Refusing a split mortgage?

flix1

Hi there,
I'm curious has anyone been offered a split mortgage and refused it on the grounds that the solution offered by the bank does not represent a real solution, it merely puts off a problem till you are 80. If you did...what happened? especially with KBC customers.

Id love to hear your experience
Thanks y'all

D3PO

I don't think anybody in the position of being in arrears and having no way of getting out of it on their own has any rights to refuse a split mortgage.

if you don't want a split mortgage pay what you owe or apply for bankruptcy.

flix1

Hi D3PO...very helpful advice there for someone. Unfortunately it appears that you have misread the question posted.

D3PO

it wasn't advise it was an opinion.

somebody that cant pay their mortgage isn't in a position to dictate how their issue should be handled. If you want to control things the way to do it is to stick to your ogirginal agreement with the bank.

so if you or whoever refuses the split mortgage on no other basis than you don't like the idea of it (not a real solution) then what exactly is your counter proposal ? Let me guess debt writeoff so you get to keep your nice house and don't take any pain at all whilst the rest of the taxpayers in the country subsidise your lifestyle ?

Genuine question.

flix1

if you don't want a split mortgage pay what you owe or apply for bankruptcy.

Your "advice" above is very helpful and insightful with a clear amount of dedicated reflection by you prior to your response.

It does appear from your last reply that you are having difficulty interpreting the question posted. Thank you so much for your effort...your attempt to understand the question is appreciated.

D3PO

so again what would your counterproposal be to the split mortgage ? Or do you just think it should be refused and the mortgagee continue to fall further into arrears ?

If you genuinely believe its not a viable solution surely you have one to propose.

D3PO

flix1 wrote: »

It does appear from your last reply that you are having difficulty interpreting the question posted. Thank you so much for your effort...your attempt to understand the question is appreciated.

it also appears your having difficulty interpreting the difference between opinion and advise despite it being clearly stated my post was the former rather than the latter.

Thanks so much for your effort ... your attempt to understand the response is appreciated.

whippet

flix1 wrote: »

Hi there,
I'm curious has anyone been offered a split mortgage and refused it on the grounds that the solution offered by the bank does not represent a real solution, it merely puts off a problem till you are 80. If you did...what happened? especially with KBC customers.

Id love to hear your experience
Thanks y'all

Only KBC can answer your questions with any accuracy.

However, I would imagine should you choose to reject the offer they have made they could consider repossession as it would show an unwillingness on your part to pay the mortgage.

flix1

I guess they could could, but I'd rather consideration be given to more realistic options rather than just kicking the issue down the road. Bankruptcy is most likely the solution and one that is currently being prepared for, however just wondering if anyone has had any experience of the middle ground between these 2 solutions.

J.P.M

D3PO wrote: »

it wasn't advise it was an opinion.

somebody that cant pay their mortgage isn't in a position to dictate how their issue should be handled. If you want to control things the way to do it is to stick to your ogirginal agreement with the bank.

so if you or whoever refuses the split mortgage on no other basis than you don't like the idea of it (not a real solution) then what exactly is your counter proposal ? Let me guess debt writeoff so you get to keep your nice house and don't take any pain at all whilst the rest of the taxpayers in the country subsidise your lifestyle ?

Genuine question.

Really? ITG

D3PO

flix1 wrote: »

I guess they could could, but I'd rather consideration be given to more realistic options rather than just kicking the issue down the road. Bankruptcy is most likely the solution and one that is currently being prepared for, however just wondering if anyone has had any experience of the middle ground between these 2 solutions.

what middle ground are you referring to ?

JimiTime

flix1 wrote: »

Hi there,
I'm curious has anyone been offered a split mortgage and refused it on the grounds that the solution offered by the bank does not represent a real solution, it merely puts off a problem till you are 80. If you did...what happened? especially with KBC customers.

Id love to hear your experience
Thanks y'all

Unfortunately I can't offer any experience, but is this not what the personal insolvency thing was supposed to sort out? I hope you get something sorted for yourself.

