Less than meets the eye?
I suspect - but cannot, frankly, be sure - that there may be less to this than meets the eye.
"This" being the stushie generated over the question of whether Scotland should match the new protection against repossession planned for householders in England and Wales.
I suspect - and this time I am decidedly sure - that this controversy reflects, at least in part, the febrile atmosphere generated by a by-election in a place beginning with G, as Alex Salmond described the Fight for Fife in his weekend conference address.
Herewith the basics. Southern courts are, broadly, to bring in revised procedures which ensure that other avenues are exhausted before repossession of a house is granted.
Not needed here in Scotland, say ministers. Already covered by the Mortgage Rights Act passed by the previous executive.
The SNP adds that Labour and LibDem critics appear to have forgotten their own legislation.
"Astonishing complacency", says Labour.
Not a good enough answer, adds Mike Dailly, of the Govan Law Centre in Glasgow.
Scottish courts rely upon lawyers asking the court to look for alternatives. There is no element of compulsion.
But, in practice, won't it amount to the same thing?
In the current climate, won't courts - under whatever compunction - seek alternatives to repossession while taking account, ultimately, of the right of lenders to seek redress for unpaid debts?
As billed above, I frankly don't know the answer to that one.
Perhaps you guys out there could enlighten me. Hard, practical answers only. No partisan tosh.
Do not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at once.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~23~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"Mike Dailly, of the Govan Law Centre in Glasgow."
Let's not forget he is _Labour's_ "Mike Dailly, of the Govan Law Centre in Glasgow."
Complain about this comment
The introduction of pre-trial protocols in England and Wales will make repossession possible only as a last resort. While the Mortgage Rights act (which was a private members bill so not strictly speaking Executive legislation) does give a borrower more time to stave off repossession by seeking new payment measures for example, it doesn't ensure that court action can only be raised as a last resort.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This is just another attempt by the labour regime in the south to pretend that they are caring for the populace. As for labour and the Lib Dems here in Scotland, another stick to beat the SNP, they couldn't care less about the voters either, apart from the ones in Glenrothes. They talk about changing the law, as Tommy Cooper used to say " just like that ", not quite so simple. In any case if you borrow money, you know you will have to pay it back; problems crop up but at the end of the day it's your problem, nobody else's. If the bank or building society is calling it in, then I suspect they have already exhausted every other avenue. If you don't pay your debts, then at the end of the day the lender and ultimately the rest of the community has to foot the bill.
Complain about this comment
And of the first four posters, all commenting within 9 mins of each other, three have never posted before.
Kaybraes, any particular reason you have now decided to use four usernames?
Nationalists have long-killed these blogs with their ridiculous anti-UK claims, insults and now use of multiple usernames.
Pathetic.
Complain about this comment
Did I just read that Labour has just said their Mortgage Rights Act is not good enough? What about all the public consultation that went into its underpinnings. Or doesn't the public count when their is a political point to be made?
Complain about this comment
Is not Mike Dailly from the Govan Law Centre a card carrying member of the Labour Party?
As such Mr. Daily is also guilty of forgetting his own party's legislation.
Complain about this comment
Sorry Brian - no idea of criminal law, but neither have some others who use it against these Icelandic terrorists
Complain about this comment
Sorry Brian, I have knowledge of the matter having never gone through said proceedings myself (lucky).
Complain about this comment
Brian - I usually read your blog and even if I don't agree I'll usual let it lie.
But your complacency on this is as bad as Nicola Sturgeon's.
You say:
"In the current climate, won't courts - under whatever compunction - seek alternatives to repossession while taking account, ultimately, of the right of lenders to seek redress for unpaid debts?"
No they won't - courts stick to the rules set for them. They have to because they are meant to be fair to both the claimant and the pursuer.
Ms Sturgeon needs to act to protect Scottish homebuyers. Gordon Brown laid out yesterday how people in England will be better supported and the SNP do nothing.
The Mortgage Rights Act was a good piece of legislation but in these troubled times more needs to be done.
Complain about this comment
I honestly don't know, and in an effort to try an calm things down on this blog, won't make any comments either way.
