• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sideysid

Mortgage misery: The homeowners facing repossession

Recommended Posts

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44851363

Who would have ever known you have to pay the capital on a house to actually own it! I mean come on, it’s an easy mistaka-to-makea. Obviously these people are VICTIMS you hear?

I mean everyone has the RIGHT to be mortgaged up to the tits in a half million home (looks like a shitbox to me) while fiddling on the sick! Absolute debt nay-saying bastards the lot of ya!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well tbh, any organisation that is prepared to have a couple of muppets half a million quid, deserve to lose it. 

These two tried to game the system and lost. Stfu wingeing about it. You wouldn’t be wanting to give the bank a share if your gamble had payed off  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What age do youreckon - 55+?

So theyd have took on this loan mid 40s.

'They fell behind with their repayments after chronic illness struck the household.'

Cancer!! Kidney failure!!!!!

'n January 2013 Mr King was diagnosed with ME - otherwise known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), a disabling illness that forced both him and his wife Lisa to give up work.'

Ah that one. Who diagnosed ME? Most be a bad case it appe5rs to ahve spread to his wife ...

'Nevertheless in 2008 Mr and Mrs King took out an interest-only, self-certified mortgage of £337,500, sold to them by an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA).

At the time they already had debts of £58,000. And they were apparently unaware they needed to save up to pay off the capital when the loan matured.'

On that alone Id bet moneythat theyve commited mortgage fraud by using the IFA as professional liar.

There is not come back to the mortgage provider when you use an IFA. The issue is with the iFA - they should have explained everything. But this couple were just after mortgage money.

'As a result, the Kings had to pay the Halifax's Standard Variable Rate (SVR) of 3.99% for most of the remaining five years of their mortgage.

By contrast, fixed mortgage rates, which the Halifax also offers, have since fallen to as low as 1.35% - see the chart above.'

This is total crap. A prime borrower, buig deposit,  can get about ~5 years fixed around 1..9%

Junk customer like this couple should actually be paying a lot more than 3.99%

The level of journalism is right out of the Express. Gormless.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, One percent said:

Well tbh, any organisation that is prepared to have a couple of muppets half a million quid, deserve to lose it. 

These two tried to game the system and lost. Stfu wingeing about it. You wouldn’t be wanting to give the bank a share if your gamble had payed off  

Its pretty easy to see where the BoE - and Basel - want retail mortgages.

4x household income top, with a 20% deposit, no more than 25y term.

Basically, after 10y the loan is pretty much derisked.

Of course ..... you needto start project 4x average incoem into local housing prices.

LondonSe is in sooo much shit.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, spygirl said:

Its pretty easy to see where the BoE - and Basel - want retail mortgages.

4x household income top, with a 20% deposit, no more than 25y term.

Basically, after 10y the loan is pretty much derisked.

Of course ..... you needto start project 4x average incoem into local housing prices.

LondonSe is in sooo much shit.

 

 

They are going to have to manage it carefully as there are loads of people up to their necks in debt. 

Im not convinced though that they really want to fix it. It appears to me that practically everyone is carrying massive debts on houses, cars, the lifestyle etc.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the same jounro:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44710186

'When it comes to topping up university maintenance loans, poorer parents may be more generous than wealthier ones.

According to the National Student Money Survey, less well-off families contribute more than expected, while richer ones give less.

Households with incomes of less than £25,000 are not expected to make extra payments to support their children.

But the research found such families paid an average of £54 a month, making them relatively the most generous.

By contrast households earning £60,000 a year paid £160 a month less than expected by the government, making them the least generous.'

OK ..... might it be that the fact that the household 'earning 60k' is actually earning the money - and being heavily taxed.

The 25k household is getting in benefits ad are working cash in hand.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, One percent said:

They are going to have to manage it carefully as there are loads of people up to their necks in debt. 

Im not convinced though that they really want to fix it. It appears to me that practically everyone is carrying massive debts on houses, cars, the lifestyle etc.  

Thing with housing is that you are playing chicken with mortality.

Simple stats- 50% of people 65+ will be dead within 10 years.

Any population where the bulk of the housing is owned by 55+ is going to have a problem keeping up wit the probate.

You can see tis in Scarborough.

You'll see tis in other areas where 55+ have their own house and 2-3 BTLs.

Totalt shitstorm.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just WoW, unfucken believable, when greedy thick bastards become victims, these cunts should have been evicted in 2008 when interest rates should have spiked.

Like hundreds of thousands of other homeowners, the Kings appear to be a victim of the excessive lending that took place in the years before the financial crisis.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a result many people took out interest-only mortgages, knowing they were cheap, and believing that their rapidly growing housing equity would eventually help pay off the loan.

So they were expecting the house price to rise dramatically so they could down size and some other mug could pay off their loan, these people are scum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m surprised none of you prejudiced lot have pointed out the fact, he got a self-certified mortgage on the back of formerly being a black cabbie. We all know black cabbies are all up front when paying their taxes, so any mortgages requiring proven earnings would no way be a problem to him. Thats why he’s a VICTIM.

Edited by Sideysid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was getting more and more wound up as I read more and more of that article, as it appeared to be presenting them as helpless victims, when the reality is that their problems are all of their own making, but if you read to the end, it says this further down:
 

Quote

The King's case has twice been rejected by the independent adjudicator, the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).

In its final decision, in July 2016, the FOS confirmed that Lloyds was not obliged to offer a cheaper mortgage, and said it could not see what else the bank could have done to help the Kings.

Lloyds has not yet repossessed the King's home, although it obtained the legal right to do so a year ago.

