Help for people losing their homes

8 Nov 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
Maybe if you had been in the situation I was back then you may well have a different attitude...then again maybe not. I have my opinion and am allowed to express it.

I also have had a house reposesed(sp) so I know exactly where your coming from......You weren't to know so I wont hold it against you ;-)
As for what being a swinger got to do with it....
Its all about being more liberal and open minded(that is what I meant when I made the comment)...
Lets campaign for people being helped instead of being punished(for want of a better word) ....
I dont deny you your opinion.....We are all entitled to an opinion...
But this time I'm right ;-)

9 Nov 2008

Quote by Steve

Maybe if you had been in the situation I was back then you may well have a different attitude...then again maybe not. I have my opinion and am allowed to express it.

I also have had a house reposesed(sp) so I know exactly where your coming from......You weren't to know so I wont hold it against you ;-)
As for what being a swinger got to do with it....
Its all about being more liberal and open minded(that is what I meant when I made the comment)...
Lets campaign for people being helped instead of being punished(for want of a better word) ....
I dont deny you your opinion.....We are all entitled to an opinion...
But this time I'm right ;-)
In my experience of swingers, both in SH and elsewhere they are most definitely not more open-minded and liberal than the vanilla world.
Just because they are open-minded about certain sexual activities does not make them open-minded about anything else.
One of the first things I realised when I first came to SH was how narrow-minded most of the people here were. I was honestly amazed and rather taken aback.

9 Nov 2008

Quote by Peanut
I was honestly amazed and rather taken aback.

So am I

9 Nov 2008

Getting back on track !!........................
Northern Rock were probably the biggest culprits in the lending market and as a result they were the first to fold. Ironically, they are now very big in the re-possession game and there is a very good reason for this.
Fixed rate deals for mortgages that are coming to an end will automatically switch to the Standard Variable Rate and if the Client wants to re-negotiate they are told quite candidly by Northern Rock to - 'go elsewhere.' Of course this is now only possible if they have 20% of equity (more if it is for buy to let). The Client is then faced with two choices - pay the highest SVR in the marketplace or default.
It is no wonder that Northern Rock are paying the government back at such an impressive rate. Is this right???
There is something of an injustice about the way the market is affecting different people in different ways and having nationalised Northern Rock, it seems a bit surprising that the Northern Rock customers in particular are being victimised and are left with very few option. Other people (like us) are benefitting to the tune of being nearly £300 / month better off as a result of our tracker. I think we were happy with the mortgage that we were paying and if there was a way to ensure that the rate reductions could be dispersed in a fairer way to prevent people losing their homes then we would be happy with that. In the real world of commercial enterprise this would never happen and would probably be abused. But yes, we do think that this is affecting people in an unfair way and think it would be better if the recent rate custs could be utilised in a fairer way.

9 Nov 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
.
I lost my home in the early 90's when interest rates went up to 15%. The economy was bad and the housing market crashed. I lost all my overtime, and then after many months.....lost my house.
Bearing in mind I took the mortgage out at whatever the interest rate was, nowhere near 15%, and that and that alone was the reason I and many others lost their homes. It was not my fault that interest rates almost trebled in such a short space of time.
.