Eldarion

flix1 wrote: »

I guess they could could, but I'd rather consideration be given to more realistic options rather than just kicking the issue down the road. Bankruptcy is most likely the solution and one that is currently being prepared for, however just wondering if anyone has had any experience of the middle ground between these 2 solutions.

The split mortgage IS the middle ground you're looking for between those 2...

I think the bank has gone above and beyond what they need to do in such instances, no one forced anyone into such arrangements. What kind of solution are you looking for? Debt write off?

Can I borrow 100k from you to buy an Audi A8? Then in a few years can we forget half the debt since it's not worth the same as what I paid for it? I think we should be able to find a middle ground here somewhere...

djimi

My understanding of a split mortgage is that they cut the amount owed in two; you continue to pay one half for the agreed term and the other half if then owed in full at the end - is this correct?

I can see where you are coming from with your concerns, but to honest it doesnt sound like a bad compromise. I would assume the aim of such an agreement is that at some point in the not too distant future you would hopefully be in a position to start paying more off the mortgage, so you can be in a position to sort out the remainder before it has to be repaid in full?

Its a fairer solution than suggesting reductions or anything like that.

D3PO

djimi wrote: »

My understanding of a split mortgage is that they cut the amount owed in two; you continue to pay one half for the agreed term and the other half if then owed in full at the end - is this correct?

I can see where you are coming from with your concerns, but to honest it doesnt sound like a bad compromise. I would assume the aim of such an agreement is that at some point in the not too distant future you would hopefully be in a position to start paying more off the mortgage, so you can be in a position to sort out the remainder before it has to be repaid in full?

Its a fairer solution than suggesting reductions or anything like that.

that's exactly the concept Djimi.

The idea being that hopefully the borrower will be in an improved position in future to tackle the second half of the mortgage, or with the reducing capital on the first portion plus what would be hoped appreciate of the asset over the medium term even just inflationary that the second half can be tackled in the future.

Clearly the figures and detail would determine if its viable as it wont be 100% of the time but I find it hard to belive the bank would offer it in a scenario where its completely unrealistic as a restructuring alternative.

and even if it is borderline its sure as hell a better option than letting an arrears buildup continue.

Id question if the OP is right in their assertion that the deal on the table isn't representative of a real solution and its certainly better than their as is solution, but if they believe something else exists that is more mutually beneficial then Im all ears and have asked twice in the thread but they refuse to answer.

meaning to me that this is the best solution that addresses both parties needs and if the OP isn't happy with it it means that they need to find a solution that just addresses their need i.e bankruptcy

djimi

If bankruptcy is the alternative then surely the smart move is to accept these terms and deal with the possibility of bankruptcy at the end of the mortgage term if you still cant clear the amount owed? If nothing else, it buys more time and keeps you out of bankruptcy, which should be the number one aim above all others I would have thought?

professore

whippet wrote: »

Only KBC can answer your questions with any accuracy.

However, I would imagine should you choose to reject the offer they have made they could consider repossession as it would show an unwillingness on your part to pay the mortgage.

They won't consider repossession until they are sure that you can't or won't pay and they can sell your house for more than the outstanding amount. Otherwise it blows a hole in their balance sheet.

I think with this split mortgage they will get the poor suckers paying something, then when inflation / the next housing bubble comes along, they will ask for the full amount of the "parked" part and those who can't pay up will be on the side of the road.

professore

djimi wrote: »

If bankruptcy is the alternative then surely the smart move is to accept these terms and deal with the possibility of bankruptcy at the end of the mortgage term if you still cant clear the amount owed? If nothing else, it buys more time and keeps you out of bankruptcy, which should be the number one aim above all others I would have thought?

Have a clean slate after 3 years vs paying back a debt until you die (and possibly your children)? I know which one I'd choose !!!!!

professore

Eldarion wrote: »

Can I borrow 100k from you to buy an Audi A8? Then in a few years can we forget half the debt since it's not worth the same as what I paid for it? I think we should be able to find a middle ground here somewhere...

