4 ms·

> remainder from the article showing this guy just failed to do the right thing: Huh? That's a quote from a banking spokesperson. It's not even related to any

> remainder from the article showing this guy just failed to do the right thing: Huh? That's a quote from a banking spokesperson. It's not even related to any of the (several) stories in the article - it's a quote she gave to the BBC. Assuming that by "this guy" you mean the first guy mentioned in the article, he had an interest-only mortgage. So sure, he was overextended, but exactly how much accommodation do you think he was going to get? The second guy did have an accommodation with his bank (also on an interest-only mortgage), and it is... he'll be repossessed if he goes more than eight thousand pounds into arrears. The first guy seems to have a legitimate grievance. He wasn't allowed to sell the home to cover the mortgage. Here's the way the article actually ends: > As for Mr Da Costa Diogo, his bank has repossessed the property. > In the same month it was repossessed, the BBC saw a similar three-bedroom property in the same Thetford street as Mr Da Costa Diogo's on the market for £160,000 - almost double the amount he owed.

throwawayffffas 1y ago
All of them seem to view the repossession as the worst thing that could possibly happen. Though if the repossession covers the remainder of the loan it's really not, they are going to be free of debt again. Their credit score is going to take a hit which will make renting harder, but not impossible. The first guy for example couldn't possibly hope to get a better outcome. He is no longer paying a mortgage on his ex-wife's house.
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  What are you talking about? The better outcome that he should have gotten is that he sells the house, covers the mortgage, gives up half the profit to his estranged wife, and still has forty thousand pounds left over.
  - throwawayffffas 1y ago
    For that to happen his estranged wife would have to agree, since she did not the best outcome, is the house gets repossessed covers the mortgage and he can go on with his life.
itsdrewmiller 1y ago
Seems like there must be a way to get his ex-wife taken off the mortgage if she’s actually abandoned the property and moved across the world. I can imagine it might be a tricky thing to navigate though.

throwawayffffas 1y ago

All of them seem to view the repossession as the worst thing that could possibly happen. Though if the repossession covers the remainder of the loan it's really not, they are going to be free of debt again. Their credit score is going to take a hit which will make renting harder, but not impossible. The first guy for example couldn't possibly hope to get a better outcome. He is no longer paying a mortgage on his ex-wife's house.

thaumasiotes 1y ago
What are you talking about? The better outcome that he should have gotten is that he sells the house, covers the mortgage, gives up half the profit to his estranged wife, and still has forty thousand pounds left over.
- throwawayffffas 1y ago
  For that to happen his estranged wife would have to agree, since she did not the best outcome, is the house gets repossessed covers the mortgage and he can go on with his life.

itsdrewmiller 1y ago

Seems like there must be a way to get his ex-wife taken off the mortgage if she’s actually abandoned the property and moved across the world. I can imagine it might be a tricky thing to navigate though.