Sorry Kent but interest rates were never at 15% in the early 90s, other than for a very short period on Black Wednesday, 16 Sep 1992. The rate at the beginning of that day was % and the rate increased throughout the day until the Britain crashed out of the ERM and then the rates decreased steadilly and averaged arong 6% until Labour won the election in 1997. The last time rates were at 15% was in Oct 1989 but the last time they were at 5% was in the mid 70s.
In answer to the OPs question, I don't believe the the Government should bail any one out but the mortgage lenders should look to alternatives and only resort to repossession when all other avenues have been explored.
A snipet from Channel 4 news....
Ten per cent-plus interest rates were common during the early and mid eighties, and in September 1988, interest rates were indeed in double digits - although they'd only just reached this level.
Rates hovered between 9 and 7.5 per cent for the first half of 1988, before breaching the two-figure mark on 21 July. By September, it was 12 per cent, and went up another percentage point in November 1988.
Things got worse in 1989, with rates reaching 15 per cent in October. They dropped a percentage point in October 1990, and then continued to drop steadily through 1991, landing at 10.5 per cent in September 1991.
The blackest cloud of interest-rate history - at least in recent memory - floats 16 years ago this month, when the UK crashed out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism on Black Wednesday.
Yep, agree with the snippet from Channel 4 news. What I was trying to point out to you in my post is that interest rates were only at 15% for a few hours in the early 90s, on Black Wednesday. Once Britain had crashed out of the ERM interest rates came down to 12% by the end of the day and thereafter reduced steadily and were in single figures by the end of 1992 have have been ever since. You also stated that interest rates almost trebled in a short space of time but interest rates were in double digits for most of the 80s which is why I also pointed out that the last time they had been at 5% ( or anywhere near)was in 1977.
see
Britain leaving the ERM had the long term beneficial effect of bringing down interest rates and killing off inflation, much to the benefit of the Labour Government which won the election in 1997, but the resultant recession was the major factor in people losing their jobs and homes.

9 Nov 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
.
I lost my home in the early 90's when interest rates went up to 15%. The economy was bad and the housing market crashed. I lost all my overtime, and then after many months.....lost my house.
Bearing in mind I took the mortgage out at whatever the interest rate was, nowhere near 15%, and that and that alone was the reason I and many others lost their homes. It was not my fault that interest rates almost trebled in such a short space of time.
.

Sorry Kent but interest rates were never at 15% in the early 90s, other than for a very short period on Black Wednesday, 16 Sep 1992. The rate at the beginning of that day was % and the rate increased throughout the day until the Britain crashed out of the ERM and then the rates decreased steadilly and averaged arong 6% until Labour won the election in 1997. The last time rates were at 15% was in Oct 1989 but the last time they were at 5% was in the mid 70s.
In answer to the OPs question, I don't believe the the Government should bail any one out but the mortgage lenders should look to alternatives and only resort to repossession when all other avenues have been explored.
A snipet from Channel 4 news....
Ten per cent-plus interest rates were common during the early and mid eighties, and in September 1988, interest rates were indeed in double digits - although they'd only just reached this level.
Rates hovered between 9 and 7.5 per cent for the first half of 1988, before breaching the two-figure mark on 21 July. By September, it was 12 per cent, and went up another percentage point in November 1988.
Things got worse in 1989, with rates reaching 15 per cent in October. They dropped a percentage point in October 1990, and then continued to drop steadily through 1991, landing at 10.5 per cent in September 1991.
The blackest cloud of interest-rate history - at least in recent memory - floats 16 years ago this month, when the UK crashed out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism on Black Wednesday.
Yep, agree with the snippet from Channel 4 news. What I was trying to point out to you in my post is that interest rates were only at 15% for a few hours in the early 90s, on Black Wednesday. Once Britain had crashed out of the ERM interest rates came down to 12% by the end of the day and thereafter reduced steadily and were in single figures by the end of 1992 have have been ever since. You also stated that interest rates almost trebled in a short space of time but interest rates were in double digits for most of the 80s which is why I also pointed out that the last time they had been at 5% ( or anywhere near)was in 1977.
see
Britain leaving the ERM had the long term beneficial effect of bringing down interest rates and killing off inflation, much to the benefit of the Labour Government which won the election in 1997, but the resultant recession was the major factor in people losing their jobs and homes.

9 Nov 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
.
I lost my home in the early 90's when interest rates went up to 15%. The economy was bad and the housing market crashed. I lost all my overtime, and then after many months.....lost my house.
Bearing in mind I took the mortgage out at whatever the interest rate was, nowhere near 15%, and that and that alone was the reason I and many others lost their homes. It was not my fault that interest rates almost trebled in such a short space of time.
.

