Thanks for all these explanations. If I've pieced it all together correctly, it goes like this. I've numbered the paragraphs because I'd appreciate it if anyone could please point out any parts I've got wrong. Thanks.
1. A debtor who sees that he/she's about to struggle to make the bond repayments can avoid a lot of trouble by contacting the bank of their own accord, and then possibly be granted some leeway, to pay a lower monthy sum, at least for a while. That could prevent the whole matter of any property being repossessed or seized.
2. Once the bank has decided they have a debtor (who was trying to be a home-owner, but has failed) who is continuing in default of the bond repayments, they will try to encourage that debtor to cut their losses and sell before things get messy. If the debtor refuses, the bank will blacklisted that debtor, and will appeal to the Court asking for permission to repossess. "Repossess" means that Court orders that the bank (which effectively owns the property anyway) is granted permission to sell it, without the cooperation or permission of the debtor. The bank's journey through the Court system takes 6 to 12 months.
3. During this time, the debtor will stay in the property, without honouring the agreement. They'll be rent free, mortgage "free", but racking up more and more debt).
4. Is the Court order ever not granted in the bank's favour? Are there conditions which prevent the Court from granting an order to the bank to repossess,?
5. The bank then tries to sell the property directly (they're allowed to try this, too, right?) and/or puts the property up for auction.
6. For as long as the property doesn't sell, does the debtor still remain in the property, still not paying, and ever increasing the debt? Or could the debtor pay in something? Does the bank go for eviction, as well, or make vacating the property part of the sale, or even leave that nightmare up to the new owner?
7. Depending on the mortage amount still outstanding, the selling price could end up being be the same, or more, or less than the remaining part of the mortgage owed to the bank. Whatever the price, it goes to cover first the fees and costs of the lawyer, the Court, the registrations, agents, auctioneer, etc. and second to settle as much as possible of the mortgage (including the months during which the debtor did not pay the installments, and incurred yet more interest-debt for that lateness). The remaining sum, if positive, would belong to the ex-owner (and that would be the end of it all). If negative, that sum would be owed by failed home-owner to the bank.
8. At that point, the debtor could voluntarily sell off everything else, to try to pay off as much as possible of the debt. Or, if the debtor is able make a repayment schedule, a lower one, more realistic than the bond they weren't managing to pay, could they get out of debt? And if so, then be rehabilitated and taken off the blacklist? Or is that likely/unlikely in real life?
9. In the absence of any willingness on the debtor's part to sell and settle of their own accord, the bank could then go to Court again, (another 6 to 12 months?) to get permission to send the Sheriff to seize whatever is left, and sell it off to pay towards, once again, first the costs of the lawyer, and of the Court and Sheriff, and only then the remainder towards the debt.
10. What happens after the debtors possessions have been sold and they have nothing more to offer the bank? Can the bank have part of their salary docked? Or register a claim on future income such as possible inheritance or lottery gains? What else can the bank do? Or, if the bank has sold the debt to a debt-collecter, what else can they do?
Sign up with Google