Get you debts written off!

helmut147

AARRRGH wrote: »

There is a huge difference between making a bad investment and being disabled/sick/elderly/unemployed.





Quote:
Originally Posted by helmut147
negativity equity ruins lives. it has to be addressed.

If you bought a house as an investment (which you obviously did if you are concerned by negative equity), you have to accept the good times with the bad. That means the price of your house could go up or down.

If you aren't willing to accept this (or are unable to understand it) you should not have bought a house in the first place.


Quote:
Originally Posted by helmut147
we all suffer when negativity equity abounds

No we don't.

I was someone who could see the imminent crash as clear as day, so I didn't buy a house. As a result I have plenty of savings and can simply wait for prices to reach a level I am happy with. Negative equity and falling prices is good for me.

That's not to say I don't have some sympathy for people in negative equity (I do), but as a believer in personal responsibility I have no interest in any sort of bail out for people who made a bad decision.

'Aarrrgh',
my point was if you are saying people are stupid for buying property, why not help them when they are on their knees - alcholics don't have to buy booze but we help when they get themselves into an almighty mess. i was replying to the fact that posters said buyers were morons stupid etc etc. yes they were stupid. they will pay in some form of hardship. but my point was one of now helping society as a whole. i think you misunderstood my intention.

also you say if people didn't understand the economics of property they shouldn't be allowed to buy. well that rules out most of the population. huge numbers were blind to the bigger picture. my point if you read my message was that people got sucked into the trap. media,govt, banks and society all played a huge part in creating the frenzy.

also as you 'knew' for a fact a crash was imminent, thats great for you. i hope you did your part to warn as many people as possible. you should be more positive now that you are now better off.

you are very naive if you think negativity equity wont directly effect you or your loved ones, one way or another. it is certain to have an enormous impact on society in ireland.

where do you draw the line with personal responsiblity by the way. would you not help an alco (bad decision) a junkie (bad decision) a gambling addict , someone who married an abusive partner etc etc. in your world no one would help anyone.
your probably against nama too i'd imagine and believe if the banks collapsed it would'nt effect you.

and by the way i am not in negative equity. i am sorry to dissapoint you.
but i do have friends who are.

AARRRGH

helmut147 wrote: »

where do you draw the line with personal responsiblity by the way. would you not help an alco (bad decision) a junkie (bad decision) a gambling addict , someone who married an abusive partner etc etc. in your world no one would help anyone.
your probably against nama too i'd imagine and believe if the banks collapsed it would'nt effect you.

I believe in helping people, but only if it's reasonable and only to a level we can afford.

For example, we can afford to set aside a couple of million in the budget to help the few thousand junkies we have on our streets, but we cannot afford to set aside billions to help people who (let's be honest) are upset their house isn't going up in value.

Having to continue living in your home is not exactly hardship.

helmut147

fair enough,

i am mainly talking about people who can't keep up repayments and are in negative equity.

i just believe this issue is just as important and worthy as NAMA, and its not going to go away by itself so something has to be done.

kuntboy

helmut147 wrote: »

people who can't keep up repayments and are in negative equity.

Fukc 'em.

AARRRGH

helmut147 wrote: »

i just believe this issue is just as important and worthy as NAMA

Well I don't believe NAMA should exist, so...

johnnyskeleton

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, no, really all you're losing as a creditor is the ability to not stick to an agreed debt reduction. The process of reduction is one of arbitration, the aim being to ensure that all creditors get paid most of what they are owed - not much different from your current ability to negotiate with your debtor - the main difference is that if the reduced repayment is agreed under this mechanism, it's legally binding, which gives the debtor peace of mind. Currently, like it or not, there's no legal weight to any agreement you come to with a creditor - you're liable, legally, for the full debt, and any arrangement is non-binding.

No, as a creditor you could be forced to accept a debt reduction agreement against your will in a legally binding context.