This topic is not the place the make ill-informed comments one way or the other to be honest.
I suspect that if Brian does not know, then neither does any of the main political parties.
One thing should be mentioned however: it is the ultimate responsiblity of the borrower to ensure that they can afford to repay any loan or mortgage.
I had serious problems with credit cards about 20 years ago. I learned my lesson then.
Complain about this comment
Yes - you are so correct Brian
This is nothing to do with politics, its about society pulling together during the hard times - The legal system must surely acknowledge this, and ensure that EVERY avenue is explored
We don't always need laws to be revisited - common sense should prevail
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid Brian Taylor has missed the big story.
Tory leader David Cameron has just conceded that Scotland can "stand alone."
Brian stop being Labour's mouthpiece. Get out there a do some actual reporting of important political events.
Complain about this comment
8. At 3:10pm on 23 Oct 2008, oldnat.
i dont know about that, the last person in the pictures look a little fishy to me.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Re you comment - Hard, practical answers only. No partisan tosh.
I didn't know you were also a comedian
Complain about this comment
Yes Brian, a very worrying time, as the down-turn starts to bite at the real economy
the Scotland act will not be enough to protect home owners sliding into toxic debt.
I believe there has to been be an array of different combination to help home owners, who are under threat of lossing their homes.
I think there has to be a collective response from local government. We've have had the right to buy. We should also have the right to buy back homes.
Negative equity, should be realigned and those who have made substancial gains from equity should be prepared to accept
the new alignment.
There should also be a measure of shared equity introduced, whether that takes the form of the banks or the government, shared equity must be on offer.
There could also be a precentage freeze in the mortgage payments, this could be calculated in terms of additional years payments.
A home is an essential asset, I hope we never again full into this unregulate mess
and I certainly hope that we all work together to end this stupid contest, of home ownership.
Complain about this comment
10. At 3:29pm on 23 Oct 2008, smilingorwell wrote:
The Mortgage Rights Act was a good piece of legislation but in these troubled times more needs to be done.
-------------------------------------------------------
every repossession even before these troubled times is serious for those involved, and you are saying that it was a good piece of legislation.
if the present legislation is not good enough now, then the new labour / lib dem. coalition failed all the previous people who had their houses repossesed.
Complain about this comment
You ask: "won't courts - under whatever compunction - seek alternatives to repossession while taking account, ultimately, of the right of lenders to seek redress for unpaid debts?"
The answer is "no" unless occupiers ask them to. If occupiers are legally represented by competent advisers, they will not be evicted, but sheriffs will not "seek alternatives" unless they are asked. There is a large pile of research into how courts actually behave in eviction actions and it is all to this effect, much of it being readily obtainable on the internet from Scottish legal information sites (I gave a couple of links, but I now appreciate BBC house rules don't allow this). Difficulties in getting legal aid, however, have the effect that there is a need for a change in the law to compel sheriffs to consider alternatives even if not formally asked to do so, because the vast majority of occupiers are not represented and do not ask.
Complain about this comment
An interesting guide to the provisions of the current Scottish Law is available here courtesy of Mike Dailly.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#11 Neil_Small147
"I had serious problems with credit cards about 20 years ago. I learned my lesson then."
Snap!
But 20 years ago, debt wasn't being marketed as hard as it has been recently.
If you get a chance listen to Greenspan's (ex chair of the FED) testimony to Congress on this today. It's the most concise explanation of how the sub-prime led to today's crisis that I've heard.
Complain about this comment
#16 derekbarker
I agree, the public sector taking an equity share in homes makes sense.
The problem lies with the difference between the current value and the "inflated" value of the mortgage. Dealing with that seems to be the most difficult part of the solution.
Complain about this comment
the scottish government has an assistance scheme whereby anyone in difficulty with their mortgage can apply for the mortgage to rent scheme. http://www.homepoint.communitiesscotland.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/webpages/cs_008518.pdf
I think that there is plenty of information out there for people who are in trouble with their mortgage. The main one being get in touch with your bank or mortgage company right away and dont wait until things are too difficult. However there are some companies (not all) who buy a persons home then charge huge rents. I would advise people to be wary of these companies. I dont think we need more legislation for legislations sake. There is certainly more help than there was years ago.
