And more sadly, the banks are willing to lend that last mile dream too only to come and repossess soon after.
...but, I'm almost certain that the people signing the documentation with the Bank are of an age where society deems them to be old enough to be responsible. This is a big expectation to live up to.
Flippantly sign up to a million bucks of debt, cos their repayment says you can afford it, with bugger all contingency plans and bugger all cash / equity behind you.....and then blissfully assume that your employer will keep wanting you to perform whatever task you do.....well you know.
Repossession, why not, damn straight.....they own probably 95% or more of the joint.....of course they have the right to take it back if you won't pay for it.....it was always theirs in the first place.
I'd bet my left nurry that all of those folks who are currently having difficulty, not a single one of them, and I'd reckon there'd be a few hundred or thousand of them, has fully and clearly read every single word on every single page and fully comprehended and understood exactly it was that they signed up for.
The clauses and exclusions and word waffle even try my patience.....and I never get bored reading that garbage, cos I'm always constantly amazed at the grossly unfair weighting of the mortgage contract.
Obviously, the standard mortgage contract is an extremely refined document, where Bankers over many years and over many institutions have got together and refined the wording to accomodate and mitigate against all of the BS excuses that slopey shouldered customers have managed to come up with in the past....and mores the point, had some equally slopey shouldered lawyer convince a Court that the "I didn't and couldn't reasonably know, it's not reasonable for me to know what that means, how can I be expected to actually read all of that rubbish that the Bank wrote".
Of course, all of this supported with the ill informed media playing the emotional card and focusing on hapless families with 17 children underfoot saying every excuse under the sun, yet conveniently ignoring the heart of the contractual matter.....ie. they didn't hold up their end of the deal.
All of this doesn't happen on the first go-around as we all know.....she's a bit like one of those wet blanket tenancy tribunal decisions.....where it drags out for typically years and the defaulters are given numerous chances to catch up or re-negotiate / rectify the situation. The cameras are only introduced on the very last day when the family is locked out and the chuffed off kicking and screaming.
No-one ever re-visits that initial day, way back when, the customers applied for finance and pleaded with the Bank to give them the money. Banks aren't mother-in-laws, they are supposed to be your business partner. If you think they are going to wet-nurse you along.....then you've gone into the financial relationship with the entirely the wrong expectation, and it will be painful....cos by their constitution and duty to shareholders - their owners like little old ladies who trusted their savings to the Banks, they are strictly forbidden from giving a rats @r$e.....the old biddies like yours and my Grandmothers who invested in the Banks all want their pound of flesh....and their money back of course.
Trouble is, the wet behind the ears, non-investing 20 something journos who have been pumping out this drivel for decades now, on instruction from their 40-something subeditors always want the emotional side only.....and are never privy to the contractual details....and so naturally fumble around in the dark looking for everyone's sympathy vote. Contractual nitty-gritty details don't make good TV or radio or newspapers, and usually spoil a good story when the evicted customer doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
