>>>Wait... who was selling the house and who bought it?
>>
>>How should I know? It wasn't I who saw the articles.
>>
>>It seems the bank put the house up for auction, presumably to recoup their loan. Maybe it was going so cheap that they thought they mi's well buy it (auctioneered sometimes to that - I think they call it "commission bidding" or summat) and keep it till it can make money for them.
>
>So they sold it to themselves and gained a loss during the process, but still had to pay themselves the fee for that?
>
>They say there's no logical flaw in solipsism.
>
>>As I said, I don't know the mortgage system over there but here the banks don't own the property - the mortgagors do.
>
>Same here, until you default and then they take it. Then they own it and can sell it. Or maybe not - haven't got even close to that while I had a mortgage. Maybe the house is put up for sale and the bank only gets the money, but then I don't know who the owner is. Maybe the poor guy still 'owns' the house but can only watch it being sold and has no more say in the matter? Now that would clear this muddy issue.

Let me see now. They've given this guy a chunk of money - it's gone from their coffers. He can no longer pay them back over the term. So they have the right to sell the property and take their loan back out of the proceedings. Maybe it didn't go for the desired price so they thought they'd buy it, accept an absorbable loss for the time being, then they can sell it later when the market's more buoyant. As I said, I didn't see the news article.

I was trying to point out one misconception that it wasn't theirs to buy off themselves. It wasn't repossessed, but possessed is a more apposite expression.