Complain about this comment
#22
I do believe I did take into account the differential between homes and equity.
There would be an alingment or loss to those who had been in positive equity.
I would even suggest that equity is at least 20% above its real value?
Complain about this comment
20. "Cameron conceded that Scotland could be a prosperous independent country"
Actually what he REALLY said (as opposed to your quote) is:
"Of course it is possible that Scotland can stand alone - that is true. I just think it would be better off in the United Kingdom. Better off for all of us. I don't think we'd ever succeed in saving the Union by frightening Scots to say you couldn't possibly make it on your own. That's not the way I approach it. The Union to me is about generosity - we're stronger together because we share so much together."
Mr Cameron said he believed the Conservatives would "win the case" for the Union through "taking a generous attitude rather than a small-minded one".
BIG difference. And Salmond is YET to show otherwise.
Anyway, back to the article!......
Complain about this comment
13. minuend
"I'm afraid Brian Taylor has missed the big story. "
Not just Brian, even Radio Scotland haven't said a cheep when reporting the Glenrothes by election. More confirmation of a media influenced by the nu labour government.
Complain about this comment
#25 Reluctant-Expat
Cameron understands (unlike you) that Scotland could be financially independent because he knows that you don't add the Scottish deficit onto our share of the UK deficit
Therefore, (unlike you) he doesn't scaremonger out of ignorance.
Whether (for all kinds of reasons) Scotland is better off, worse off, or the same in a different constitutional arrangement is the core of the argument.
Point scoring in "the febrile atmosphere generated by a by-election in a place beginning with G" makes the solution of problems like home repossession more difficult not less.
Complain about this comment
25. Reluctant-Expat
Mr Cameron said he believed the Conservatives would "win the case" for the Union through "taking a generous attitude rather than a small-minded one".
BIG difference. And Reluctant_Expat is YET to show otherwise.
Can the leopard change his spots?
Complain about this comment
Re 24
A good idea, the cost calculations should take into account the cost of providing rented accomadation for those whose homes are repossesed.
Losing a home is a tragedy for a family that can destroy the whole family with huge ingoing social costs.
When in this type of mess we must try to minimise casualties.
Re 21
Spent all day travelling today and heard a few snippets of Mr Greenspan. Indeed interesting.
What I would have liked to see in the UK is more debate on how we regulate to ensure that the levels of personal misery caused by the credit card industry is minimised.
All our politicians seem to be doing is political point scoring, I would have liked to see a little more effort towards how we learn the lessons and don't just land back in the same place again.
Complain about this comment
No partisan tosh, that one had me in stitches ,Mr B Taylor has a sence of humor if nothing else.
I don't claim to know Mr Taylor personal views but he is a very loyal employee of the bbc who in turn are very able propagandist of London rule in Scotland.
The good morning radio show in coordination with unionist parties and following the news agenda
set by London bbc repossession is the war cry , now the fact that the Scottish Government had stated actions weeks earlier seems not to be news worthy no good morning radio show no comments from not so independent experts if comments by others here are true.
Mr Taylor is a master propagandist anyone remember his fly in the wall scoop? Where Labours last first minister Mr Jack McConnell had a private meeting with the president Euro commission and Mr Taylor plus bbc cameras where just there. I will not take any tosh from anyone in the bbc
When the BBC takes its lead from the people in Scotland rather than there masters in London
Complain about this comment
There is a big "repossession " coming shortly Brian and you wont like it.
The Scottish People want their country back and it might get tough for the " British" Broadcasting Corporation
Complain about this comment
As yet there are not the huge number of redundancies in the economy which would require taking emergency action to alleviate those foolish or unlucky or gullible enough to have stretched themselves too far.
But is the labour party telling us to prepare for dole queues similar to those of the Thatcher and Callaghan recessions when our so called sunset industries remote from the markets could not compete with the far east?
Complain about this comment
#21 oldnat &
#11 Neil_Small147
"I had serious problems with credit cards about 20 years ago. I learned my lesson then."
Snap! Snap!
Luckily mine were over 35 years ago as a newish graduate with, in those days, no student loan to repay.
