled to buy what the heck they like and sod the consequences? And I know this does not apply to everyone.

I also appreciate that the recent availability of cheap credit and irresponsible lending has not helped this situation, however this has to be balanced by irresponsible borrowers, and the financially illiterate who refuse to educate themselves. A lot of the people in trouble now with their mortgages are old enough to remember the debacle of the 1980s and yet, STILL bought homes far beyond their means.

I sold my last home to pay off my very modest debts, and also because I realised in the longer term I would find it difficult to maintain the cost of living there. I now rent.

No-one has a RIGHT to own a home. If you can't afford it, don't buy it!

Benefits_Blagger

LillyJ wrote: »

You clearly don't have kids then do you?

Also, rents would then go up. If people have been repossesed they may also be bankrupt in some cases and find it hard to rent. they may also have been repossessed as they have lost their jobs or become ill.

I thought you didn't have a job anyway BB?

I dont have kids and I dont work, but have substantial savings and if it wasn't for this stupid HPI we have had over the last decade I would be able to buy my own place, anyway it's only a matter of time before I do :beer:

LillyJ

Ephemera wrote: »

If I'm answering something not addressed to me...too bad.

...and what is wrong with them selling up and renting like most socially responsible people would do?

Yours is a good point, however how about if these families used their brains and downsized from their probably unneccessarily big home in an expensive area and bought or rented something within their means? Or are they entitled to buy what the heck they like and sod the consequences? And I know this does not apply to everyone.

I also appreciate that the recent availability of cheap credit and irresponsible lending has not helped this situation, however this has to be balanced by irresponsible borrowers, and the financially illiterate who refuse to educate themselves. A lot of the people in trouble now with their mortgages are old enough to remember the debacle of the 1980s and yet, STILL bought homes far beyond their means.

I sold my last home to pay off my very modest debts, and also because I realised in the longer term I would find it difficult to maintain the cost of living there. I now rent.

No-one has a RIGHT to own a home. If you can't afford it, don't buy it!

yes I totally agree, but what is done is done, and I just don't think making loads of kids homeless is a good plan, they haven't done anything wrong have they?
I am just pointing out the problems if these people are made homeless, and that it may actually be cheaper in the long run to keep them in their homes. I certainly wouldn't want to pay more tax in order to make lots of people homeless just to "teach them a lesson"

Ephemera

SingleSue wrote: »

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.

That's understandable, Sue, in my opinion I have no problem with those in genuine need.

I do have a problem with those who knew they were sailing close to the wind, yet took on a debt they had trouble paying in the hope of making a quick buck while the housing market was rising. I did it myself, and got out at the right time. I could have lost money, but I took responsibility for my actions and decided to bail while I could. I do not consider it bad to rent if I cannot afford to buy! :rolleyes:

LillyJ

Benefits_Blagger wrote: »

I dont have kids and I dont work, but have substantial savings and if it wasn't for this stupid HPI we have had over the last decade I would be able to buy my own place, anyway it's only a matter of time before I do :beer:

And who is keeping you? Me and all the other tax payers I suppose! What do you care what the government pays for anyway, it's not like you are going to be paying for it.
Oh yeah, you have another agenda, ie you WANT people to become homeless so you can buy their home.
Maybe if you had a job the HPI wouldn't have been an obstacle in you owning a home as your savings would have been bigger!

Ephemera

LillyJ wrote: »

yes I totally agree, but what is done is done, and I just don't think making loads of kids homeless is a good plan, they haven't done anything wrong have they?
I am just pointing out the problems if these people are made homeless, and that it may actually be cheaper in the long run to keep them in their homes. I certainly wouldn't want to pay more tax in order to make lots of people homeless just to "teach them a lesson"

Well if homeowning parents saw the writing on the wall, and sold to downsize or rent, there would be no homeless children.
The children have done nothing wrong, agreed, and it is the parents who have the prime responsibility to provide a home for their children.
Oh, I forgot...today you have lots of rights, but few responsibilities! :cool:

How about....
Yes, pay the mortgage of those having trouble, BUT put a charge on the property so the beleagured tax payer has a chance of getting something back! After all, Joe Taxpayer is paying their mortgage! Then when they sell later at a tidy profit the taxpayer is reimbursed. That is fairer!

LillyJ

Ephemera wrote: »

Well if homeowning parents saw the writing on the wall, and sold to downsize or rent, there would be no homeless children.
The children have done nothing wrong, agreed, and it is the parents who have the prime responsibility to provide a home for their children.
Oh, I forgot...today you have lots of rights, but few responsibilities! :cool:

How about....
Yes, pay the mortgage of those having trouble, BUT put a charge on the property so the beleagured tax payer has a chance of getting something back! After all, Joe Taxpayer is paying their mortgage! Then when they sell later at a tidy profit the taxpayer is reimbursed. That is fairer!

Fine but I just don't like to think that children are punished for bad parenting. I also don't thin these people will learn their lesson if they were evicted and would just get more credit. You can't go and assess people's "worthiness" for help, like all those who smoke get no help as they waste money on ciggarettes which could go to pay the mortgage etc.

I am not saying whether this is morally wrong or right, just that, with the system in place it makes sense to keep people in their homes.

PS I am a taxpayer and currently a renter so it is not like I have something to gain from this.