If you have no means of paying it back, has the lender no responsibility for lending the 100K to you in the first place? Are they blameless and protected fully by the law, regardless what they do, while you are followed for the rest of your life? See I wouldn't lend you 100K, there's the difference.

D3PO

professore wrote: »

They won't consider repossession until they are sure that you can't or won't pay and they can sell your house for more than the outstanding amount. Otherwise it blows a hole in their balance sheet.

Repossession doesn't blow a hole in their balance sheet. Writing off debt from whatever is left after the sale of the repossession does ... which they don't have to do.

Which the bank wouldn't do unless they genuinely cannot see any other way forward.

I think with this split mortgage they will get the poor suckers paying something, then when inflation / the next housing bubble comes along, they will ask for the full amount of the "parked" part and those who can't pay up will be on the side of the road.

How does that make them suckers ? If as you suggest inflation would allow full repayment in the future then its incumbent on the bank to take this approach as its a sustainable solution whereby they wont los eout financially.

It also means the mortgage holder has a long term workable solution and gets to keep their home ...

D3PO

professore wrote: »

Have a clean slate after 3 years vs paying back a debt until you die (and possibly your children)? I know which one I'd choose !!!!!

Firstly you would have life assurance which would clear the outstanding mortgage in the event of a debt. Secondly a debt cannot be passed onto your children, there may be no estate to divvy up if there was debt but there equally would be nothing for their children to pay.

D3PO

professore wrote: »

If you have no means of paying it back, has the lender no responsibility for lending the 100K to you in the first place? Are they blameless and protected fully by the law, regardless what they do, while you are followed for the rest of your life?

Yes that's the long and short of it. The onus is on the borrower.

We don't offer non recourse mortgages. Knowing what that means would mean that you may make a more meaningful contribution to this thread as all your comments unfortunately indicate you really don't know how mortgages work in this country.

professore

D3PO wrote: »

How does that make them suckers ? If as you suggest inflation would allow full repayment in the future then its incumbent on the bank to take this approach as its a sustainable solution whereby they wont los eout financially.

It also means the mortgage holder has a long term workable solution and gets to keep their home ...

You ignored my point about the bank waiting until IT MAKES FINANCIAL SENSE for them to demand repayment in full. The bank is not a charity - so don't paint the deal it is offering as some sort of charity.

musicfan1ie

professore wrote: »

If you have no means of paying it back, has the lender no responsibility for lending the 100K to you in the first place? Are they blameless and protected fully by the law, regardless what they do, while you are followed for the rest of your life? See I wouldn't lend you 100K, there's the difference.

You miss the point of a mortgage. By your logic, no bank would ever grant a mortgage. Say I earn 50k for this mortgage of 100k. I can comfortably repay this so long as I have a job. Anybody can lose a job, regardless of their salary or stage of career. Potentially, this mortgage falls into arrears. The bank can't foresee this, neither can the borrower.

djimi

professore wrote: »

Have a clean slate after 3 years vs paying back a debt until you die (and possibly your children)? I know which one I'd choose !!!!!

Its not exactly an easy three years though is it, and correct me if Im wrong but your record of bankruptcy doesnt just go away once your debts are cleared?

djimi

professore wrote: »

If you have no means of paying it back, has the lender no responsibility for lending the 100K to you in the first place? Are they blameless and protected fully by the law, regardless what they do, while you are followed for the rest of your life? See I wouldn't lend you 100K, there's the difference.

This is one of those things that has really annoyed me the past few years. Why would the lender have any responsibility towards you for lending you the money? Did they do so with a gun to your head? Ultimately the borrower is the one who went to the lender to borrow X amount, and ultimately it is up to them to ensure that they can pay it back. It might sound harsh, but its the reality.

professore

D3PO wrote: »

Yes that's the long and short of it. The onus is on the borrower.

We don't offer non recourse mortgages. Knowing what that means would mean that you may make a more meaningful contribution to this thread as all your comments unfortunately indicate you really don't know how mortgages work in this country.