#25 Reluctant-Expat
Any hopes you'll consider following his lead?
#27 oldnat
Well said!
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian,
You asked for no mpartisan tosh but seemed to have gotten quite a lot!
I have no technical expertise in this, just experience of being in trouble with a mortgage in the last "crunch" and my humble opinion.
The Halifax Building Society offered me absolutely zero help when because a new child in the family my partners income dropped. We proposed to them paying 80% of our mortgage for 18 months then we would pay off the arrears over a period of three years after that. They told us in no uncertain terms to get lost. They made it impossible for us to make a part payment each month on the mortgage. I doubt whether they have changed that much.
That leads me to the conclusion that the banks etc needed to be compelled through legislation because they won't be nice unilaterally.
I support the SNP but if this piece of UK legisation is positive and works well, then why not support it?
By the way, even if Labour has a good piece of legislation, then it's no reason why I would switch my support back to them!....That was my partisan tosh!!!
Complain about this comment
According to my copy of a major Scottish broadsheet this morning, Scottish Ministers " stressed that they would consider the move to see if it could be replicated in Scotland" as well as emphasising our different legal system.
Doesn't look like much of a fight. Not surprised that the likes of Mike Dailly is criticising the Scottish Government, he always does.
Febrile atmosphere? wait till Labour continue to get poor canvass results in Glenrothes. Negative campaigning anyone?
Complain about this comment
Re David Cameron
I for one welcome the David Cameron statement today. He appears to be setting a tone for the debate that others would do well to follow.
Some of the tripe posted on here today is absolutely woeful. Scotland has consistently shown in elections and opinion polls that a majority don't wan't independance.
That doesn't mean it will stay that way and there is not a debate to be had, but it does mean that a proper grown up debate is required.
The mindless name calling and petty point scoring indulged in by both sides in this arena doesn't move the debate on.
We need to debate properly on the basis of facts, which can then be used to influence opinion. Much of the debate needs will need to be on how we will deal with issues like the armed forces, foreign policy, pensions, tax collection, currency, benefit system etc when we divorce form the UK.
Also we need to consider how we will develop a new relationship with England and the rest of the UK, which we will need to do as we share the same island.
When we have serious debate about this type of issue people can then decide if there is a benefit to separation or not.
But we need a good solid debate.
Complain about this comment
#32
I think you misunderstand the down-turn,
lets hope that there is a very short fall in
employment, in the mean time, it's the toxic debt of mortgage owners, who have been irresponsibilly given a mortgage beyond their means.
Banks have been handing out mortgages
without proper regulated tests, this lending is on the scale that has resulted in the banks falling into liquidity problems, handing more out than what is coming in type of syndrome.
The amount of people that could fall victims
to toxic debt is staggering to say the least.
People need a home these homes must be protected,no one should loss there home.
Thats the real fight, I hope you stand with the people on this issue.
Complain about this comment
'I don't think we'd ever succeed in saving the Union by frightening Scots to say you couldn't possibly make it on your own. That's not the way I approach it.' I think David has been reading these blogs ....this was aimed at RE lol
Can somebody explain to me how this recession will affect me as so far ive seen nothing...... the company i work for is flexible to adapt and although profits are down we will survive..... my mortgage is fixed for the next 2 years so that wont be an issue ... petrol has gone down for now and as for food prices ...well ive stopped the caviar and champagne.
Complain about this comment
As the labour government has nationalised at least 60% of the mortgage market is this just it's way of avoiding having to foreclose on potential voters?
Complain about this comment
#38
Rabbie, that will go down like a led balloon.
No one is buying or selling Rabbie and the banks are certainly not handing out fixed rates?
Rabbie, your confidence is good but I'm sure you'll admit, things on the banking front are pretty dire.
Rabbie are you by any chance a thatcher baby, enshrined in the selfish circle of your own comfort?
Complain about this comment
33. At 7:58pm on 23 Oct 2008, Brownedov wrote:
#21 oldnat &
#11 Neil_Small147
"I had serious problems with credit cards about 20 years ago. I learned my lesson then."
Snap! Snap!
