On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 18:46:18 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote:
>
>Thats not the point, the customer took out an unsecured loan.
>It is not right that it can later be secured on his home unless the
>customer agrees to this new arrangement.
I can't see it's any different, in that respect, from sending in the
bailiffs to seize and sell goods to pay off any other unsecured debt.
I don't think many customers agree with that either.
The bottom line is that the customer owes the bank money. They may pay
a lower rate of interest because they make it easier for the bank to
reclaim the money (by securing against an asset) or a higher rate if
they don't but they still owe the money.
If they refuse to pay the money back but have assets then the bank
is, morally and legally, entitled to go after those assets assuming
that the loan was offered fairly
Cheers,
John |