panorama-housing crisis

barclays evicting a woman from her house after her husband left her and she cant work because of breast cancer. puts things in perspective, what a world where we can do that to someone.

 

What should barclays do? Let her live there for free because she didnt bother to take out insurance against ill health when she signed up for a loan that she could only pay back if she worked?

People get ill, its a fact of life and the reason that such insurance is recommended. People split from their partners, its sad but true and when it happens people expect to possibly have to downsize. Happens to thousands of people if not millions.

 

Over 9k. How could they not come to an arrangement over that? Pigs.

I see SuperTory is back, defending a bank.

 

How is she going to clear 9k in arrears on benefits?

 

I agree with you but ST makes a reasonable point. There is no compassion in business and even less so when the business is a bank.

 

So the tax payer can bail out a failing bank to the tune of 20 billion but it is okay for a lady with cancer to be thrown out of her home over 9k?

 

I didn't say that but they do not make decisions on compassionate grounds.

 

The last thing a bank does with a mortgage is repo once every avenue has been exhausted. Bear in mind as well it will have at before a judge at least once.

 

Then it is about time they fecking did!!

I was not asked if I wanted my taxes given to the Banks, the same ones that caused all the problems in the first place, yet when THEY are in trouble WE the tax payers HAVE to bail them out because they cant do their job properly. Not content with that money, we have to keep giving them billions just so they can give it to businesses that need a loan, only they are not doing that they are sitting on that cash and giving themselves big fat bonuses again, while throwing people out of their homes for the less than what they spend on flowers in a week!!!

CU NTS!!!

 

banks = scum. bailed out by the ppl because they could not keep there house in order. All these bigwigs and brains of the country have not got a clue, it is that hard to brainstorm ideas to help ppl rather than not giving a ****

 

It is harsh, but I agree with SuperTyke on this one - that's the very reason why critical illness insurance exists - if the banks have a change of heart and start letting people off with their mortgage because they have got cancer, let me know and I'll cancel my own insurance - sure I could find other things to do with that £700 a year.

 

Its never going to happen. Whether we like it or not if we don't keep up with repayments on a mortgage, for whatever reason, they will repossess your home. Its sad and causes people a lot of distress especially when they are doing everything they can to keep the roof over their heads. The greatest irony is that many people are now having their homes repossessed because they have lost their jobs due to the economic crisis caused in part by the banks.

 

she bought her council house like the the last 20 years of government policy encouraged. 2 months after her eviction the house was still empty, so the bank threw her into the street so that the taxpayer has to pick up the bill to put her in a crappy flat.

 

Funny how you didn't ask the same question of her husband!

 

she only had trouble because of her cancer, maybe if they waited until she was well enough to go back to work they would get their money?

 

She is already behind by 9k.

By the time she gets back to work it could be double that.

As much as i sympathise with her plight the bank in question will have done everything they can to address the situation over a period upwards of six months unless she handed the house over voluntarily.

 

i am confused by your reply to be honest, either its harsh for a multi billion pound profit company to throw a woman with cancer out of her house and leave it empty for months or it isn't. which one do you agree with?

 

What I am saying is that it is harsh in the sense that life's a bitch, but as someone who believes in personal responsibility, she should have had critical illness insurance like I have got - otherwise why am I paying for insurance to ensure I can cover my mortgage if I get cancer when she gets to stay in her house for free?.

I can understand why you think there should be compassion shown in this case, and it would be a lovely world if we could have that expectation, but it is not a lovely world, it is a bloody harsh world, Barclays is not part of the welfare state, it is a private sector organisation that did not, incidentally, receive any taxpayers money when others were bailed out, and you can't expect it to hang on forever in letting it's losses rack up out of a sense of compassion - the world doesn't work like that.

 

i had my house repoed. i had insurance for health and so called unemployment. i asked several times if the unemployment covered me as i was self employed.on the 4 times i asked they said yes.
i was made redundant 6 years later,tried to activate the unemployment clause,they told me i wasnt covered.

after missing 3 payments they tried to repo and judge said no,i made said payments as agreed with judge but then missed a payment and had the house repossesed.

i was/am thinking of trying to claim through the misold ppi,but as the house was sold at a loss by 8000 pound i dont know what to do its been 2 years and never heard from mortgage company.
should i try to get the ppi back.

 

You should definately go for the PPI...and do it yourself, don't use one of these firms who take a cut as I believe it's easy to do it yourself. Yoou clearly have a case that you were mis-sold it, many people have been paid out when they weren't even mis-sold, I confounded one caller when I told them that I know what I was signing up for and I wasn't mis-sold.

One question though - how were you made redundant when you were self-employed?