I certainly do know how they work. I'm making the point that it's a ridiculous situation that the banks have some sort of exalted position compared to other businesses in Ireland. No other company directors could have acted so irresponsibly with no criminal consequences as the banks did. It was the very definition of reckless trading.

“297A.—(1) If in the course of winding up of a company or in the course of proceedings under the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1990 , it appears that—

(a) any person was, while an officer of the company, knowingly a party to the carrying on of any business of the company in a reckless manner; or

(b) any person was knowingly a party to the carrying on of any business of the company with intent to defraud creditors of the company, or creditors of any other person or for any fraudulent purpose;

the court, on the application of the receiver, examiner, liquidator or any creditor or contributory of the company, may, if it thinks it proper to do so, declare that such person shall be personally responsible, without any limitation of liability, for all or any part of the debts or other liabilities of the company as the court may direct.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) (a), an officer of a company shall be deemed to have been knowingly a party to the carrying on of any business of the company in a reckless manner if—

(a) he was a party to the carrying on of such business and, having regard to the general knowledge, skill and experience that may reasonably be expected of a person in his position, he ought to have known that his actions or those of the company would cause loss to the creditors of the company, or any of them,

djimi

professore wrote: »

I certainly do know how they work. I'm making the point that it's a ridiculous situation that the banks have some sort of exalted position compared to other businesses in Ireland. No other company directors could have acted so irresponsibly with no criminal consequences as the banks did. It was the very definition of reckless trading.

I think you are starting to veer off into irrelevant territory here. What has banks reckless trading got to do with how much people were borrowing from banks and their ability to repay it?

professore

musicfan1ie wrote: »

You miss the point of a mortgage. By your logic, no bank would ever grant a mortgage. Say I earn 50k for this mortgage of 100k. I can comfortably repay this so long as I have a job. Anybody can lose a job, regardless of their salary or stage of career. Potentially, this mortgage falls into arrears. The bank can't foresee this, neither can the borrower.

That's why the house is there, it can be repossessed. That's what person giving you the loan is supposed to be skilled in - risk assessment. Force people to take out loss of income insurance? Bankruptcy is always a possibility?

professore

djimi wrote: »

I think you are starting to veer off into irrelevant territory here. What has banks reckless trading got to do with how much people were borrowing from banks and their ability to repay it?

How were they able to borrow from the banks in the first place? Fair enough, a couple or individual with a good savings record and good career prospects given a reasonable mortgage amount - by all means pursue them to the nth degree. But the case of johnny bricklayer left school at 16 to work on the buildings, giving him a mortgage for €350K? Please !!! You're telling me he's the irresponsible one?

djimi

professore wrote: »

How were they able to borrow from the banks in the first place? Fair enough, a couple or individual with a good savings record and good career prospects given a reasonable mortgage amount - by all means pursue them to the nth degree. But the case of johnny bricklayer left school at 16 to work on the buildings, giving him a mortgage for €350K? Please !!! You're telling me he's the irresponsible one?

Yes, I am. The borrower should know if they can repay the mortgage or not, and the risk involved if their circumstances should change for the worse. If you are earning €25k a year and you get offered a mortgage of €350k (hypothetically of course) then you are the one who is agreeing to the repayment conditions, so its up to you know if you can afford them. Not the bank or anybody else. People need to start taking responsibilities for their actions.

professore

Back on topic.

Look, I'm a big believer in personal responsibility and paying your debts. But if you cannot pay your debts, there has to be another option. It shouldn't be easy, but it should be there.

A 3 year bankruptcy would seems the best option to me, if I were in that situation (thankfully not) and better than a "death by 1000 cuts" split mortgage. Also I simply would not trust the bank, there is nothing or no-one going to stop them doing something like taking your home in a few years time when it's worth more to them to do so. The previous years have shown they can literally get away with anything.

