There's no doubt that making partial repayments will not always be successful regardless of this case.the borrower in question had made a repayment the previous month in excess of the relevant interest amount.
if true, it would suggest that making partial mortgage repayments will not always successfully ward off a repossession order.
There's no doubt that making partial repayments will not always be successful regardless of this case.
But in this specific case one would need to know more about the previous history of repayments and the wider context of the borrower's circumstances before drawing any conclusions.
You can't really generalise from such sparse details.
I am simply saying that making partial loan repayments outside of a restructured loan agreement may well prove to be a bad decision for a defaulting borrower.
It really all comes back to the same point that borrowers in arrears should engage with their lenders. If the loan can be restructured in the interests of both parties, well that's obviously ideal. If the loan is unsustainable from the lender's perspective then it cannot be restructured and, in those circumstances, making partial payments will, at best, simply delay the inevitable. I would have thought that it would be in everybody's interests to recognise this reality and arrive at a resolution that allows the lender to realise their security interest and enables the defaulting borrower to start afresh.
Borrowers would be well advised imo to wait and see what the imminent announcement by government relating to arrears/ insolvency /bankruptcy throws up. A PIA that can't be pushed through at the moment, for example, may well be workable in a few months time, depending on what the legislators decide.
very cautious about making any payments to their lender outside of a restructured loan arrangement.
My take - being a "strategic / delinquent defaulter"; is that payments at least equal to 'interest only' should be paid regardless of one's situation re: equity in property (negative or positive).
I would hold out 'anecdotally speaking' - that IO payments to lender are FAR less onerous then 'rent payments' on similar properties next door (but with all the added benefits / protections that 'home ownership' provides.)
Making IO payments 'on time - each month' regardless of what the lender insists, results in -
a) more disposable income and thus a better standard of living.
b) less hassle from the banks (i.e. 'SFS requests' and whatnot). But they won't move on reposession when their focus is on 'the others' who are paying 'nothing' and thus, are targeted fIrst..
C) propable extra benefits when the new 'mortgage arrears proposals' are enacted.
---------
Proviso
______
The above is really directed to those PDH owners who've paid little capital since they took out their 98% / 100% loan during Celtic Tiger years.
It's for those who've made minimal capital repayments..
Fair enough but the decision may well be taken out of a defaulting borrower's hands if the lender is seeking a repossession order in the meantime.
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?