Is it morally right to buy a repossessed house?

Catkins407

Would you buy a property if you knew it had been repossessed? My friend has just looked at one that's very very cheap and she is thinking of buying it. Now in fairness it's for her daughter who is a single parent and who has just been diagnosed with a life long illness so she is just trying to provide a stable home for her and her grandson.

She is really torn about this and I am no help as I really wouldn't buy a property that had been repossessed .

A Primal Nut

Honestly the person bought a house they couldn't afford. They took a gamble didn't pay off. At least now they aren't burdened with that property and can move on with their lives. Guarantee those same people would be the first to buy a cheap repossessed house if they still had the opportunity.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Absolutely.

/thread.

rob316

Why not, its not your fault the previous owner fell behind on payments. Take what you can out there today is what I say. I owned two reposessed cars before never once bothered me.

Gatling

Don't see what morals come into it ,

Buy the house and let your daughter enjoy the security of a permanent home

Senna

Repossession would make no difference to my decision, why would it?

mister bishi

one mans loss is another mans luck

Glenbhoy

Is it morally right to continue to live in a property on which you have long since stopped honouring your side of the agreement?

Glenbhoy

If the same property had gone up in value instead of down, would the owner have distributed his gains throughout the community? Is it morally wrong to profit from the purchase and sell of a home?

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Why would anyone want to buy a house that has been haunted twice?

DEFTLEFTHAND

It's a business transaction. Morals have no place in commerce, that's the way of the world, you get the best deal you can.

Catkins407

Well when I bought my own house years ago one of the other houses was repossessed a few years after it was bought . The neighbours kind of went bananas if anyone viewed it and tried to stop anyone else buying it. I couldn't understand it but didn't really know the people who had owned the house. In the end an investor bought it and rented it out. The neighbours tried to give the tenants the cold shoulder but it didn't really work as the tenants didn't care and weren't looking to make friends. By the time it was rented again the neighbours had given up. I just wondered if that still was the case? I don't have any other experience besides that to be honest.

Catkins407

Praetorian Saighdiuir wrote: »

Why would anyone want to buy a house that has been haunted twice?

Can u feck off and not made me laugh tonight please? I pulled a muscle and my side is killing me lol

namloc1980

Where do morals come into this?

Glenbhoy

Catkins407 wrote: »

Can u feck off and not made me laugh tonight please? I pulled a muscle and my side is killing me lol

One of the best I've seen in a long time!!

woodoo

I would have no problem with it. If they are put out of the house because they can't afford it the bank is for taking it anyway no matter what you do.

md23040

What's morally worse buying a repossessed house or selling your property before the bust to a greater fool.

There's no difference, neither are wrong. With any speculative product, be it shares, gold, property or whatever that is subject to the vagrancies of the market there will always be winners and losers and its best to be on the right side.

How can a market recover if people reacted sentimentally in such circumstances as the OP described.

The one sure outcome if people decided not to purchase on such emotive grounds would ultimately led to a lot more pain and suffering as the whole capital system would collapse.

Unless you prefer another economic system I'd just get the cheque book out and do what's right.

NuckingFacker

Just use the drug dealers justification-"sure if I don't, someone else will". It covers a multitude, sadly.

bnt

Morals? It's a house, a machine for living in. If it's not going to be used for its intended purpose, you may as well tear it down and plant some trees in its place.

That story of the neighbours trying to ostracise the new family is just bizarre. The new family didn't evict the old family, nor were they profiting from the eviction. You don't have a right to live in a property for which you can't afford the mortgage. The only way I can see a 40-year mortgage making sense to someone is by assuming that they're assuming they'll be selling at a profit long before the 40 years are up. Property only ever increases in value, right? :rolleyes:

Sparklygirl

Generally speaking I would find it hard to buy a house very cheap under such circumstances. However, a Mother is buying for her daughter who has been kicked hard in life- twice. Being a single Mother is the most difficult job in the world, and having a life long illness is awful. She deserves a break, and if anything good can come out of someone elses misfortune, maybe this is it. I hope she gets the house.

Carlos Orange

Catkins407 wrote: »

She is really torn about this and I am no help as I really wouldn't buy a property that had been repossessed .

Is it morally right to leave a repossessed home empty?

Kichote

Banks are so crooked its morally wrong to support them in any way at all. Not that its possible to not support them but one has to try

Mickey H

Catkins407 wrote: »

Can u feck off and not made me laugh tonight please? I pulled a muscle and my side is killing me lol

2 Nurofen Plus will clear that right up. Then you can laugh away all night long.

Jester252

I didn't stop paying the loan in the first nor did I kick out the previous owners. Why should I feel bad?