Luckily mine were over 35 years ago as a newish graduate with, in those days, no student loan to repay.
---------
Keep student loans out of this. The reason loans etc were brought in was financial: there are over 1,000,000 students in the UK who receive support of some kind. Even those who pay their tuition fees are receiving support - ask any university what their fees are to someone who is ineligible for support - you will be shocked.
Yes, education is important, but too many people go into further education who are simply not suitable. I only agree with free support for medical/dental students provided they give 5 years work to the NHS when they graduate.
Back to topic - home ownership was opened up by the Conservatives. Had they not done this, then people would have been demanding this!
Part of the problem, I believe, was that councils at the time were not allowed to use the money gained from council house sales to build more public housing.
But now they can, what do we see across Scotland? Land sold off by councils for private housing. And little evidence that new public housing is being built.
We also want immigration, so where do these people live? Many go into council housing, whereas those who lose their homes end up homeless.
There's more to this than stopping repossessions. The whole support infrastructure needs examined.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#2 Redredpath
Probably the most relevant post on this thread was your's - which was left unmoderated for a ludicrously long time - you gave us a useful and concise summary.
It's no wonder that the blog tends to be dominated by the "old hands" when a newbie's posting is treated so disrespectfully.
I hope you will post again.
Complain about this comment
38. rabbiehippo
"Can somebody explain to me how this recession will affect me as so far ive seen nothing...... the company i work for is flexible to adapt and although profits are down we will survive..... my mortgage is fixed for the next 2 years so that wont be an issue ... petrol has gone down for now and as for food prices ...well ive stopped the caviar and champagne."
Nope not without a crystal ball. Personally if its dealing with essential commodity/service industry it will have a downturn but should weather the storm I think those businesses dealing with the must have (not needed) market are those which will feel the pinch first all depending on their individual cash flows. We are all in uncharted waters were no hard fast rules will apply.
Complain about this comment
#36.
northhighlander.
David Cameron simply repeated the same line that Nationalists have been repeating for years. Scotland can stand on her own two feet. Cameron believes that Scotland is better off in the Union, this is now where the debate is heading. Scotland can survive on her own but Unionists have to convince the population that we also are better off apart of Britain.
David Cameron pretty much said: Scotland can do it. However in the Union Scotland can do it better.
Complain about this comment
#36 northhighlander
I understand your resistance to constitutional change without some certainty.
However, even selecting a party to run the UK does not involve certainty as to what will happen, much less a major change (as devolution was).
As you know, I prefer Scotland not to have independent defence or foreign policies, so I'll probably raise some early thoughts later on "pensions, tax collection, currency, benefit system"?
I don't think Brian's thread itself will generate much that it is useful, unless some lawyers contribute.
Complain about this comment
On the subject of the thread, First Minister Salmond has apparently indicated that the Scottish Government is actively looking to strengthen the law covering mortgage repossession to ensure Scottish homeowners get the same protection offered under new rules for England and Wales.
One can hardly say fairer than that, one would have thought.
Complain about this comment
Brian are you inferring that Scottish judges don't know what they're doing, and that lawyers may not act in the best interests of their clients by not pointing out the obvious in court?
Complain about this comment
#41 Neil_Small147
I only mentioned student loans because being lucky enough not to have one I my credit card woes were my only finanical problem at the time and so relatively quickly and painlessly solved. I agree that the tertiary education issue is one best left at least until this one runs out of steam.
I agree 100% re the way the council house sales were not used to replenish the stock of social housing, but I don't think councils make good developers or landlords and would prefer private sector solutions with tax/planning breaks balanced by regulation of prices and rents to provide incentives for development and benefits for occupiers without excessive bureaucracy.
Being keen on the Swiss model, I also believe that councils should have much more sovereignty on their own turf than they do now - on planning and funding, for example.
Anyway, it's getting late in CET so goodnight.
Complain about this comment
How's the pound doing by the way?
If I am correct, then if the pound loses a lot of value then inflation rises.
Or I am talking rubbish?
If inflation rises then that too will make things worse in the repossession area.
#44 cynicalhighlander sums it up when he says we are in uncharted waters. No-one, not of any political ilk, can predict what is happening.
