Woman loses everything after repo company

[ILikeTobacco]

Why do you need a court order?? That is just adding more paperwork and time. A contract serves the same purpose, you sign it knowing exactly what will happen if you do not keep up to payments.

 

I really don't see any problem in kicking people out when they know exactly what will happen. :/

The bank should be notifying the occupants before kicking them out. Even apartments here are required to give a few days notice to allow people to get their crap out. If they don't, it goes to a storage unit and you pay the fees for the moving and unit to get your stuff back. The bank made a paper screw up but something is fishy about this repo company selling peoples items that they don't even have a right to sell.

[Growled Member]

The bank should be notifying the occupants before kicking them out. Even apartments here are required to give a few days notice to allow people to get their crap out. If they don't, it goes to a storage unit and you pay the fees for the moving and unit to get your stuff back. The bank made a paper screw up but something is fishy about this repo company selling peoples items that they don't even have a right to sell.

I would be okay with that. As long as it's done halfway right.

[adrynalyne]

The bank should be notifying the occupants before kicking them out. Even apartments here are required to give a few days notice to allow people to get their crap out. If they don't, it goes to a storage unit and you pay the fees for the moving and unit to get your stuff back. The bank made a paper screw up but something is fishy about this repo company selling peoples items that they don't even have a right to sell.

Here, they don't call you (well I guess they do, trying to collect).  Their notice of repossession is a slip taped on your front door.

[firey]

I've often wondered if what they do is legal. Do they actually have a legal right to come on someone's property and snatch stuff that doesn't belong to them because a big company pays them to do so? It seems to me the proper way is through the legal system. 

The bank owns the house.  Therefore the bank is allowed to remove whatever they want.

It is the exact same premise as.. if you buy a house.  If the owner hasn't removed all of their belongings.. they are now yours to do with as you please.

[adrynalyne]

The bank owns the house.  Therefore the bank is allowed to remove whatever they want.

It is the exact same premise as.. if you buy a house.  If the owner hasn't removed all of their belongings.. they are now yours to do with as you please.

Remove maybe.  Dispose of?  No.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

I'm sure they will be suing the bank and winning handsomly. They deserve to sue them into the ground to remind the bank to think twice about its actions. This stuff is really getting to be rediculus.

 

I don't have a problem with that they do as long as they have the right address (the bank is at fault in this case).

 

People who finance cars, boats, TVs, etc. and stop paying for them are the real scumbags. At that point the repo men are just recovering stolen property.

Borrowers defaulting isn't a scumbag issue. People default for various reasons and the costs of bearing this risk is borne when they assume the obligation. At least for Real Estate the bank has a house and land it can sell that may net a profit or a lower loss than would be possible for unsecured debt obligations like credit cards.

 

There is nothing personal about it though. People generally pay their obligations and, for some, default is their only option.

 

Repo men/women do the most disgusting and bottom of the barrel jobs a human being could do. It makes me sick they get paid to ruin peoples lives.

I'm not sure I would agree with that. They do a job, but they aren't killing people or anything close to it. They are doing an undesirable job, sure, but they aren't ruining anyone's life (except in cases like this where they are in the wrong house!)

 

So sick of hearing these stories. Banks should not be allowed to toss out someone's belongings. Yes they own the house, but not everything in it. They should be able to remove the items but they don't own them. But of course our politicians would rather litigate the smallest of things before anything that could impact innocent people's lives.

 

This is not to mention the massive scale on which stories like this are occurring. All because of not enough regulation and accountability. Just makes me sick.

As long as they go through the courts and it is a valid foreclosure I'm not sure anyone could argue they have no right to do this. If you came to my home and left your coat in the closet for a month and it smelled funny so I decided to toss it you wouldn't have recourse against me. I'm allowed to do whatever I please with my property, and that includes disgarding things that I don't want on it. A REO foreclosure is owned by the bank and they are allowed to hire anyone they want to do whatever they want to whatever is on that property.