Del2005

Catkins407 wrote: »

Well when I bought my own house years ago one of the other houses was repossessed a few years after it was bought . The neighbours kind of went bananas if anyone viewed it and tried to stop anyone else buying it. I couldn't understand it but didn't really know the people who had owned the house. In the end an investor bought it and rented it out. The neighbours tried to give the tenants the cold shoulder but it didn't really work as the tenants didn't care and weren't looking to make friends. By the time it was rented again the neighbours had given up. I just wondered if that still was the case? I don't have any other experience besides that to be honest.

So someone couldn't afford their home and it got repossessed and the neighbours in their infinite wisdom decided that it was better to lumber the people who couldn't afford the house with a bigger debt. It's not like the debt disappears when a house is repossessed so if it's not sold then the evicted people have a double mill stone of having to rent somewhere and have a huge debt hanging over them

Kichote wrote: »

Banks are so crooked its morally wrong to support them in any way at all. Not that its possible to not support them but one has to try

The banks didn't force anyone to take out a loan. People lied to banks to get bigger loans than they could afford, the banks didn't do enough checks but it's the person who lied on the application who did wrong. Now what they bought isn't worth what they though and they can't afford it it's somehow the banks fault.

fasttalkerchat

Repossessed houses taking longer to sell won't reduce number of houses being repossessed.
Provided that the previous residents have left, the history shouldn't come into it.

bennyob

Simples.....Yes!!!!

IM0

of course! Its not her fault! - dont look a gift horse in the mouth

Weird. I wouldn't have ever considered in a moral issue.

belcampprisoner

I pulled a muscle


it must be small

Norwesterner

On the day we looked aghast at photos of bankrupt Ger Killally's mansion you ask this question???
Some people out there own 3,4, or 5 BTL's and are not paying a dime (whilst pocketing the rent).
Would I feel bad about someone buying these repos, paying the mortgage and acting like a normal citizen??
I'd have no problem buying a repo whatsoever. It's not like the land league days.

Catphish

Catkins407 wrote: »

Would you buy a property if you knew it had been repossessed? My friend has just looked at one that's very very cheap and she is thinking of buying it. Now in fairness it's for her daughter who is a single parent and who has just been diagnosed with a life long illness so she is just trying to provide a stable home for her and her grandson.

She is really torn about this and I am no help as I really wouldn't buy a property that had been repossessed .

A repossessed house is owned by the mortgage lender, so wouldn't really have any problem with buying one. I understand this is an emotive issue for anybody who is currently being threatened to have their home taken off them, but surely the torture of repossession looming over them would make them glad to see the back of it. I'm not in that position, but I am trying to put it as sensitively as I can. Having any kind of debt, mortgage or otherwise hanging over you when you can't repay it for most means they can't put their head on their pillow at night because they're constantly fretting over it. I can't claim to have ever been in such debt as that, but I would have taken out far smaller loans in the past while working then when in between jobs you struggle to keep up. It's really not a nice feeling at all, and you do worry about it.

The elephant in the room here is, well there is bargains to be had for anyone now in the position to buy a home. We're currently in the throes of house hunting at the moment, and one house in particular has our eye. Now, the house hasn't been repossessed or anything, the owners still live there. But the thought did cross my mind was it financial constraints that meant they have to move. I can tell that the house was at some point worth not too far off 200k MORE 'back in the day'. I can also vaguely find out on line when it was bought too, and it was just when the arse fell out of the bucket in this country, so still mad money.

The information given to me by the estate agent was that they were keen to sell, and I know we're keen to buy. Like I said, it's an emotive issue, but I think there is a possibility that we may be removing a noose from around their necks if we do go ahead with it. It's an uneasy feeling, but if everyone was to back off buying houses because they got emotionally involved houses would probably end up in the banks hands anyway.

galwayrush

A family near me who bought a repossessed house endured 5 years of hostility from neighbours and eventually had to sell it on for a loss.

twowheelsonly

galwayrush wrote: »

A family near me who bought a repossessed house endured 5 years of hostility from neighbours and eventually had to sell it on for a loss.

I've seen two versions of this. One recent and the second back in the late 80s'/Early 90s'.

One was a 'lovely decent hard-working' family that everyone got on well with and felt sorry for when they hit hard times. A lot of people were outraged when they lost their house and some tried to put buyers off.

The other was an arrogant pompous a*****e who fought with everyone and had a 'better than thou' attitude. He still worked hard though, even if he didn't pay the bills. Nobody gave a toss when he was eventually evicted and some even allowed themselves a little smile.

Basically both were in the same situation but the reactions to both were miles apart!


To the OP, I'd go ahead and buy. As someone else said, it's bricks and mortar - a commodity. People buy second hand stuff on Done Deal every day without question. Some of those are prized possessions that people are forced to sell, some are liquidated stock from bankrupt companies that have been hit by the recession. Buying and selling is always of benefit to someone.

Catphish

galwayrush wrote: »

A family near me who bought a repossessed house endured 5 years of hostility from neighbours and eventually had to sell it on for a loss.

Thats a bit stupid considering the new home owners were not the ones that forced them out. The mentality behind that is just baffling.