You seem to be suggesting that I am advocating creditors rights to renege on a reduced payment agreement that they voluntarily entered into. I am not. I don't propose for a second that if a creditor agrees such a scheme that it should be denied legal effect (currently the rule in pinnells case prevents this) but where a minority creditor does not agree, they can be forced to take a lesser contribution. That is the issue that sticks in my gullet and it flies in the face of the bargaining power of the citizen.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/new-836414bn-debt-bomb-just-about-to-explode-1923998.html

In the midst of a recession, and with 420,000 people on the dole, Irish consumers are up to their oxters in about €136.4bn of personal debt. This debt includes mortgages, credit cards and other personal loans.

"This is massive," said Jim Power, chief economist with Friends First. "It could be safe to assume that around 10 per cent of this debt -- €13.6bn -- is in considerable difficulty at this juncture, but this could double over the next two years if interest rates start to rise."


......
the government could end up paying about €14bn -- twice as much as the AIB and BoI bailout -- for the clean-up operation

Tech3

No Sh*t. This country is going to be riddled with debt for a few decades to come. 24 billion written off at the minute, wouldn't be surprised to see that reach 50 to 60 billion in 4-5 years after it's found that billions of NAMA is waste and mortgages written off residents that cant pay back due to interest rate hikes.

We only hitting the start of the mess that was created over the last 10 years.

SLUSK

helmut147 wrote: »

'Aarrrgh',
my point was if you are saying people are stupid for buying property, why not help them when they are on their knees - alcholics don't have to buy booze but we help when they get themselves into an almighty mess. i was replying to the fact that posters said buyers were morons stupid etc etc. yes they were stupid. they will pay in some form of hardship. but my point was one of now helping society as a whole. i think you misunderstood my intention.

also you say if people didn't understand the economics of property they shouldn't be allowed to buy. well that rules out most of the population. huge numbers were blind to the bigger picture. my point if you read my message was that people got sucked into the trap. media,govt, banks and society all played a huge part in creating the frenzy.

also as you 'knew' for a fact a crash was imminent, thats great for you. i hope you did your part to warn as many people as possible. you should be more positive now that you are now better off.

you are very naive if you think negativity equity wont directly effect you or your loved ones, one way or another. it is certain to have an enormous impact on society in ireland.

where do you draw the line with personal responsiblity by the way. would you not help an alco (bad decision) a junkie (bad decision) a gambling addict , someone who married an abusive partner etc etc. in your world no one would help anyone.
your probably against nama too i'd imagine and believe if the banks collapsed it would'nt effect you.

and by the way i am not in negative equity. i am sorry to dissapoint you.
but i do have friends who are.

Most people probably oppose NAMA because they think it is unfair to have a system with profits going into private pockets and socialized losses covered by the taxpayers.

Do you think it is a good idea to have a system of private profits and socialized losses?

SLUSK

starbelgrade wrote: »

My workplace is 20 mins drive from my house - the nearest train station is 14km away. At a moderate pace, that's 140 mins. Even at that, there is no train that would get me to the office on time. There are also no footpaths on the road which is full of dangerous bends for both drivers & anyone mad / deperate enough to walk it.

There is a bus service that serves the village. It passes through once a week, on a Wednesday at 11am & drops back at 3pm.

Public transport is not always there.

If I couldn't afford to pay back my car loan due to, for example a downturn in profits from the business & my car was repossesed, I wouldn't be able to go to work. How & who would that help?

You shouldn't have bought a car you couldn't afford. There are decent cars around for €3k-€4k and if you cannot even come up with that money cash you have a serious financial problem I would say. Everyone should have at least one years salary in their bank account.

MrMicra

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No, as a creditor you could be forced to accept a debt reduction agreement against your will in a legally binding context.

You seem to be suggesting that I am advocating creditors rights to renege on a reduced payment agreement that they voluntarily entered into. I am not. I don't propose for a second that if a creditor agrees such a scheme that it should be denied legal effect (currently the rule in pinnells case prevents this) but where a minority creditor does not agree, they can be forced to take a lesser contribution. That is the issue that sticks in my gullet and it flies in the face of the bargaining power of the citizen.

