Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Government should take over bank repossessions to use as social housing.

28 replies

garlicbaubles · 14/12/2012 15:10

Just watched Panorama's Britain's Hidden Housing Crisis. Since we're facing a tide of homelessness - and the banks owe us shedloads of money - should we not insist on repossessing property from them? Why should they own it? Then perhaps people could get homes and we could all start moving forwards, instead of careering into Dickensian social problems.

AIBU?

OP posts:
sockmuppet · 14/12/2012 17:18

niceguy2 and morebeta

great and interesting posts. Smile

garlicbaubles · 14/12/2012 17:23

Did you not get a yearly statement with their fees on? - Yes, I did. Each year I queried it. I was told I had to suck it up and it would be worth loads when it matured, yada yada. I wasn't an expert in pension funds, neither was there any good information for consumers. You could say my ignorance is now costing the nation every month - or you could say finance companies taking the piss out of customers' good faith is costing us.

I couldn't understand why the bank didn't accept my "zombie" offer at the time and, as I said, knew several other people who were trying the same thing. If the problem were a matter of the bank's interest in preserving long-term value from a loan gone wrong it would have made sense. But it's better for the bank's books to own property and to give someone else a mortgage on it, which is also an asset. As Filibear pointed out above, they can also 'bank' the evicted resident's outstanding debt even if there's no chance of its being paid back.

I don't want this thread to be about me though.

Homelessness in the UK increased by 23% last year. There will be a fresh epidemic in April 2015. This is because councils will no longer be obliged to rehouse the homeless in their local authority. They'll be able to send them anywhere there is a cheap place. Currently the only borough with excess cheap housing is Cleveland (Middlesbrough). People will be told to move wherever rents are cheap, leaving their jobs and schools behind. Councils will not be obliged to help with moving costs. This will create poverty ghettoes in the very boroughs that are already suffering the worst under-funding. Meanwhile, millions more homes will become empty in better-off areas. The vast majority of these empty properties will be owned by banks.

OP posts:
garlicbaubles · 14/12/2012 17:36

NiceGuy, you know "deficit" is a much abused term. Our deficit isn't too bad really. Also that the 'bailout' is not over yet and that the comparative insurance premium you mention is salient. Andrew Haldane said in February 2011 that the cost of the credit insurance we have collectively provided to our banks is worth £100bn a year. We're not seeing this.

Anyway, there've been a lot of threads on what went wrong and how bad it is/isn't. Homelessness is a screamingly urgent issue. I'd like this thread to focus on questions around homes and money, rather than try to fix the entire world banking cock-up on a thread.

Those of you who reckon banks behave wisely, legally and ethically: How do you think the problem of mounting homelessness and increasingly redundant housing stock should be addressed?

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread