TV3 Evicted at Christmas

Stheno

Anyone watching this? I'm struggling to have empathy for some of the people here, who after seven years of mortgage difficulties, are insisting they have a right to stay in their homes, when they have court orders sanctioning repossession?

HamsterFace

It's a horrible situation to be in and they have my sympathy. Their goal should be to be able to walk away from their homes debt free, all have been living in them paying an awful lot less than what they would be paying if renting.
Hoping to keep the house for little or nothing is dreaming and not right to be honest.

Stheno

HamsterFace wrote: »

It's a horrible situation to be in and they have my sympathy. Their goal should be to be able to walk away from their homes debt free, all have been living in them paying an awful lot less than what they would be paying if renting.
Hoping to keep the house for little or nothing is dreaming and not right to be honest.

That sums up exactly what I meant thank you.

There seemed to be an expectation that it was their home, and they should keep it regardless, but if you can't pay for it and have seven years of arrears, surely moving on is a better option?

HamsterFace

Stheno wrote: »

That sums up exactly what I meant thank you.

There seemed to be an expectation that it was their home, and they should keep it regardless, but if you can't pay for it and have seven years of arrears, surely moving on is a better option?

Absolutely agreed. And I have family who were in that situation, and had a long drawn out horrible process but ultimately were able to walk away.
The goal should be to shorten that process and minimize distress.

These organisations (I'm looking at the hub who appear frequently in the Freeman thread in the legal discussion forum) who advise that you can stay in your home and not to pay are only prolonging the agony.

They're a bunch of vainglorious **** in my opinion.

Stheno

HamsterFace wrote: »

Absolutely agreed. And I have family who were in that situation, and had a long drawn out horrible process but ultimately were able to walk away.
The goal should be to shorten that process and minimize distress.

These organisations (I'm looking at the hub who appear frequently in the Freeman thread in the legal discussion forum) who advise that you can stay in your home and not to pay are only prolonging the agony.

They're a bunch of vainglorious **** in my opinion.

I thought the same tbh

I also found it very strange that the banks being bailed out so our economy kept functioning was constantly referenced.

Taxi Drivers

HamsterFace wrote: »

It's a horrible situation to be in and they have my sympathy. Their goal should be to be able to walk away from their homes debt free, all have been living in them paying an awful lot less than what they would be paying if renting.
Hoping to keep the house for little or nothing is dreaming and not right to be honest.

It was not clear what any of them were paying, if anything at all. On no occasion was it said "I'm paying XXX per month and the bank are looking for YYY." Neither case study was particularly convincing.

Teaandcoffee

I don't know if I misheard but did one of the mortgage holders say she was afraid to tell her children in case they would not speak to her? I might have picked that up wrong but if I didn't that is truly shocking.