But the de facto reality is that every EU citizen (except a Dane) can go bankrupt in the UK and be discharged from bankruptcy in 7 months to a year. Bankruptcy is no big deal and creditors will be forced to like it or lump it.

johnnyskeleton

MrMicra wrote: »

But the de facto reality is that every EU citizen (except a Dane) can go bankrupt in the UK and be discharged from bankruptcy in 7 months to a year. Bankruptcy is no big deal and creditors will be forced to like it or lump it.

I didn't mention bankruptcy (indeed I would be in favour of bankruptcy/personal insolvency reform in Ireland) and the scheme put forward has nothing to do with bankruptcy. It relates to recognising the legal effect of creditors agreements in the context of personal debts. Again, I have no problem with this (currently the rule in Pinnel's case means that for a creditor to be bound by an agreement to pay a lesser sum it must be agreed in court or else must include some other non-monetary consideration) and a system to formally recognise such agreements is a good thing.

The problem I have is that the majority of creditors can enter an agreement which is binding upon the minority of creditors which is a concept that I find abhorrent to our legal system and possibly our constitution as well.

A fairer system would be whereby if 75% of creditors agree and the other 25% do not agree then the 75% can enter the agreement and get paid while the 25% take their chances.

MrMicra

So you are in favour of the rule in Pinnel's case being set aside but feel that the majority of creditors should not be able to force the minority into a scheme of arrangement?

fifth

Working in the credit industry I know that this will ruin your credit file for 6 years, no less.

This isn't right, creditors (I would assume) would rather get their money back in dribs and drabs than write it off.

johnnyskeleton

MrMicra wrote: »

So you are in favour of the rule in Pinnel's case being set aside but feel that the majority of creditors should not be able to force the minority into a scheme of arrangement?

Not set aside but I have no problem with a scheme which gives legal recognition to a creditors agreement voluntarily entered into by all parties.

I think that economic necessity would force all shareholders to accept such an arrangement where there is little or no possibility of getting anymore back. But I don't think the minority should be legally bound by a decision entered into by completely separate persons.

AARRRGH

funkyflea wrote: »

Working in the credit industry I know that this will ruin your credit file for 6 years, no less.

Well, the ICB only keep records of your loans for 5 years after paying them off so...

MrMicra

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think that economic necessity would force all shareholders to accept such an arrangement where there is little or no possibility of getting anymore back. But I don't think the minority should be legally bound by a decision entered into by completely separate persons.

Sorry for the delay in replying.


The proposed procedure is substantially similar to the procedure outlined n s201 of the Companies Act 1963 and that procedure hasn't been extensively litigated (and it was very important prior to the introduction of the Examinership act in 1990) I would suggest that the constitutionality of the proposed scheme is less shaky than you think.
The issue of compulsory acceptance of a Creditor's arrangement is also part of s89 of the Bankruptcy act 1988 (but this contains other provisions that make it unattractive for debtors). This isn't that similar because the High Court has to supervise any such arrangement.


Surely the ordinary Joe Soap should have the same protection from his creditors as the individual who is savvy enough to structure his affairs such that he is protected by the corporate veil.

c_o_ck p_i_ss chillage

One of the best posts about this sorry mess I have read. I applaud you. I too feel the same way.

peasant wrote: »

You know what? To hell with financial reasons !

According to financial reasoning you were declared a mug if you didn't jump on the property ladder

According to financial reasoning you were just as much of a mug if you didn't avail of cheap credit

Financial reasoning beheld it to be a good thing to create "leverages" and "derivatives", creating money out of nothing.

Financial reasons are behind planning desasters, failed policy, wrong tax incentives, backhanders and corruption.

Financial reasons landed us in this heap in the first place.

How about we try something new instead ...or maybe even something old fashioned ...like responsibility and morals?

So you say it's going to cost me more and for financial reaons I should sell out on my morals?
Well here's the rub ...I don't care, I'm not in debt, I can afford it !

