The number of homes that were repossessed during the three months to the end of June have soared by 71% compared with a year earlier. The Financial Services Authority said 11,054 homes were repossessed in the three months to the end of June, compared with just 6,476 during the same three months of 2007. Okay, just a few more figures to set the scene.
This number is growing, and I can tell you whom is to blame. Not the mortgagee that's for sure. There are some people out there that manage their money badly and as such they fall behind with the repayments they should never, ever default on.
We are talking about good, honest, hardworking people whom own their own homes, and a considerable amount 'buy to let' investors that are now deeply in debt to the mortgage lenders because their fixed rate mortgage has come to an end and now find themselves on a ridiculous rate of interest, with the mortgage lenders refusing to listen to sense and re-negotiate a deal that works for both them and the mortgagee. Landlords that were servicing their mortgage with the rent, or maybe topping up a little have been slapped with additional payments of anywhere between £400 and £800 a month on top of what they were paying before. The bank of England has dropped rates again, but the lenders refuse to pass it on, Northern Rock being the worse culprit and they are state owned!!
Are mortgagee's going to keep up? How can they? And re-mortgaging to another lender is out of the question as property prices have dropped and there isn't enough equity there. So home owners and 'buy to let' investors are faced with only one option. An option they don't want. Repossession.
Why are the mortgage lenders taking this approach baring in mind that the sales market is practically dead? How to they intend to recover their liability when banks wont lend new money at a good rate unless you have at least 20%? The repossessed property isn't going to sell in this market unless you are giving it away. So the loss would appear to be greater for the lender than having them re-negotiate a new deal. So, whats best? Retain a property and more importantly a steady monthly income from the mortgagee at an acceptable interest rate? or go for repossession, have the property sitting empty because it wont sell or will sell but for less than the mortgage liability?
Retain the property and mortgagee of course. So the question again. Why are the banks repossessing? My thinking is that they have posted their losses to the City and Shareholders and have written the liability off. Therefore, what does it matter. If I am right it's a tragedy, else the mortgagee's are dealing with staff in call centres whom are more interested in what they are having for lunch than actually questioning why the computer say no......
