This is where I struggle a bit. Repossessions aren't actually that high at the moment if you compare with the previous recession of the early 1990's. And I understand that a lot are from "buy to let" rather than the homes of individuals.

But you have to ask the question - did people borrow irresponsibly or did bankers lend irresponsibly.

Data here

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZ...

I think it was probably a bit of both, but an awful lot of those complaining, are not blameless. They probably enjoyed their expensive cars, their nice holidays and their large tellys, but they'd have been in a much better position had that money been equity in their houses!

The high BTL repossessions would be through those who got caught out thinking that they could make a quick buck on the booming housing market either through "property development" or rentals.

Because all people are 100% honest, 100% of the time? If someone offers you something, do you take their word for it, or do you do your own sums/risk assessment?

My experience of lending from banks has involved showing proof of income etc. Did the banks not as for something similar?

Indeed, but how far do you go in checking the veracity of income and expenditure statements...?

Equally there's little to stop people getting loaded up with debt post mortgage approval radically altering the affordability (the new house needs a DFS sofa, LCD tv, little Jimmy needs an Xbox....

There is quite evidently uproar when banks do not lend or tighten their requirements (witness govt and leftie bleating very recently). But then they get blamed when it goes sour...it does not compute.

Much talk of banks learning lessons. Nowhere near enough talk of Joe Public learning a few.

But Joe Public have learnt lessons. Repossessions are half of what they were in the last recession - which was a fairly minor dip compared to the current one.

Whis is exactly the point - the bulk of the problem stemmed from an illiquidity crisis - people perceived that there would be a huge problem with certain loans, mortgages etc which caused a severe (but temporary) write-down in certain asset classes and the drying up of the securitisation and inter-bank lending markets.

Those asset classes have been amongst the strongest performing assets post crisis, as the panic has subsided and people have seen that these assets are good from a credit perspective, albeit not as liquid as originally expected.

It is for this reason that the guarantees provided by the government are never likley to be taken up and therefore create some useful income for the taxpayer (billions per annum) at effetcively zero risk.

No numbers of claimants published as yet to my knowledge, but as I mentioned this issue is set to cost banks billions apparently.

Ex Barclays employee can't kick the habit

Not to "Joe Public" no.

I was just proving to a previous poster that this mess couldn't be laid at the door of individuals who had borrowed too much. Hasn't really been the case in this recession.

Thats the message for the past few years, just grocery shopping and see the number of customers who now pay cash at the tills.