Repossession Madness

This weekend I was asked by a Southfield family to attend a meeting between them and the agent looking after the home they have recently been forced to leave by their mortgage lender.  I found the meeting utterly unpleasant in the extreme, because it pained me to visit a beautiful former family home that had been repossessed by the lender for reasons outside the family’s control.  The meeting really brought it home to me the fact that the credit crunch is biting local families very, very hard.

What actually happened in this case was that the original lender had sold the mortgage on the property to another company, something which is sadly becoming  increasingly common.  The original mortgage was fixed rate and affordable, the family concerned had no difficulty in making the payments, the lender who purchased the mortgage from the building society changed this instantly to a variable rate loan, and doubled the monthly repayment to a ridiculously unaffordable level at a single stroke.  The really tragic thing about this kind of behaviour by lenders is that it is completely legal as the law stands at present.  One thing I find find totally repugnant about this behaviour by mortgage lenders is that they are quite legally allowed to charge whatever they see fit in administration fees, and they are then allowed to charge interest on those fees at wholly unacceptable rates as high as 17-18% if the borrower is unable to pay the bill when it is demanded of them.  The startling thing  for me was that when I researched the mortgage lender in question, is that they have considerable “form” for making unfair demands and behaving unreasonably toward their clients.  Indeed, the Sun newspaper recently took the very same company to task over their attitude problem toward another family who went directly to the newspaper’s finance editor with their plight.

Further unacceptable behaviour followed by the lender’s bailiffs when they effectively broke into the house to remove the owner’s remaining possessions a week before they were legally entitled, causing even more distress to people who really did not need it when they were already feeling at their worst.  The bailiffs gained access to the house by drilling out the lock on a french door at the back, leaving a very unsightly mess.  I was shocked by this and the fact that the bailiffs had decided to seriously damage the front door in order to fit a new lock.  In my judgment, this was completely unnecessary as the property was already for sale and the keys were already held with by owner’s agents.  Having seen this wanton destruction at first hand and the fact that the lender had been so heavy handed in sending their heavies in before they were legally entitled makes me question whether some in the finance industry have any morals at all or have any consideration as to what impact their behaviour really has on the lives of ordinary people.

The attitude of the lender’s agent left a lot to be desired in my view, the former owner of the property asked for my view on the damage made to gain entry and “secure” the front door.  The agent’s representative said he didn’t think the amount of damage was unreasonable, I revealed who I was and why I’d been asked to attend and told him that in my judgment the front door looked as though it had been “bulldozed.”  Fortunately, he did change his arrogant attitude toward the resident who had sought my help, and he was rather better behaved afterwards.  I am really left wondering what on earth is going on in the world when finance companies and their agents behave like this toward people who are already under stress from finding themselves in  a position where they are faced with ridiculously increased mortgage payments and actually losing the home they treasure so much.

Putting it simply, the law HAS to change to stop this kind of greedy, arrogant and immoral behaviour by the finance industry.

Town Council Meeting – 9th September

Nelson Town Council met in full session on September, one of the key topics for discussion was the issue of the multi-storey car park above the old bus station. 

The multi storey car park is owned by the same company as Pendle Rise Shopping Centre and has been the source of much concern and controversy over the years.  The structure was built in 1965, and was once voted as the second ugliest building in Britain.  Several years ago, transport pressure group Bus Users UK described the former bus station as being “one of the worst in the country.”   It is also common knowledge in the town that Pendle Rise’s car park is  afflicted by the constructional problem known as “concrete cancer.” 

However, the most worrying issue related to this building, is the fact that it has become the place of choice in Pendle for people to take their own lives.  The Town Council was asked to discuss whether we could provide part funding for railings or fencing to be put up on the car park to prevent people from accessing the wall tops.  The discussion was lively to say the least, many councillors felt that it was not the duty of the town council to provide funding to carry out work on a building owned by a private property company.  Councillors also felt that the owner has a duty of care to the public to carry out the work at their own expense under the terms of the Health and Safety at Work Act.  Whilst I appreciate the very emotive nature of the debate we had, councillors decided that the Town Council would not fund any work on the car stack until its future is formally announced.

A good number of Town Councillors, myself included, are of the view that the only real solution to the blight this structure has on our town centre is for it to be demolished and the site redeveloped.

Bus Pass Stupidity

The national media has widely reported the possible means testing for senior citizens’ bus passes this week.  The Local Government Association is reported to be consulting members about the possibility of introducing means testing as part of the application process for bus passes for the over 60’s.

I do not believe any thought of this is a fair and equitable way to treat many people who have worked and saved hard for all of their working lives.   The honest truth is that the LGA and local authorities are looking at means of achieving significant cost savings by whatever means they can, obviously irrespective of who they penalise as a result.  

Suggestion has been made that local authorities may not just be seeking to poke their noses into what a retiree’s income may be, but also to ascertain whether or not someone who applies for a senior’s travel pass either owns a car or has the use of a car.  This is an insult to the intelligence of people who have paid their dues to society over their working lives, and is yet another case of town hall staff being handed carte blanche to pry into peoples’ lives.

With regard to the income means test, over the past twelve years, the system in this country has become obsessed about means income means testing for just about everything under the sun.  Of course, we do know where the obsession with means testing comes from.  All of this nonsense originates right from the top of national government, the Prime Minister himself is widely known as a great advocate of this regressive and indiscriminate means to an end.

My own thoughts are that local authorities, via the Local Government Association are going to attempt to shirk their responsibilities to Britain’s senior citizens, responsibilities which they are required to fulfil by statute.  This madness must not be permitted to go ahead.

Time To Join The Real World Clive

I have read with considerable anger and disgust this morning that Labour peer Lord Clive Soley has been complaining that the £160 per day allowance paid to members of the House of Lords is insufficient.

How hypocritical is it possible for this man to be?  It was left to a national newspaper to point out that Lord Soley also earns £29,000 a year as a campaign director.   Lord Soley should put a sock in it and think about how ordinary working folk round here make ends meet on earnings of £40-£50 per day.

£29K per year as well as your £160 a day allowance, not bad money if you can get it Clive.  Many ordinary working folk like myself can only dream of earning sums like that.  Time for regime change I think.

Norwich North Success

The Conservative victory in the Norwich North by-election is most encouraging to Conservative activists and supporters throughout the country.  Conservative Chloe Smith claimed victory in a constituency which has returned a Labour MP for 45 of the the last 60 years achieving a swing of 16.5% of the vote, well done Chloe!

If the 16.5% vote swing Chloe Smith achieved in Norwich North was replicated in a General Election, a Conservative government would be returned with a majority of some 218.  I wholeheartedly agree with Conservative leader David Cameron when he says Chloe Smith’s win was a reward for our party having been honest about the need to properly control the public finances and offering people a real opportunity to positively change our country for the better.