Complain about this comment
#41 Neil
Unfortunately the councils are not compelled legally to use the proceeds from counil house sales for the construction of council houses.
So we have the current situation of councils retaining the proceeds, selling land to private developers who then build 'luxury' flats or expensive housing, whilst those at the bottom cannot get on, or those that did now cannot stay on, the property ladder.
Lets face it, if your a developer and you have a choice of catering to those at the top of the market in the hope they'll pay top dollar, or those that require 'affordable' housing, of course they choose the former. Its non-sensical that private developers should ever have been expected to cater for a social issue such as affordable housing, when they are more concerned with shareholders profit margins. The councils have to be the ones responsible to solve the problem of social housing, which in turn falls on the taxpayers shoulders to fund.
Also, and I know its off topic, but I'm curious to know why only Medics and dentists? Are there not any other vocational degrees 'worthy' of support? What do you define 'not suitable' as?
Complain about this comment
Under the Mortgage Rights (Scotland) Act a sheriff can take account of the owner's circumstances and the action taken by the lender. In the current circumstances a sheriff can be expected to exercise that discretion. Last night Mike Daly, head of the Govan Law Centre, described the Act as a "fantastically powerful piece of legislation".
However, one of the most important issues that face us in these current times is ensuring homeowners do not get to the stage where the lender attempts to take forward a repossession order.
The Scottish Government has programmes in place to help people experiencing mortgage difficulties, including the £25 million Home Owner Support Fund to allow home owners in financial difficulties to retain ownership of their house.
Furthermore, plans are already in process for a publicity campaign urging people in financial difficulties to seek advice as soon as possible through the Citizen's Advice Bureaux and Debtline.
Complain about this comment
"The Liberal Democrat campaign took former party leader Charles Kennedy to a bagpipe manufacturer, JT Shepherd and Son, in Cardenden. "The SNP are full of hot air and Labour have run out of puff," said candidate Harry Wills." (The Herald)
Oh dear! (Anaxim must be so embarrassed.)
Complain about this comment
#40 Sorry Derek i should have made my point ..... do you not think that the media are responsible for hyping the credit crunch and painting a very gloomy picture when the case for a lot of people is that it will not affect them in the slightest. Ok if your pension has dived then thats cr*p or if your mortgage is up for renewal it could be cr*p too . But it seems that a lot of people have overstretched themselves and are now in trouble financially . For years i was stuck in a low paid job that i had to commute to at great expense and because of that we have a considerable debt. But things have changed now thanks to us haveing kids and claiming family tax (which is essential to a lot of low paid workers) and also now that i have a good paid job and so has Mrs Hippo. Also we managed to buy our house thanks to the Right to buy scheme. At the end of the day you just have to get on with life you just have to adapt to your circumstances.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
I do not know the exact wording of the legislation both North and South of the border, but I suspect there is a great deal of similarly in the actual definition of the alternatives that should be investigated before repossession can be granted.
Surely the key point here is that it should be the responsibility of the lender to ensure that all avenues have been completely exhausted before they can apply to the court for a repossession order. Proof of this should be part of the paperwork supplied to the court before a sheriff even looks at it. Surely anything else is just a waste of court time and taxpayers money.
For this to work, it must be compulsory as, if it is left to the mortgage companies, there will be an inconsistent approach, and even if we could count on Scottish courts to be consistent (which I doubt) we will still have a great deal of wasted court time.
I think we also have to take into account the human element of this. The stress that court action for repossession puts on people / families is enormous and the break up of some families is an inevitable by-product of heavy-handed approach by many mortgage lenders. We need to ensure that as much of the strain as possible is loaded onto the mortgage companies to minimise these effects.
(turns over paper and keeps writing)
Lastly, I would point to the astronomical charges many mortgage lenders levy on people who are in arrears and defaulting on their mortgages. I have seen occasions where these have pushed a precarious position into a hopeless one quite quickly. I believe these charges should be investigated and set by the regulator at minimum cost-only (no more 35pound phone calls and 50pound letters and worse once they reach for their in-house legal team) so that people who are already in a difficult position are not put in an untenable one.