DEFTLEFTHAND

You'll have bad luck, the home will haunted etc, Ree RAW, im from rural Ireland I know the tricks, if it doesn't have a Fairy Fort I'm buying it.

However I would never touch a property which had one, there's some things you don't do. It's not a conscience just an ancient superstition passed down to me. You'll find that a lot of rural folk feel the same way, the forts aren't to be messed with.

Cee-Jay-Cee

its not a moral issue. if the house isn't bought then it'll lie there vacant and fall into a state of disrepair, what's the point in that? If it makes goood business sense to buy t then buy it, its not like the previous owners will be given t back if no one buys it.

lazygal

I want a house that's priced to sell, couldn't care less about why its for sale. Morals have nothing to do with repossession, oversubscribing to credit is the problem.

Grayson

Catphish wrote: »

The elephant in the room here is, well there is bargains to be had for anyone now in the position to buy a home. We're currently in the throes of house hunting at the moment, and one house in particular has our eye. Now, the house hasn't been repossessed or anything, the owners still live there. But the thought did cross my mind was it financial constraints that meant they have to move. I can tell that the house was at some point worth not too far off 200k MORE 'back in the day'. I can also vaguely find out on line when it was bought too, and it was just when the arse fell out of the bucket in this country, so still mad money.

That's true. there are so many people who hadn't a chance at buying a house back in the celtic tiger days who now have a chance to own their own home. There are two (well 4 if you look at the combinations) ways of looking at this. Buyers can be seen as people finally getting a chance to own a home or ruthless profiteers. Sellers can be viewed as people who over stretched their finances or as people having their homes repossessed by ruthless banks. the truth is probably in the middle for most buyers/sellers.

hfallada

Is the OP for real? In the US in places like Florida with 12% of houses repossessed, what are the banks supposed to do? Just let them sit there. No they sell them and recover some losses

Catkins407

Well the house has been empty for about 3 years maybe 4 . It's in need of repair but nothing structural. It's perfect for her daughter. She decided as cheap as it was she was going well in under the asking price and made an offer yesterday evening . She didn't expect it to be accepted but they rang her 9.01 this morning to say it has been. We went out this morning and spoke to some of the neighbours. Doesn't seem to be any ill will. Most delighted to see a family going back in there. She even got the name of a good local builder.

She's not getting a mortgage. This money is her share of her parents estate so it has to stretch to cover everything as there isn't any more for this project.
I am nervous for her in relation to the renovation. I thought I had done my homework with my builder and my budget and so on but I still got done by him. He screwed me wholesale and all the work is falling apart bit by bit over the last 3 years.

KilOit

Yeah of course! Sure it worked out great in the movie 'the house of sand and fog'

Catphish

Grayson wrote: »

That's true. there are so many people who hadn't a chance at buying a house back in the celtic tiger days who now have a chance to own their own home. There are two (well 4 if you look at the combinations) ways of looking at this. Buyers can be seen as people finally getting a chance to own a home or ruthless profiteers. Sellers can be viewed as people who over stretched their finances or as people having their homes repossessed by ruthless banks. the truth is probably in the middle for most buyers/sellers.

Well this is it. My OH almost bought an apartment in the boom years prior to meeting me, but backed out at the last minute. Undoubtedly these apartments would be very over priced in todays market. There was a hell of a lot of pressure then to get on the property market from the 'you would be a fool not to' sorts. I almost bought with my ex at the time, thankfully I backed out too.

Myself and my OH have been looking at places together in what I would call a fairer market. We're not interested in expensive houses, just houses that we can see ourselves getting out of a mortgage quickly and can have a decent standard of living after the monthly payments are made.

People form understandable attachments to their homes, but if the mortgage holders (not full owners of the property) cannot afford the repayments then letting go of the property is the only realistic option they have. Living within your means is a rule everyone should live by. Being bitter towards other people just trying to find a home of their own is unreasonable and quite frankly silly.

wendell borton

"It's the kind of house they don't build any more, a relic of a time" before the bubble burst.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fSqS0MrOZ0

weldoninhio

Catkins407 wrote: »

Can u feck off and not made me laugh tonight please? I pulled a muscle and my side is killing me lol

You've bigger problems than a pulled muscle if you thought that was funny

gutteruu

We bought a repo'd house last year. Don't see the problem to be honest. House was vacant for a while so the neighbours were happy to have someone take care of it again. Any issues are between the bank and previous owner. It has nothing to do with anyone else.

Brownhead

If NOBODY bought repossessed houses the banks would stop accepting houses as security. There would be no mortgages. All houses would have to be cash purchases. How many would be keen on that system?

corktina

Repossed house? You need Reghostbusters! (who you going to recall?)

Gorilla Rising

Of course it is!

I can't believe this is even a discussion. Ridiculous.

As for the bitter neighbours giving the new buyers the cold shoulder, well, that's just pathetic. Sad, sad human beings.