Note the phrase "final decision".  That was the end of thier "mis-selling" hopes.  At some point, the bank will pull the plug and repossess *its* house.

I reckon that this article isn't designed to get people to sympathise with these "victims", rather that it is a warning for others in a similar situation that they need to take responsibility for their actions and sort out their finances before it is too late.

However, I think it would have been better if this article was less subtle - if the other people in this situation didn't fully appreciate the contracts they signed, they probably won't read this article properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Lipid said:

 but if you read to the end, it says this further down:
 

Note the phrase "final decision".  That was the end of thier "mis-selling" hopes.  At some point, the bank will pull the plug and repossess *its* house.

 

Yes there was a happy ending they got told to clear off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sideysid said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44851363

Who would have ever known you have to pay the capital on a house to actually own it! I mean come on, it’s an easy mistaka-to-makea. Obviously these people are VICTIMS you hear?

I mean everyone has the RIGHT to be mortgaged up to the tits in a half million home (looks like a shitbox to me) while fiddling on the sick! Absolute debt nay-saying bastards the lot of ya!

Nevertheless in 2008 Mr and Mrs King took out an interest-only, self-certified mortgage of £337,500, sold to them by an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA).

At the time they already had debts of £58,000. And they were apparently unaware they needed to save up to pay off the capital when the loan matured.

wow.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

Nevertheless in 2008 Mr and Mrs King took out an interest-only, self-certified mortgage of £337,500, sold to them by an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA).

At the time they already had debts of £58,000. And they were apparently unaware they needed to save up to pay off the capital when the loan matured.

wow.

 

 

unaware....... hehe weve had this before, entire threads on tos were dedicated to IO takers being 'unaware' that they werent actually making a dent in the principal or their mortgages.

Beggars belief but id shove this crap under fake news, or even stupid people get their comeuppance and play dumb to mitigate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Banned said:

Yes there was a happy ending they got told to clear off.

No they are still there but Lloyds can re-possess ..... but they have not done so in a year so I suspect that they will be allowed to stay under some 'rent' type agreement with lloyds having a charge on the propoerty .... I suspect there will be many more of these over the next few years where the loan capital repayment plan was to down size and buy a smaller property out right; leveraged gamble that did not work out.

'Lloyds has not yet repossessed the King's home, although it obtained the legal right to do so a year ago.

It says it is still willing to consider any reasonable proposal.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Banned said:

Like hundreds of thousands of other homeowners, the Kings appear to be a victim of the excessive lending that took place in the years before the financial crisis.

(quoting from the article): A victim of excessive lending? No-one forced them to take out the interest only mortgage on an overpriced house.

Things were probably more lax back then but even then I would have hoped that the IFA or mortgage rep would have explained to them the differences between a repayment and an interest only mortgage.  Sheesh. :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that when (not if) cases like this become commonplace the Government will compel the banks to allow people to stay in their houses and only pay the interest - the banks can have the property when all the mortgagees die. If it requires a "bung", the "money" will be found (e.g. from taxation).

There really is no way that I can see where banks will be "allowed" to mass-repossess.

Edited by DTMark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DTMark said:

I suspect that when (not if) cases like this become commonplace the Government will compel the banks to allow people to stay in their houses and only pay the interest - the banks can have the property when all the mortgagees die. If it requires a "bung", the "money" will be found (e.g. from taxation).

There really is no way that I can see where banks will be "allowed" to mass-repossess.

I guess that the banks will just become landlords, with the mortgage repayments being reclassified as rent. What happens though if the person stops paying. I suppose that this needs to be formalised so that the payments are officially seen as rent. 

They can the have this paid by the sap taxpayer. 

For the taxpayer, it seems heads we lose, tails they win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 minutes ago, DTMark said:

I suspect that when (not if) cases like this become commonplace the Government will compel the banks to allow people to stay in their houses and only pay the interest - the banks can have the property when all the mortgagees die. If it requires a "bung", the "money" will be found (e.g. from taxation).

There really is no way that I can see where banks will be "allowed" to mass-repossess. 

 

11 minutes ago, One percent said:

I guess that the banks will just become landlords, with the mortgage repayments being reclassified as rent. What happens though if the person stops paying. I suppose that this needs to be formalised so that the payments are officially seen as rent. 

They can the have this paid by the sap taxpayer. 

For the taxpayer, it seems heads we lose, tails they win.  

Yes and Yes, but im afraid their less likely to become "renters" and more likely to become mortgage "slaves".  Stuck for the rest of their lives paying money to the bank for a property theyll never own and cant leave is not my idea of a good life.

Its not too late for overleveraged people to get out, yet all they can see is the previous mad gainz and what they will spend their unearned windfall on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Majorpain said:

 

 

Yes and Yes, but im afraid their less likely to become "renters" and more likely to become mortgage "slaves".  Stuck for the rest of their lives paying money to the bank for a property theyll never own and cant leave is not my idea of a good life.

Its not too late for overleveraged people to get out, yet all they can see is the previous mad gainz and what they will spend their unearned windfall on...

Good point. I guess that they, like homeowners, will also be responsible for maintenance. So, the worst of both world. 

Should we feel pity?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems their luck has ran out. My finances arent reliant on luck thus I won't be worrying about being evicted at their age as i have saved and can make good money through good old fashioned manual labour.

They are parasitic scum for believing others should constantly bail their bad decisions out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, One percent said:

 

Should we feel pity?  

No its these people that created the property bubble and the state sponsored wealth gap that has changed the face of Britain for the worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.