All these elements (and possible more, I’m not an expert) should be implemented immediately by both the Westminster and Scottish governments and it must be compulsory. Party politics be damned, this is the sort of thing that breaks up families and puts kids on the streets.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#55 Regarding mortgage lenders unfair charges .... the banks have caused misery for poor people as well and they seem to get away with it so done expect any changes there.
Complain about this comment
Re #57 Rabbiehippo
You are right about the banks, and I think that the FSA has been dragging it's heels about this for far too long. The influence that large financial institutions have over the governments is clear for all to see.
I certainly don't expect the mortgage companies to do anything voluntarily, that's why I advocate compulsion from government regulators.
I think we have all seen the result of voluntary codes of conduct and self-regulation in the banking sector .....
Complain about this comment
Quote, Mike Dailly, Dec 2002, "However, Scottish borrowers have recently been handed a new weapon for fighting a possession order in the shape of the Mortgage Rights Scotland Act, which came into force at the end of last year. Before that lenders had the upper hand in negotiating a settlement, because rights which were automatic for borrowers in England and Wales had not extended north of the border. Essentially, under the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform legislation, which dates back to 1970, unless you could pay a lump sum into court to settle the debt, the lender could take the property. In most cases people couldn't pay a lump sum in. That is the very nature of debt. They weren't paying their mortgages because they didn't have any money, perhaps because of sickness or unemployment. Only on the rarest of occasions could anyone produce a nest-egg to clear the debts. Advisors and solicitors would try to negotiate with the lender, but as the institution had all rights to the property it was a very difficult process. Sometimes they might accept half the amount outstanding. But if the borrowers couldn't produce a significant sum of some description, in all probability they would lose their home. That changed at the end of last year, when borrowers were given the same right as those south of the border to offer in court to pay off debts by instalments. This means lenders must give them time to pay."
What we witnessed yesterday was a fraudulent piece of broadcasting by BBC Scotland on a very serious issue in it's various news programmes. Here we have in Mike Dailly, a card carrying member of the Labour party, a piece of blatant Labour propaganda being directed against the SNP government.
In 2002 Mike Dailly hailed the Mortgage Rights Scotland Act as a brilliant piece of Labour legislation.
In 2008 Mike Dailly rails against the Mortgage Rights Scotland Act condemning the SNP government in the process.
At no time in any BBC Scotland interview was Mike Dailly subject to any criticism on these opposed stances.
Brian Taylor has the cheek to say on this blog, "No partisan tosh".
Yeah, right!
Complain about this comment
I do not pretend to know much about economics but surely the answer is for the Scottish/UK government to guarantee the morgage companies that they will be paid (this can be done by foregoing taxes on the morgage companies) until the householders have the monies to pay that money back. It would be something similar to what the UK government has done to the banks. The UK government have taken a stake in the banks to help them; surely this could be done, in a non partisan way, to help protect those individuals in danger of losing their houses. If it is good enough for the banks then surely it is good enough for the citizens.
Complain about this comment
Re #60 gedguy2
While I agree with your point in principle, I am concerned about how this may work in practice.
My concern is that the banks and mortgage companies would see this as a get rich quick option by loading lots of charges onto the accounts, and perhaps even going back to sub-prime lending knowing full well that the government will pay the bill at the end of the day. We have already seen evidence that the bank are more than happy to abuse customers to get their profits back up by not passing on interest rate reductions, so I think we have to always expect the worst from them.
I don't mind government assistance where appropriate, but I don't want to see either people or banks misusing taxpayers cash, especially in the current economic situation. This would need very careful specifying and monitoring.
Complain about this comment
# 10
'The Mortgage Rights Act was a good piece of legislation but in these troubled times more needs to be done.'
It couldn't have been such a good piece of legislation if it needs amending so soon.
Just because the UK is in financial difficulties, because of inefficient handling of our monies over the past decade, should not make a difference to good legislation.
Perhaps the initial laws (2001)were not so well thought out in the first place.