Sorry Kent but interest rates were never at 15% in the early 90s, other than for a very short period on Black Wednesday, 16 Sep 1992. The rate at the beginning of that day was % and the rate increased throughout the day until the Britain crashed out of the ERM and then the rates decreased steadilly and averaged arong 6% until Labour won the election in 1997. The last time rates were at 15% was in Oct 1989 but the last time they were at 5% was in the mid 70s.
In answer to the OPs question, I don't believe the the Government should bail any one out but the mortgage lenders should look to alternatives and only resort to repossession when all other avenues have been explored.
A snipet from Channel 4 news....
Ten per cent-plus interest rates were common during the early and mid eighties, and in September 1988, interest rates were indeed in double digits - although they'd only just reached this level.
Rates hovered between 9 and 7.5 per cent for the first half of 1988, before breaching the two-figure mark on 21 July. By September, it was 12 per cent, and went up another percentage point in November 1988.
Things got worse in 1989, with rates reaching 15 per cent in October. They dropped a percentage point in October 1990, and then continued to drop steadily through 1991, landing at 10.5 per cent in September 1991.
The blackest cloud of interest-rate history - at least in recent memory - floats 16 years ago this month, when the UK crashed out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism on Black Wednesday.
Yep, agree with the snippet from Channel 4 news. What I was trying to point out to you in my post is that interest rates were only at 15% for a few hours in the early 90s, on Black Wednesday. Once Britain had crashed out of the ERM interest rates came down to 12% by the end of the day and thereafter reduced steadily and were in single figures by the end of 1992 have have been ever since. You also stated that interest rates almost trebled in a short space of time but interest rates were in double digits for most of the 80s which is why I also pointed out that the last time they had been at 5% ( or anywhere near)was in 1977.
see
Britain leaving the ERM had the long term beneficial effect of bringing down interest rates and killing off inflation, much to the benefit of the Labour Government which won the election in 1997, but the resultant recession was the major factor in people losing their jobs and homes.

9 Nov 2008

I know they are fair points. I know my attitude seems to be, kick people out. That is not what I am saying.
My whole point is this...in the late 80's early 90,s people lost their homes mainly due to circumstances beyond their control, by very high interest rates and many rises.
The difference we have now to then is that people have not only taken out loans and mortgages to fund a lifestyle they cannot afford, but have also re-mortgaged to buy some of those things. I know people whose houses have risen sharply and taken out 30 grand re-mortgages to buy a new car.
Now and then are completly different circumstances. People now in general have found themselves, a lot of times through their own faults,to have bitten off more than they can chew, when the good times were here, and their houses had trebled. Now things are taking a down turn why should the taxpayer bail out people who have overspent on Plasma tellys and big flash cars, and have used their houses to fund this?

9 Nov 2008

Have to say that I tend to agree with you Kent. The banks have been irresponsible but so have a lot of borrowers, whether it be mortgage or credit card debt. People should have to live up to their responsibilities and it should not be made too easy to walk away from one's debt but at the same time, lenders should also shoulder some of the responsibility and be made to explore all other avenues before resorting to repossession.

9 Nov 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
I know they are fair points. I know my attitude seems to be, kick people out. That is not what I am saying.
My whole point is this...in the late 80's early 90,s people lost their homes mainly due to circumstances beyond their control, by very high interest rates and many rises.
The difference we have now to then is that people have not only taken out loans and mortgages to fund a lifestyle they cannot afford, but have also re-mortgaged to buy some of those things. I know people whose houses have risen sharply and taken out 30 grand re-mortgages to buy a new car.
Now and then are completly different circumstances. People now in general have found themselves, a lot of times through their own faults,to have bitten off more than they can chew, when the good times were here, and their houses had trebled. Now things are taking a down turn why should the taxpayer bail out people who have overspent on Plasma tellys and big flash cars, and have used their houses to fund this?

Who have asked the tax payer to do this dunno

9 Nov 2008

Have to say that I tend to agree with you Kent. The banks have been irresponsible but so have a lot of borrowers, whether it be mortgage or credit card debt. People should have to live up to their responsibilities and it should not be made too easy to walk away from one's debt but at the same time, lenders should also shoulder some of the responsibility and be made to explore all other avenues before resorting to repossession.

