Do people who lose thier home cos they can't afford the morgage get thier money back they have paid already?

just curious, I am a private tennant

Sorry but no, mortgage holders who default due to lack of income and who face reposession, get nothing back and lose everything.

The problem here in UK is that during the Thatcher years, she persuaded the population that they could all afford to buy their own homes. She wanted to create what she called "a home owning democracy".

In reality what this meant was that millions of council houses and flats were sold off cheap to their tenants. The plan being that most of these new home owners would then see themselves as 'concervative'.

Now there are few council houses available and that house prices have shot up, the majority of folk, even those earning Â£50K plus, are having problems getting even on the first rung of the housing ladder.

Let me explain it like this. A mere 12 years ago, I purchased my present house for cash for Â£116,000. Today this would probaby get a 1bed flat in a very dodgy area in London.

My house is now valued at Â£480,000 to Â£500,000. There is now house price drop here in London. London house prices continue to rise and it has nothing to do with the UK as a whole. Don't ask me why!

Add to this the nonsense of 'affordable houses'. What does that mean exactly, 'affordable'? If by that the UK.gov is going to encourage greedy developers to build cheaply in swamp areas [flood plains], then there is little or no future in it.

People must understand that their incomes are worth nothing much, even at Â£50K pa.

Let's explain this in real cash values terms. When my house was built in 1937 it cost Â£500 [yes, five hundred pounds] to buy outright. The owners of this house were middle management on average earning about Â£400 to Â£700 a year. You can see how much easier it was for them to buy a house. Even a 25 year mortgage then would have been a doddle.

I've never had a mortgage and purchased by cash. My first house cost me Â£6,000 back in c1967 - can't even get a decent car for that these days. My annual earnings in 1967 were Â£1,200 - not a fortune, but you can see how easy it would have been to pay a mortgage if I had needed one.
I purchased my first house and lived on the ground floor and rented the upper part out to make more money. Greed.

There's damn all wrong with being a tennant. I have a mate who is a millionaire and he never bought a property in his entire life. He prefers the freedom of being a tennant.

Here's something from my youth. In 1953 the then UK.gov a bunch of Conservatives lead by Harold Macmillan, built a total of three million council houses in that single year. I reapt, 3,000,000 million new council homes for the people.

UK.gov today just make me laff. They thieve the people's money with higher grab taxes and give nothing in return. They don't give a damn about us and get grands of Â£15,000 for new bathrooms while there are starving kids in rags in the streets.

We are now living in the land envisioned by Margareth Thatcher with Victorian values, child labour, child prostitution and worse.

No sadly they don't,the Mortgage company will then have to try and re-sell the house to try and pay off the remaining mortgage outstanding on the property.The mortgage company can then try and sue the people that failed to pay the mortgage for the outstanding amount.

No, and why should they? You wouldn't get your rent back if you couldn't afford to pay it anymore would you?!

No mate, the banks seize the property sell it for whatever they can get (usually they are happy just to cover their loan, even if its not sold at its true value), and then the people get whatever is left over, but usually people who have mortgages also have credit cards etc., so everybody puts their hand up and if there is enough left over the people get it, if not the secured loans like houses and cars etc., are seized (unless they are old bombs and under the redbook value) then the other unsecured loans, like credit yard etc., grab their share but it could only be so many cents on the dollar if there is not enough left over after the assets are sold, hope that helps mate, cya!

If the value of the house at sale exceeds the debt, the balance goes to the owner.

As the other posters alluded to, the answer is "kind of, but not usually".

The bank gets priority

Then, comes the former homeowner.

Because properties that have gone into default are often sold cheap, there's usually nothing left for the homeowner.

See the following examples:

1. Payments by homeowner = $10,000 capital paid off
Mortgage amount = $500,000

Price paid for property after default = $350,000
The bank gets the first $490,000 of this ($500k - $10k)
Because the house is sold for less than that amount,
the home owner gets $0

2. Payments by homeowner = $200,000 capital paid off
Mortgage amount = $500,000

Price paid for property after default = $350,000
Bank gets the first $300,000 of this ($500k - $200k)
Because the house is sold for more than the bank's claim, the home owner gets the other $50,000

As if! The money they have already paid was never theirs to begin with -just a loan.

no, it's a total loss for them.

Sorry to say but No they do not

No, and if the bank does not cover the balance owing when they sell the house, you are still responsible for what is still left.

As nice as that would have been, no. Actually the company can sue you for the remaining amount you owe them. Depending on the value of the house, how much you owe and the mood of the judge they could win it. Luckly we beat that one.

No, Bush's rich friends get it.... which is why Bush pushed for these mortgages back in 2003.

Enough Right Wing Lies

Vote Obama!

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment:

Archive: Forum -Forum -Finance - Links - 1 - 2 - RSS - All RSS Feeds
The Causes and the Results. 0.034
Copyright (c) 2011 Financial Crisis Monday, May 28, 2012 - Terms of use - Privacy Policy