Complain about this comment
there is certainly more that needs to be done to help people that find themself in the situation of repossetion due to unemployment ect.
i know that the scottish goverment have their 25 million fund, and that the Mortgage Rights Scotland Act helps as well, but it needs to go further.
when a financial crisis hits a family / single people then it should be mandatory for the banks ect. to inform the local council that they are looking at the possibility of re-possession, court action.
the local council would have a dedicated team who,s job it is to contact both parties to work out practical solutions.
unfortunatly when financial problems hit some people, their responce is to hid their head in the sand and not seek advice, and the contact your citizens advice centre does not cover these people, and that is why it should be the local councils responsibility to contact all borrowers in trouble.
the local councils team would look at all aspects of the problem, and it may be that their conclusion is that the borrower need a year to find a new job or the economic climate improve ( overtime ect. ) or sell the property, then this could be put to the banks ect. as the solution.
if the banks refuse the council teams solution, then the council teams solution is put to a sheriff to rule on, with of course the banks presentation as to why the solution is not practicable.
now, it may be that the borrower is suffering from depression due to his financial woes and the council team would also have a doctor whom they could call on to help out in this circumstance, plus they may be able to assure the person involved that it is not as hopeless as it may seem.
the above is all pre re-possession, court action and could be done at minimum cost.
there is probably a lot more could be added to the above, but i will leave that up to other posters.
Complain about this comment
61. At 10:51am on 24 Oct 2008, googlehoo wrote:
We have already seen evidence that the bank are more than happy to abuse customers to get their profits back up by not passing on interest rate reductions.
--------------------------------------------------------
the above concerns me, in that if the UK goverment has major shareholdings in the banks, why are they not insisting that the banks pass on the reduced interest rate as part of the rescue deal.
Complain about this comment
# 61 googlehoo
I don't pretend to have all the answers to this. I just wanted to point out that the will to help those people can be there and is up to the relevent authorites to aid those people. The majority of those suffering are not in this situation because they have been stupid with their money; more like they are victims. I wish I could say the same for the world wide banking industry.
The sooner people realise that it is the citizens of a country that is the country's wealth and not how much money or resources that the country has, then the sooner we can aid those victims to get out of this financial mess. Wealth is created by people, not money. Money, basically, is just an authority to allow a person to do something. Money cannot build houses, feed people or build roads all that it does is give people permission to do those things. So, I say again, the will to help those people must come from those in power. It can be done and should be done.
There is no reason that I can see where a government cannot buy the debt off those in trouble and keep this debt inside a government bank until the homeowners can afford to buy it back. As to the banks charging extra money to deal with this; don't pay them. Tell them that they got themselves into this mess in the first place and if they attempt to make extra charges then tax them on those charges at 110%. I'm sure they will sort this out quite fast then.
Complain about this comment
Re #65 gedguy2
As I said, I certainly don't disagree with your view, I am just looking to make sure we close all the loopholes before any plan is put into place so that the benefit from any scheme is focused solely on those who really need the help.
Complain about this comment
While I have every sympathy with the assuredly many who are about to lose their homes I am not entirely comfortable with the concept of Government continually bailing out companies, organisations and individuals who are suffering as the result of foolish decisions and unwise behaviour.
We run the risk of perpetuating careless behaviour if those involved in it are completely shielded from the consequences of their own actions.
I successfully dissuaded some relatives, captured by the illusory "housing ladder" frenzy, from buying a house at a totally nonsensical price about a year ago and they are thanking me now. The property they were aiming for at £215,000 is now not selling at £145,000. It will probably go eventually around £100,000, if at all, which is much nearer its real value (but still about 33% higher than a comparable property on the continent).
Property value collapse? We ain't seen nothing yet.
I would rather we shone the spotlight on the man who revelled in the sunshine and self praise as we lived in a totally false economy, encouraged by him, built on unsustainable debt and who is now behaving as if he has nothing to do with it all the current disasters.
Complain about this comment
# 66 & 67
I agree with you both.
However, sneckedagain, I feel sorry for those people who are in dire straits through no fault of their own. Every country has a history of bailing out companies and banks. It has gone on for centuries, so why not citizens? I am, of course talking about those who find themselves in this situation even after being prudent with their money. Those who have been stupid with their money can go to the wall.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS