A group of citizens assist a family by peacefully averting a forceful eviction from their property.

3 belligerent yobs - a bailiff, someone pretending to be a lock-smith but is later revealed to be an agent of the bank, and a third portly numpty whose roll I'm not sure of - attempt to barge their way in, while refusing to properly show their paperwork.

The citizen's spokesman asks repeatedly to view their paperwork, and is not complied with, so calls the police, pointing out that they (citizens) are peaceful, law-abiding people, whilst the 3 stooges are in breach of the law.

They highlight that it's a common scam that's been conducted on a wide-scale, whereby people are being forcefully evicted because they don't realise that any party who forces an eviction without the correct supporting court documents is acting illegally.

It's well worth people knowing their rights, and this particular confrontation has a happy ending, with the police eventually seeing the 3 aggressive tw@s off!

!

This is great, unfortunately it just delays the inevitable regardless.

andyh wrote:
Not necessarily, Andy. They were arguing some case in court, which would have been futile if the family were evicted in the meantime.

Gilly wrote:
Its as simple as this Gilly, you don't pay the mortgage, you lose the house.

In this instance the warrant did not cover forcible possession but a court can give that later and they will ofc.

Sure its bullying tactics that were avoided in this instance which is great but the cops will not help when they come back next time with the right docs. They often try it on with the wrong docs initially which amounts to people voluntarily giving up the house initially through ignorance of the law and its good that this was brought up so people can see it.

My advice though at the end of the day is this...if you can't afford the mortgage then don't f*cking buy it lol.

hmm.. so can i just go to someones house and try to talk them into giving it up, with no consequences?

batou wrote:
If you have the right docs then sure yep. Thats literally what they tried to do in this instance.
The second time around they tried to do it 'peaceably' with the cops watching.

Sadly,
The bank will get the house.
If they need or want a warrant to permit the use of force, they'll get that too.
Those three bellends will be back with a smug grin and hoping someone gives them an excuse to use force,
preferably with the police watching on helplessly.

feather wrote:
Exactly.
At the end of the day what we need to learn is some responsibility. If people weren't dumb enough to pay stupid prices then we wouldn't see stupid prices.
Its all about idiocy and greed and banks taking advantage of it.
If you can't pay cash then don't buy it. Its a tough lesson to learn and it'll probably take a long while yet before people get it.

Everything is about contractual obligation. If you don't like what you see (assuming you bother to actually look at it) then don't sign on the dotted line.
Those so called 'average' people you see on TV with their own home fully paid for and 2 brand new cars fully paid for and 2 holidays a year abroad and all that crap...its bullshit. They don't exist because they're definitely NOT average.

Everyone knows if you don't keep up with the payments you get evicted.

It's simple enough to understand.

I always though the property was the banks until you paid off the mortgage.

Although if those fat feckers turned up at my door I would probably just put a balaclava on and

---

andyh wrote:
Bollocks.

I 'bought' my house in 1997 for £23,000.....its now worth about 4 times that much. & the monthly repayments on the interest-only mortgage (including the endowment payments designed to pay it off at the end of the 25 yr term) have worked out far less than what I would have paid in rent over the last 16 years, fact.

You just keep on renting pal, and making the buy-to-let landlords (and therefore the bankers that finance them) richer.

£23,000? is it a wendy house.

humanspirit wrote:
Nope....just a modest 3 bed terrace in Levenshulme Manchester.

(oh & its a freehold too...no 99 year lease for me)

diamondgeezer wrote:
was that the going rate then?

Some people can't get mortgages and are entirely at the mercy of greedy fucking cunt-faced landlords. Either that or crooked, scamming housing associations. If you're lucky enough to have a council tenancy, take it to your grave with you.

Everybody needs a place to live.

As has already been pointed out, it's designed this way, though I don't think it fair to blame the people at the bottom in any way whatsoever for simply trying to survive. Despite what some may want you to believe, having a roof over your head is not a 'luxury'. Period.

diamondgeezer wrote:
Then the rents too ridiculous too along with the devaluation of the currency

'its now worth 4 times that much' can you not see how ridiculous that concept actually is?

Did it get 4 times larger? Did it get 4 times stronger?
No, the currency got 4 times weaker in the space of 16 years and the wages didn't keep pace.

Hell I bought a red brick sardine tin myself in a dead end shithole estate for 25k in 2005 and sold it for 69k in 2007!

Did I actually profit from it? No, I actually only took away 1k out of the deal at the end of the day.
Why? Because I got screwed by every possible leech involved at every opportunity.

It's not right, its plain madness and of no benefit to average joe whatsoever. The only people who really profit from this stupidity are banks, lawyers, estate agents and marketing sharks.

If you actually stay in the same house long enough to pay off the mortgage and 'own' it then you're in the minority and are a dying breed anyway. You either paid a large lump sum off or large deposit to begin with or it was a council house buyup which ofc the likes of thatcher encouraged while not bothering to build any more 'affordable' housing to rent while at the same time slyly dumping the fair rent act which ofc only served to bump up prices even higher for the 'buy to let' market which is just another obscenity.

How anyone can approve of such greed and stupidity is beyond me, money only grows on trees or appears out of thin air in banks.
If you can buy a house in cash then go for it.
If its 10 times your salary and you lose your job the next year don't go crying and wailing about how evil the banks are. The evil is perpetuated by people who are daft enough to sign up for it.

If a 3 bedroom 'modest' mid terrace wendy house in levenshulme is worth 4 times the average UK salary then you ought to be asking some deep questions about that kind of mentality and where it leads.

Ab Origine wrote:
If people keep thinking the current situation is OK then they're going to find themselves without anywhere to live.
They won't be able to rent or buy.

I totally get that but that's how it's been set up. How many people have cash to buy a house? How long might it take folks to save that whilst paying some other cunt an extortionate rent every month?

I can see why people perpetuate it tbh and in most cases I don't think it has anything to do with stupidity or even ignorance of the facts, such as they are.

andyh wrote:
So, assuming all the above to be true, is the answer still to continue to rent as opposed to taking out a mortgage as you seem to be proposing?

I agree that property prices are too high. What I don't agree with is that renting's a good solution. Or that people are to be treated with condescension if they get into difficulties with their mortgages - people's circumstances can change. The vast majority of people I know have had a dramatic decrease in wealth over the last couple of decades, which I don't believe they could have predicted, in that cost of living has continually climbed, while income has stayed the same or even reduced.

You can be stung in other ways. A few years back all the money experts were advising that mortgage interest rates were going to soar. As a result, I went and switched mine to a 5 year fixed rate. Naturally, the interest rates immediately dropped - so that cost me a lot of money!

So I'm not having it that people are idiotic for not having a crystal ball. Nobody knows what's round the corner.

Renting may have some advantages, but it's just as overpriced, and is dead money imo.

I don't know the details of whatever court case those occupants were going through, so it's not necessarily a fact that they will eventually be kicked out. For example, if they were unwittingly and unnecessarily sold a sub-prime mortgage, the courts could find in their favour, in that they'd be entitled to be recompensed. There might be other possible circumstances we're not aware of that could result in a good outcome for them.

If it's the worst and they are simply in arrears and can't cover it, then at least they've bought themselves a bit more time before they're put out on the street.

diamondgeezer wrote:
You pay what you can afford to pay thats what I'm saying.
Was 23000 4x the national average salary in 1997?

Why do you think its 'worth' 4x the national salary now?