The law at work is meant for who?

A Reflection on the Judicial System and Mortgage Arrears

Over 10 years ago,  My Husband and I  found myself facing the court system for the first time due to mortgage arrears caused by unemployment. Despite numerous attempts to negotiate with my mortgage provider, they insisted on pursuing legal action. This experience gave me a first-hand look at how the judiciary functions, and I can't help but feel disillusioned by the way it unfolded.

Upon arriving at court, the bank’s lawyer immediately attempted to rush through a deal that would have resulted in the repossession of our home within 56 days. When the case was presented to the judge, the decision was made based on our submitted financial position and the lawyer’s argument about our lack of payment. However, no one asked us about the circumstances behind the missed payments—why we couldn’t pay and what had led to the arrears. The judge simply ruled in favour of the bank.

Walking out of the court, I felt an overwhelming sense of disappointment in the judicial system. It raised a serious question in my mind: is the system truly working for the people, or is it more geared toward protecting the interests of the powerful? No one asked about our history with the mortgage or the fact that we had been paying for eight years without issue until my husband lost his job.

Our story goes like this: We had lived in our home for eight years, and for the first time, we were unable to keep up with the mortgage payments six months after my husband lost his job. We used up all our savings to try to keep up, and when we asked the bank to switch us to an interest-only payment plan, they refused. Despite our efforts, we found ourselves facing the loss of our home over just four months of arrears.

What felt particularly unfair was the way the government and banks had handled their own financial troubles. Last year, when banks were in dire straits and needed a bailout, taxpayer money was used to rescue them. I owed less than £5,000, and yet, no one was coming to my aid. Why is it that the big players are bailed out while ordinary citizens, who contribute to the system, are left to suffer?

This experience made me question the priorities of both the government and the banking sector. Let’s face it: the government’s primary concern seems to be the economy, and the economy, in turn, revolves around the banks. Ordinary people—those who are struggling to make ends meet—seem to be nothing more than pawns in a much larger game. It’s disheartening to think that while banks may rise and fall, it is the people who remain, yet they are increasingly less important than the institutions that were originally created to serve them.

This situation has also made me reflect on the justice system more broadly. We often focus on punishing criminals for their actions, but what about the root causes of their behavior? At the core of every offender is a problem—an issue that, if left unchecked, may lead them to reoffend. Rather than simply punishing offenders, perhaps the focus should be on rehabilitation. Assigning counselors to offenders during their time in prison could guide them back to a place where they no longer feel the need to offend, addressing the underlying causes of their actions.

A Glimmer of Hope

Despite the overwhelming challenges we faced, I am relieved to say that we are still in our home. Employment became possible again, and we are once again able to keep up with the mortgage payments. Thank God! Our experience, though painful, has left me with much to think about when it comes to the judicial system, the role of banks, and the way we treat ordinary citizens in a society that seems to prioritize money over people.

Proposed Way Forward:

1. Rethink the Role of Banks and the Judiciary: The judicial system and financial institutions must shift focus to a more compassionate approach when dealing with people in difficult financial situations. There needs to be more consideration for individual histories and circumstances rather than relying purely on financial figures. A more empathetic approach could help prevent unnecessary hardship.

2. Government Accountability: The government should be more transparent about its priorities and make sure that the needs of ordinary citizens are better represented. If banks can be bailed out with taxpayers' money, there should be a system in place to protect homeowners who are struggling due to unemployment or unforeseen circumstances.

3. Holistic Approach to Rehabilitation: When it comes to criminal justice, the system should focus on rehabilitation, not just punishment. Assigning counsellors and providing support services to offenders would not only help prevent recidivism but also address the root causes of criminal behaviour. Helping individuals rebuild their lives is a more effective solution than merely incarcerating them.

4. Greater Support for Financial Hardship: Financial institutions need to offer more flexibility to those in need. A proactive approach, such as offering interest-only payments or other repayment options, would help people stay in their homes during times of crisis.

Conclusion:

The current state of the judicial system and its relationship with the banking sector leaves much to be desired. There’s a clear need for a more human-centred approach that considers people’s histories, hardships, and potential for recovery. While we are fortunate to have come out of our situation, many others may not be so lucky. As a society, we need to shift our priorities and ensure that the law works for the people, not just for the economy.