Well Joy, just to tell you how wrong you are - I have had a Bankruptcy petition filed against me, come near to losing my home and have had lots of money problems in the past - so I can have empathy with people who have lost their homes. Please do not insult my qualifications - they don't come into it.(posted 8121 days ago)The point I was trying to make, which you missed entirely, if that when a repossession goes through, the house has ultimately to be sold in order to pay back the mortgage that was secured on it - it is surely better that the BS sell it quickly rather than later because it will fetch more money. I totally disagree with a BS selling for substantially less than the market value and going after the dispossessed for the shortfall. I believe that where the mortgagee takes possession and subsequently under his control, sells the property, then provided the now dispossessed occupier has looked after the place, any shortfall should be borne by the mortgagees not the mortgagor (in other words by the BS not the occupier) because it has been proved time and time again that BS's hang onto properties until they are in rack and ruin and then sell them well under what they would have fetched if sold within a few weeks of vacation.
I once had a car repossessed that has 7 months MOT on it - it was left in a car pound for 8 months and then flogged through auction - I was refused permission to sell it myself for £1500 which would have covered the remaining HP - at auction, with no MOT, it fetched £120 and with the auction fees and collection fees taken off, there was nothing left to apply to the debt - then they came after me for the remainder. I fought the case and won and I did not have to pay anything - all because I kept a copy of the MOT. Same principle is applying to repossessions!