Also the banks are partially culpable in this mess. So they should be open to get some of their money back.

flix1

I'd like to thank you all for you input. So it may be helpful to explain. There is an overtone in some of these messages that appears to indicate that I'm trying to strategically default. The reality of it is job loss....I lost my job. When I bought the house, I could and did repay it regularly, on time and in full. I was lucky enough to find work that pays so low that I can't even meet the interest only requirements. The bank wants me to do the split mortgage, they dictated the amount of the split and how much I need to pay. The reality is that I can't even meet this amount. I now have a baby as well, so my circumstances have financially got worse. My question is that yes I'm prepared to go bankrupt...this is the most obvious solution at this stage. However I was hoping that there may be an option somewhere between this 'split' mortgage solution and bankruptcy. I don't want to go straight to bankruptcy as my first resort. Id appreciate more advice..and less judgement.

professore

djimi wrote: »

Yes, I am. The borrower should know if they can repay the mortgage or not, and the risk involved if their circumstances should change for the worse. If you are earning €25k a year and you get offered a mortgage of €350k (hypothetically of course) then you are the one who is agreeing to the repayment conditions, so its up to you know if you can afford them. Not the bank or anybody else. People need to start taking responsibilities for their actions.

So should the lender. At the end of the day, if our hypothetical case above loses his job, and goes on the dole for the rest of his life, there is no way he can repay the mortgage barring some miracle. I'm not arguing that he shouldn't have to pay it back - just that he can't. Bank has to take a hit in that case.

djimi

professore wrote: »

So should the lender. At the end of the day, if our hypothetical case above loses his job, and goes on the dole for the rest of his life, there is no way he can repay the mortgage barring some miracle. I'm not arguing that he shouldn't have to pay it back - just that he can't. Bank has to take a hit in that case.

But why should the bank have to take a hit? I know that ultimately they probably will, but why shouldnt they be able to do everything legally in their power to reclaim every penny they are owed?

The way I see it, its not different to any other financial transaction. If I have a BMW dealership and someone comes in looking to buy a car for €80k, do I have any responsibility to them to ensure that they can afford it? I dont see how its any different for a lender selling mortgages.

professore

flix1 wrote: »

I'd like to thank you all for you input. So it may be helpful to explain. There is an overtone in some of these messages that appears to indicate that I'm trying to strategically default. The reality of it is job loss....I lost my job. When I bought the house, I could and did repay it regularly, on time and in full. I was lucky enough to find work that pays so low that I can't even meet the interest only requirements. The bank wants me to do the split mortgage, they dictated the amount of the split and how much I need to pay. The reality is that I can't even meet this amount. I now have a baby as well, so my circumstances have financially got worse. My question is that yes I'm prepared to go bankrupt...this is the most obvious solution at this stage. However I was hoping that there may be an option somewhere between this 'split' mortgage solution and bankruptcy. I don't want to go straight to bankruptcy as my first resort. Id appreciate more advice..and less judgement.

Sorry to hear that OP. My advice: just tell them what you just said here. If they say "no" then go bankrupt. That's your "big stick" and the last thing they want. It's like looking for a pay rise and not getting one until you get a job offer somewhere else.

Unfortunately you will lose your house but at the end of the day, it's only a house. It will give you a chance for a fresh start.

Good luck!

professore

djimi wrote: »

But why should the bank have to take a hit? I know that ultimately they probably will, but why shouldnt they be able to do everything legally in their power to reclaim every penny they are owed?

The way I see it, its not different to any other financial transaction. If I have a BMW dealership and someone comes in looking to buy a car for €80k, do I have any responsibility to them to ensure that they can afford it? I dont see how its any different for a lender selling mortgages.

None of you have obviously ran a business. IF you go for all or nothing with people in trouble you'll mostly end up with nothing.

djimi

flix1 wrote: »

I'd like to thank you all for you input. So it may be helpful to explain. There is an overtone in some of these messages that appears to indicate that I'm trying to strategically default. The reality of it is job loss....I lost my job. When I bought the house, I could and did repay it regularly, on time and in full. I was lucky enough to find work that pays so low that I can't even meet the interest only requirements. The bank wants me to do the split mortgage, they dictated the amount of the split and how much I need to pay. The reality is that I can't even meet this amount. I now have a baby as well, so my circumstances have financially got worse. My question is that yes I'm prepared to go bankrupt...this is the most obvious solution at this stage. However I was hoping that there may be an option somewhere between this 'split' mortgage solution and bankruptcy. I don't want to go straight to bankruptcy as my first resort. Id appreciate more advice..and less judgement.

