southside100
Registered User
- Messages
- 32
I genuinely think people didn't have enough financial advice available at the time and now they are paying the price! Banks were bailed out for their mistakes, people unfortuantely will not be.
But who would they sue for the fact they had no financial cop on, the dept of education, their parents? It is not the banks job to teach financial literacy to people.
But who would they sue for the fact they had no financial cop on, the dept of education, their parents? It is not the banks job to teach financial literacy to people.
While the banks were wrong to lend the money recklessly the 'punishment' for such actions would usually be that the shareholders would fire the board, and the bank would go under.
Our government stepped in and prevented that... so now the banks have gotten away with it.
I think legal actions against the banks will fail, but perhaps not against brokers who advised customers to break the law (or bend the rules). If the banks were legally not allowed to lend 240K on an income of 28K then yes, perhaps an action might be successful, although not cheap.
(Stress testing on 240K mortgage on 28K income... if interest rates hit 6%, interest alone = 14,400 per year.. this is unpayable on 28K)
It is a similar argument to fast food chains being sued by obese customers.
The reckless customer suffers the consequences, but the chain selling fat laden food doesn't, because it comes down to Personal Responsibility.
Maybe not sanctions (and why sanctions for lenders but consequences for borrowers?), the reckless lenders ARE suffering the consequences - loan write-offs, wiped out share values, virtual nationalisations... What sanctions do you want to apply to lenders that won't cost their owners (effectively us as tax payers of the State) any more money?So the reckless borrower should suffer the consequences of over borrowing but the reckless lender shouldn't suffer any sanction?
The banks were reckless for helping to inflate the bubble. They should have considered that they were lending in a bubble environment.
So the reckless borrower should suffer the consequences of over borrowing but the reckless lender shouldn't suffer any sanction?
The wreckless lender does suffer the consequences - the bank doesnt get paid if the borrower cant afford to pay.
why shouldn't the taxpayer help towards debt write downs for people, there are lots of things that taxpayers money goes towards that only benefit a small cross section of the community, single mothers allowance is one example, why can't mortgage assistance be another one?
Just wondering if anyone has ever sued their mortgage lender?
My mortgage was granted about 4 years ago and even back then I was struggling to pay it with a full weeks wages.
Is it possible to sue a mortgage lender for approving a loan that I would never be able to manage?
Thanks
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?