What happened to the entirely reasonable Peter54 who started this thread?
That Peter54 was facing the repossession/sale of his house because he couldn't pay the mortgage, and was asking if he should pay what he could afford before the house was repossessed/sold, or keep his money to save for rent/deposit on a new property.
I suggested that that Peter54 not pay toward the mortgage in the meantime so that he could rent in future and because the legal consequences seemed non-existent.
This Peter54 seems to be coming from a very different place.
As Commonsense says it is not the "nasty" banks who will suffer for your failure to repay your mortgage. It is the rest of us.
No-one wants to see families put out of their homes, but YOU borrowed the money, YOU got the house and now YOU can not pay it back.
I think that the loss of your house is sufficient consequence for this and that you should not be further pursued, but I certainly do not think that you should keep your house.
As for the morals of the Government, if they have a failing it is that they are continuing to borrow to finance a standard of living the country cannot afford. They are certainly not stealing from the pockets of the citizens, they are borrowing to stuff the pockets of the citizens.