Have you tried negotiating a lower repayment rate with regards to the split mortgage? It doesnt seem very smart of them to suggest a solution like this and then demand terms that cant be met.

djimi

professore wrote: »

None of you have obviously ran a business. IF you go for all or nothing with people in trouble you'll mostly end up with nothing.

Im not talking about the practicalities of chasing money; Im well aware that it may require a negotiation in order to get paid.

My main gripe is with this attitude that a lot of people seem to have that the banks gave the money out so they should be partially responsible if it cant be repaid. Its not a right that any borrower has to ever expect their debt to be reduced just because they bit off more than they could chew initially.

lima

flix1 wrote: »

I'd like to thank you all for you input. So it may be helpful to explain. There is an overtone in some of these messages that appears to indicate that I'm trying to strategically default. The reality of it is job loss....I lost my job. When I bought the house, I could and did repay it regularly, on time and in full. I was lucky enough to find work that pays so low that I can't even meet the interest only requirements. The bank wants me to do the split mortgage, they dictated the amount of the split and how much I need to pay. The reality is that I can't even meet this amount. I now have a baby as well, so my circumstances have financially got worse. My question is that yes I'm prepared to go bankrupt...this is the most obvious solution at this stage. However I was hoping that there may be an option somewhere between this 'split' mortgage solution and bankruptcy. I don't want to go straight to bankruptcy as my first resort. Id appreciate more advice..and less judgement.

If the baby was planned then I have to say it is not a good thing to bring a child into your world. It seems in Ireland it''s 'Have a baby and worry about affording one after'

flix1

lima wrote: »

If the baby was planned then I have to say it is not a good thing to bring a child into your world. It seems in Ireland it''s 'Have a baby and worry about affording one after'

I'd like to thank you for your helpful judgement of my life...how easy it is for you to sit at your computer and judge me. I'm sure you never found yourself in a spot of trouble where a bit of shared experience was helpful to you.

flix1

djimi wrote: »

Have you tried negotiating a lower repayment rate with regards to the split mortgage? It doesnt seem very smart of them to suggest a solution like this and then demand terms that cant be met.

I haven't tried that yet. I received the communication today and I just don't know where to go from here. I don't know whether to go back to them and try to explain for the 100th time that this mortgage is not sustainable or just go straight to bankruptcy. I was really hoping that someone here may have found themselves in a similar situation.

Sleepy

djimi wrote: »

Have you tried negotiating a lower repayment rate with regards to the split mortgage? It doesnt seem very smart of them to suggest a solution like this and then demand terms that cant be met.

All depends on the details.

The OP could consider spending a few hundred a month on maintaining lifestyle to be necessary expenditure whereas, presumably, the person working out such expenses in the bank would be using a similar income/expenditure framework to that employed by the insolvency practitioners for their definition of "reasonable living expenses". Not saying that's the case but without a detailed income/expenditure and more, we're just taking the OP's word that the repayments on the split mortgage can't be met.

D3PO

Sleepy wrote: »

All depends on the details.

The OP could consider spending a few hundred a month on maintaining lifestyle to be necessary expenditure whereas, presumably, the person working out such expenses in the bank would be using a similar income/expenditure framework to that employed by the insolvency practitioners for their definition of "reasonable living expenses". Not saying that's the case but without a detailed income/expenditure and more, we're just taking the OP's word that the repayments on the split mortgage can't be met.

precisely.

Now Im not judging the OP or saying this is them but you hear people saying these are my basic expenses sky sports, internet et all included in them.