9 Nov 2008

Quote by Theladyisaminx
I know they are fair points. I know my attitude seems to be, kick people out. That is not what I am saying.
My whole point is this...in the late 80's early 90,s people lost their homes mainly due to circumstances beyond their control, by very high interest rates and many rises.
The difference we have now to then is that people have not only taken out loans and mortgages to fund a lifestyle they cannot afford, but have also re-mortgaged to buy some of those things. I know people whose houses have risen sharply and taken out 30 grand re-mortgages to buy a new car.
Now and then are completly different circumstances. People now in general have found themselves, a lot of times through their own faults,to have bitten off more than they can chew, when the good times were here, and their houses had trebled. Now things are taking a down turn why should the taxpayer bail out people who have overspent on Plasma tellys and big flash cars, and have used their houses to fund this?

Who have asked the tax payer to do this dunno

Well seeing as the Government has bailed out the banks with OUR money, that being the case has the taxpayer not got a stake in the banks then? :dunno: Is Northern Rock not now owned by the Governement? The Governments money comes from the taxpayer, so anyone with a Northern Rock mortgage is paying that payment back to the Government,AND the taxpayer.
If they have got a stake and the banks help people, then is it not part taxpayer part bank?
So Minxy if a person has overspent and re-mortgaged to fund a lovely lifestyle, and now because of that they want help as they cannot afford their mortgage, are you seriously saying they deserve that help? Because if you are saying that then where is the incentive for people not to overspend?
There has to be a price to pay if people have acted irresponsibly, and we all know thousands have. They are the very people now moaning they cannot pay their mortgages and need help. But I bet those same people have a lovely 4x4 outside their house.
The people who need help and the ones I think should get it, are the families who have not overspent but where one of them has been made redundent, which can happen to anyone at the moment. On that basis by all means I feel the banks should help. Give them a period of say 3 months to sort things out. Maybe renew that time if they are still out of work. I dont think people who have just spent willy nilly on rubbish should be helped.

9 Nov 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
I know they are fair points. I know my attitude seems to be, kick people out. That is not what I am saying.
My whole point is this...in the late 80's early 90,s people lost their homes mainly due to circumstances beyond their control, by very high interest rates and many rises.
The difference we have now to then is that people have not only taken out loans and mortgages to fund a lifestyle they cannot afford, but have also re-mortgaged to buy some of those things. I know people whose houses have risen sharply and taken out 30 grand re-mortgages to buy a new car.
Now and then are completly different circumstances. People now in general have found themselves, a lot of times through their own faults,to have bitten off more than they can chew, when the good times were here, and their houses had trebled. Now things are taking a down turn why should the taxpayer bail out people who have overspent on Plasma tellys and big flash cars, and have used their houses to fund this?

Who have asked the tax payer to do this dunno

Well seeing as the Government has bailed out the banks with OUR money, that being the case has the taxpayer not got a stake in the banks then? :dunno:
If they have got a stake and the banks help people, then is it not part taxpayer part bank?
So Minxy if a person has overspent and re-mortgaged to fund a lovely lifestyle, and now because of that they want help as they cannot afford their mortgage, are you seriously saying they deserve that help? Because if you are saying that then where is the incentive for people not to overspend?
There has to be a price to pay if people have acted irresponsibly, and we all know thousands have. They are the very people now moaning they cannot pay their mortgages and need help. But I bet those same people have a lovely 4x4 outside their house.
I didnt think you would get the point of my op to be honest! wink

And the bit hightlighted isnt always the case either!
I know people that have remorgaged to put their kids through uni to save them getting into debt.
I also know people that have camping holidays and never been abroad and are stuggling.
Not everyone that has remorgaged has done so to have a 4x4 outside I dont know where you live but I know 1 person with one around my area but I know many stuggling in these times.

9 Nov 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
I know they are fair points. I know my attitude seems to be, kick people out. That is not what I am saying.
My whole point is this...in the late 80's early 90,s people lost their homes mainly due to circumstances beyond their control, by very high interest rates and many rises.
The difference we have now to then is that people have not only taken out loans and mortgages to fund a lifestyle they cannot afford, but have also re-mortgaged to buy some of those things. I know people whose houses have risen sharply and taken out 30 grand re-mortgages to buy a new car.
Now and then are completly different circumstances. People now in general have found themselves, a lot of times through their own faults,to have bitten off more than they can chew, when the good times were here, and their houses had trebled. Now things are taking a down turn why should the taxpayer bail out people who have overspent on Plasma tellys and big flash cars, and have used their houses to fund this?