 

The former homeowner knew well before this occurs though (except in this case...) and they can, and should, take remedial steps if they care to keep their stuff from being considered abandonded. That would mean removing it from the home prior to repossesion of the place. If they do it orderly enough the bank will usually give them a kickback (cash for keys).

[neufuse Veteran]

Actually they don't ruin people's lives, people ruin their own lives b taking to much credit and not paying.

Of course in this case it's different.

Over here, the police have to be involved in any repossession anyway though, and it's not really done b private companies but by a special police/customs department. Ad it's not so easy that the bank can just say "go repossess at this address" it takes a lot of time and paperwork before the police are sent on a repossession job here.

That's how it is in Pennsylvania also, you have to have the Sheriff involved... the bank doesn't just go in and throw your stuff out... the Sheriff will give you notices to evict, after so many days then the bank can "empty" the house, and by this they mean put all the stuff on the curb, not hull it away to a dump, as it's not their property, they can only move it to public property (aka the curb of the yard) and of course this is now at a point that multiple people have been to the house to leave notices... which should validate the address as correct after multiple layers of people and validations...

[chrisj1968]

Yes, I would ensure they were liable for the replacement of each and every single item within my property?

 

Some are irreplaceable?  Then *I* will deem their value, not you, as it's your mistake.

+1

[firey]

Remove maybe.  Dispose of?  No.

That would come down to personal opinion.  If someone left stuff in a house I bought.. if I couldn't chuck it at garbage day I would head down to the dump.  

[adrynalyne]

That would come down to personal opinion.  If someone left stuff in a house I bought.. if I couldn't chuck it at garbage day I would head down to the dump.  

No, it comes down to  the law.  Opinion or not, it is not yours to dispose of unless the contract states otherwise.

 

Purchasing a house that has things in it is a little different than repossession.

 

With a purchase, your purchase contract would protect you (assuming your real estate agent isn't a half-wit).

[MikeChipshop Member]

Why do you need a court order?? That is just adding more paperwork and time. A contract serves the same purpose, you sign it knowing exactly what will happen if you do not keep up to payments.

 

I really don't see any problem in kicking people out when they know exactly what will happen. :/

A court order is still required because property is being removed.

All 'Repo men' in this country are working for and on behalf of the crown court.

[ILikeTobacco]

A court order is still required because property is being removed.

All 'Repo men' in this country are working for and on behalf of the crown court.

A bit different here. The bank has every right to evict you if you break the terms of the loan contract. However, such as this case, if it is a wrongful eviction, it is illegal. The fact that the repo people destroyed all her stuff without a chance for her to get it back adds to the problem.

 

No court orders are needed because the bank is the owner and it is the owners right to evict someone. However, as the person being evicted, you do have the right to also take them to court over it.

[Lord Method Man]

She needs to end up owning the bank when this is over.

[+Warwagon MVC]

About the Mixup of address, like they said in Armageddon "check recheck and then do it all over again"

[greenwizard88]

I've often wondered if what they do is legal. Do they actually have a legal right to come on someone's property and snatch stuff that doesn't belong to them because a big company pays them to do so? It seems to me the proper way is through the legal system. 

If you take out a mortgage for a house, you don't own the house until every penny is paid off. If you owe the bank as much as 1?, they have the right to kick you out of your house and repo everything. For a penny.

[_dandy_]

Repo men/women do the most disgusting and bottom of the barrel jobs a human being could do. It makes me sick they get paid to ruin peoples lives.

 

Gotta disagree with you here.  They're hardly different than movers.  They're not the ones who make the decision to "ruin people's lives".

 

It would take a sadist, however, to enjoy that job.

[Growled Member]

If you take out a mortgage for a house, you don't own the house until every penny is paid off. If you owe the bank as much as 1?, they have the right to kick you out of your house and repo everything. For a penny.

Yes, but they could just say you owe them something when you don't. They could be lying for all we know (although everyone knows that banks don't lie :D )