Sorry but food, heat clothing and accommodation are your basic expenses everything else is a luxury

and when I say food and clothing I mean aldi & pennys not Tesco and gucci as some people think are reasonable when they cant afford their other bills

djimi

Sleepy wrote: »

All depends on the details.

The OP could consider spending a few hundred a month on maintaining lifestyle to be necessary expenditure whereas, presumably, the person working out such expenses in the bank would be using a similar income/expenditure framework to that employed by the insolvency practitioners for their definition of "reasonable living expenses". Not saying that's the case but without a detailed income/expenditure and more, we're just taking the OP's word that the repayments on the split mortgage can't be met.

True. Im taking the OP on their word that when they say they cant afford it it is because there is no money there at all rather than there is no money there after Sky Sports has been paid for, several cinema trips have been taken care of and multiple Chinese takeouts enjoyed!

professore

djimi wrote: »

Im not talking about the practicalities of chasing money; Im well aware that it may require a negotiation in order to get paid.

My main gripe is with this attitude that a lot of people seem to have that the banks gave the money out so they should be partially responsible if it cant be repaid. Its not a right that any borrower has to ever expect their debt to be reduced just because they bit off more than they could chew initially.

In ordinary circumstances I agree with you, but there are many cases in the last few years where this is not the case. The banks are holding back the whole country at the moment, they need to go through their books and do deals with the worst cases. Clearly the OP is one of these if he is prepared to go bankrupt. Otherwise they will end up with a flood of bankruptcies on their hands.

It's not a moral argument I'm making - it's a practical one.

professore

djimi wrote: »

True. Im taking the OP on their word that when they say they cant afford it it is because there is no money there at all rather than there is no money there after Sky Sports has been paid for, several cinema trips have been taken care of and multiple Chinese takeouts enjoyed!

This I agree with.

D3PO

professore wrote: »

In ordinary circumstances I agree with you, but there are many cases in the last few years where this is not the case. The banks are holding back the whole country at the moment, they need to go through their books and do deals with the worst cases. Clearly the OP is one of these if he is prepared to go bankrupt. Otherwise they will end up with a flood of bankruptcies on their hands.

It's not a moral argument I'm making - it's a practical one.

From a practical standpoint your not always correct though. In some cases the only debt a person who wants to go bankrupt will have is with their mortgage bank.

In that case bankruptcy would be to the benefit of the bank as all asset sales outside of the house, potentially the second car, some furniture, shares etc would also find their way to them as well as possibly some of the bankrupted persons income for a period of years.

They also would have no legal costs from a repossession so although they will still lose out they may lose less.

Practical decisions aren't always black and white to say bankruptcy is the worst thing that could happen for a bank isn't factually correct. It may be , it may not.

flix1

I spoke with the Personal Insolvency board and this is how things stand. My income is lower than the guidelines of personal expenditure, meaning that after Id be given my allowance to live on, there would be nothing left to repay to the bank...this may give you an idea of how things stand.

D3PO

flix1 wrote: »

I spoke with the Personal Insolvency board and this is how things stand. My income is lower than the guidelines of personal expenditure, meaning that after Id be given my allowance to live on, there would be nothing left to repay to the bank...this may give you an idea of how things stand.

by the sounds of it a split mortgage is of no use to you. That said there is no other option that would be of use either.

Clearly bankruptcy sounds the best option if your income doesn't even meet the guidelines of personal expenditure in a bankruptcy hearing.

professore

D3PO wrote: »

From a practical standpoint your not always correct though. In some cases the only debt a person who wants to go bankrupt will have is with their mortgage bank.

In that case bankruptcy would be to the benefit of the bank as all asset sales outside of the house, potentially the second car, some furniture, shares etc would also find their way to them as well as possibly some of the bankrupted persons income for a period of years.

They also would have no legal costs from a repossession so although they will still lose out they may lose less.

Practical decisions aren't always black and white to say bankruptcy is the worst thing that could happen for a bank isn't factually correct. It may be , it may not.

I would be surprised in that case that the bank would offer any deal; why would they? I suppose they would only offer a deal when bankruptcy is a worse option for them?