I Worked, I Paid Taxes – Then the Bank Took My Home
Postedabout 1 month agoActiveabout 1 month ago
bbc.comOtherstory
heatednegative
Debate
80/100
Mortgage DebtFinancial ResponsibilityBanking Regulations
Key topics
Mortgage Debt
Financial Responsibility
Banking Regulations
A person lost their home due to financial difficulties and the bank's actions, sparking a debate about personal financial responsibility and the fairness of secured debt laws.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Moderate engagementFirst comment
1h
Peak period
7
1-2h
Avg / period
7
Comment distribution7 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 7 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Nov 19, 2025 at 4:24 PM EST
about 1 month ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Nov 19, 2025 at 5:27 PM EST
1h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
7 comments in 1-2h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Nov 19, 2025 at 6:21 PM EST
about 1 month ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45985425Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 5:11:42 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Lesson learned.
Be super careful who you open contracts with. Marriages are a coin toss. Would you put your total financial health up to a coin toss? Similar point about how much cashflow requirements you take on. (Can you pay the mortgage on your own? Are you ready to take on roommate(s) to fill your ex's place?)
remainder from the article showing this guy just failed to do the right thing:
> "I can imagine that customers are really worried and distressed if they're facing financial difficulty, but they don't have to go through it alone," Ms Hutchins said.
> "The earlier they get in touch with their mortgage lender, the more support and help that that lender can give them and the more likelihood they have of getting back up to date with their mortgage."
> Options offered by lenders, she said, included reduced mortgage payments to allow time to get back on track, budgeting and other tools to understand "their full financial situation" and advice about debt charities and support organisations.
Huh? That's a quote from a banking spokesperson. It's not even related to any of the (several) stories in the article - it's a quote she gave to the BBC.
Assuming that by "this guy" you mean the first guy mentioned in the article, he had an interest-only mortgage. So sure, he was overextended, but exactly how much accommodation do you think he was going to get? The second guy did have an accommodation with his bank (also on an interest-only mortgage), and it is... he'll be repossessed if he goes more than eight thousand pounds into arrears.
The first guy seems to have a legitimate grievance. He wasn't allowed to sell the home to cover the mortgage. Here's the way the article actually ends:
> As for Mr Da Costa Diogo, his bank has repossessed the property.
> In the same month it was repossessed, the BBC saw a similar three-bedroom property in the same Thetford street as Mr Da Costa Diogo's on the market for £160,000 - almost double the amount he owed.
Though if the repossession covers the remainder of the loan it's really not, they are going to be free of debt again.
Their credit score is going to take a hit which will make renting harder, but not impossible.
The first guy for example couldn't possibly hope to get a better outcome. He is no longer paying a mortgage on his ex-wife's house.
Interest-only mortgages shouldn't exist. They are predatory and the people that take them just don't have the discernment to make that decision.
(I'm honestly surprised that they exist at the UK.)
Ie. You should be able to hand the keys to a mortgage company and walk away debt free.
Likewise you should be able to return the car keys to a loan company and walk away debt free.
Sure, it would mean loans would have to have slightly higher fees to cover the increased risk, but as a nation I think it would be worth it for the productivity gains of not having so many of the population in court over debts.
That's already the case in the US for original mortgages. If you refinance your mortgage, you generally lose that benefit.
8 more comments available on Hacker News