Who have asked the tax payer to do this dunno

Well seeing as the Government has bailed out the banks with OUR money, that being the case has the taxpayer not got a stake in the banks then? :dunno:
If they have got a stake and the banks help people, then is it not part taxpayer part bank?
So Minxy if a person has overspent and re-mortgaged to fund a lovely lifestyle, and now because of that they want help as they cannot afford their mortgage, are you seriously saying they deserve that help? Because if you are saying that then where is the incentive for people not to overspend?
There has to be a price to pay if people have acted irresponsibly, and we all know thousands have. They are the very people now moaning they cannot pay their mortgages and need help. But I bet those same people have a lovely 4x4 outside their house.
The people who need help and the ones I think should get it, are the families who have not overspent but where one of them has been made redundent, which can happen to anyone at the moment. On that basis by all means I feel the banks should help. Give them a period of say 3 months to sort things out. Maybe renew that time if they are still out of work. I dont think people who have just spent willy nilly on rubbish should be helped.
Please remember that many people (the majority possibly) that are saddled with oversized mortgages haven't been swanning round the Caribbean, driving 4x4s and buying designer phones. Many were forced into them by circumstances.
My own was that when my marriage broke up my ex couldn't get a mortgage, the house didn't sell in over a year and neither of us could afford to rent a place as well as pay half the mortgage so I had to buy my ex out. I was lucky enough to get a mortgage at all. Yes it is very expensive, but there was no choice. I suppose we could have sold the house by dropping the price right down, but that was the only savings we had accrued and if that had happened neither of us would have been able to get even a small place.
I'm not a thoughtless, stupid, spendthrift who deserves to lose my home and only savings (that is to top up what will be a starvation-level pension). And, to be honest, so many posts on here, and elsewhere, imply and often state clearly that anyone who loses their home due to not being able to transfer a large mortgage deserve everything they get. And I'm fed up of it.

9 Nov 2008

So Minxy as interest rates have been so low now for years, why are people struggling?
I cannot understand the economics. People earn more now than they ever have. Materialisticly people have more than they ever have had. So on that basis why are people struggling?
Is it not the case people have over spent? Is it not the case the banks have been too quick to borrow, to people that were always going to struggle to pay? When you overspend you only need a little thing to tip you over the edge. We have had Petrol price increases, and gas and electric increses on a huge scale.
I know of 3 people who have handed their keys back in the last 8 months, reason? They have overspent and now cannot afford that lifestyle or their mortgage. Sad but true.

9 Nov 2008

Quote by Theladyisaminx
Who have asked the tax payer to do this

The original post in this thread asked if the Government (taxpayers)should help.
Most of the mortgage lenders have stated their intent to pass on Thursday's full interest rate cut, meaning interest rates will be at a 50 year low. This should help a lot of people. Those who are still struggling to repay mortgages at that level have obviously overstretched themselves, Heaven help them if interest rates moved back to double figures.

9 Nov 2008

I think I know where you are coming from here Flower.
I have been self employed for well over 20 years and paid significant mounts of money into public coffers knowing full well that if ill or unable to work, the State would give me nothing.

9 Nov 2008

Quote by GnV
I think I know where you are coming from here Flower.
I have been self employed for well over 20 years and paid significant mounts of money into public coffers knowing full well that if ill or unable to work, the
State would give me nothing.

I don't know your circumstances GnV, but I'm self employed and I would be entitled to:
Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance
Child Benefit
Guardian's Allowance
Income based Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA)
Industrial Injuries Benefits
Carer's Allowance (formerly Invalid Care Allowance)
Severe Disablement Allowance
Statutory payments (e.g. Statutory sick pay)
and as I pay Class 2 National Insurance (self employed people's National Insurance rate), this entitles me to Maternity Allowance and Incapacity benefit.