Oh Dear: First-time buyers on poverty 'knife-edge'

[hyperD]

Did you see the BBC1 program last night on unsecured loans given by high street banks?

In summary, people owe thousands of pounds on unsecured loans (which, due to small print, are actually secured on property and you pay a higher APR) and go bleating to Fiona Bruce saying it's the banks fault.

Well, the banks are not doing the basic financial checks as they seem to be pushing the insurance that goes with it.

However, as soon as the BBC get involved, all the banks cancel the debt - with one irresponsible couple who were adamant it wasn't their fault despite applying for £100,000 worth of loans, had their debt cleared in one go.

So now we have people irresponsibly applying for loans that they know they cannot afford, bank OK with it as long as they can push the insurance, piss it up on a holiday or car, claim they were spoofed by the bank/depression/can't read or write and the bank tells them not to pay it back.

What kind of message is this? I mean one couple lied about their salary FFS and still were adamant it wasn't their fault.

[Rebecca Loos]

Mmmmhh.... I'm in two minds about those kind of stories. Yes people are irresponsible to apply and lie to get those loans, but on the other hands, it serves the irresponsible lenders right when people can't pay back. There should be much more stringent checks applied by lenders on who they lend to and how much.

[wendigo100]

There should be much more stringent checks applied by lenders on who they lend to and how much.

Yes, to protect the rest of us. We are paying for those bad debts.

[Lucifer Box]

There should be much more stringent checks applied by lenders on who they lend to and how much.

Indeed, this falls under the long-standing irresponsible lending legislation and the banks pay the price by having the courts annul the debts. The blame for that falls on the banks but it is a price they are prepared to pay (seemingly)

[The Lone Gunman]

Indeed, this falls under the long-standing irresponsible lending legislation and the banks pay the price by having the courts annul the debts. The blame for that falls on the banks but it is a price they are prepared to pay (seemingly)

Of course they are, they just pass on those bad debts to the customer by raising charges. If the loss came off their profit margin, or directly out of share holders pockets then they would be much less willing to lend money to just anyone.

[Lucifer Box]

Of course they are, they just pass on those bad debts to the customer by raising charges. If the loss came off their profit margin, or directly out of share holders pockets then they would be much less willing to lend money to just anyone.

Absolutely. Don't think for one moment the banks are doing it out of the kindness of their hearts (or bottom line).

[ALM]

The impression you get from people nowadays is that they are desperate to own property as either "a right" or a belief that they will make money on the "guaranteed" equity. When unexpected things happen that they haven't insured/planned against, they immediately expect their employer or state to support them. The option of selling and renting doesn't even come into it. Financial planning... should be taught in schools. Yes, tulip happens, life's not fair etc etc by why bleat to the state all the time?

Totally agree with you.

[Francko]

Yes, to protect the rest of us. We are paying for those bad debts.

"We"

[sappatz]

ownership

Yes, tulip happens, life's not fair etc etc by why bleat to the state all the time?

the state gives the wrong signals, it encourages evryone to become a property owner, among others with low-interest loans and tax cuts. Ownership is obviosuly not for evryone and the pros and cons should be seriously weighed.

This is for political reasons, owners are less prone to cause trouble or disruption in general.

[wendigo100]

"We"

So which money tree do you think the money will come from? Gordon Brown's or the bank's?