Plus I'm used to being fleeced ...being fleeced some more to put an end to this financially motivated irresponsibilty and immorality might just be worth it.

hmmmmn

Courts facing €1bn 'wave of debt' as credit crisis worsens

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/courts-facing-83641bn-wave-of-debt-as-credit-crisis-worsens-1927567.html

By Dearbhail McDonald Legal Editor


Thursday October 29 2009

UP TO €1bn in consumer and corporate debt actions could flood the courts by the end of this year, as families and businesses struggle with the credit crisis.

Figures obtained by the Irish Independent reveal that over half a billion euro of credit defaults -- where a debtor is pursued in the courts -- came up for hearing in the first nine months of this year. And this figure is set to spiral.

The figures, compiled by Business Pro, the monitoring agency that publishes 'Stubbs Gazette', show a huge surge in the value of personal debt actions, the vast majority of which are undefended as debtors do not turn up in court.

They underline the warning by High Court Master Ed Honohan earlier this week that the "whole system is going to break down" as distressed debtors and creditors, including banks, seek adjournments in proceedings.

James Treacy, managing director of Business Pro, said that based on current volumes and incoming cases, the amount of judgments could reach €1bn by the end of the calendar year.

"A huge wave of personal debt is about to hit the courts," said Mr Treacy, who gathered the data from over 70 District, Circuit and High Court offices throughout the country.

"Between January 1 and September 30, we recorded €516m worth of judgments, €315m of which came from the court registrars' list alone,'' he said

"And this did not take into account the amount of cases that had not yet reached the courts.

>>>

johnnyskeleton

MrMicra wrote: »

The proposed procedure is substantially similar to the procedure outlined n s201 of the Companies Act 1963 and that procedure hasn't been extensively litigated (and it was very important prior to the introduction of the Examinership act in 1990) I would suggest that the constitutionality of the proposed scheme is less shaky than you think.

First of all such an agreement must have the sanction of the court before becoming binding. Secondly, I'm not sure a specific challenge was made to that section on constitutional grounds.

MrMicra wrote: »

The issue of compulsory acceptance of a Creditor's arrangement is also part of s89 of the Bankruptcy act 1988 (but this contains other provisions that make it unattractive for debtors). This isn't that similar because the High Court has to supervise any such arrangement.

The situation as regards bankruptcy is also different in that in a bankruptcy scheme there is a facility to recover debts where the debtor suddenly comes into funds so to speak.

MrMicra wrote: »

Surely the ordinary Joe Soap should have the same protection from his creditors as the individual who is savvy enough to structure his affairs such that he is protected by the corporate veil.

There should be a less arduous form of bankruptcy - if not for the benefit of the Joe Soap, then for the purposes of ensuring that the entrepeneur who gets himself into a bit of trouble can work himself out of it. But if such a regime were introduced, at least lenders would be forewarned of the risks. Don't forget as well that the option to set up a limited company is open to any two persons who wish to engage in a business. If they do not do so then I have about as much sympathy for them as I do for a bank which fails to obtain personal guarantees from the directors of a limited company for a loan.

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

hmmmmn

It might be bad for most people, but its a golden age for the repo business, one that surely will never end.

Also, the indo calling the master of the High Court Ed says it all really.

MrMicra

Regarding bankruptcy I believe that we will soon see a wave of UK bankruptcies by Irish citizens. I believe that this will force the irish government's hand. Of course they might just ignore any such wave of UK bankruptcies.

Regarding a formal scheme of arrangement for creditors which allowed for debts to be written down I would expect that there would be some tribunal involved and that the decisions of that tribunal would be appeallable to the courts.

Jessica2501

Hi, I have a question and was wondering if you could help. If you have a loan which was taken out in 2006 but are unable to make repayments will this get written off? Cos i did hear that it's 5 years until your name is cleared again from the ICB but is that when you have paid it or it's automatically after 5 years deleted?

_Kooli_

Jessica2501 wrote: »

Hi, I have a question and was wondering if you could help. If you have a loan which was taken out in 2006 but are unable to make repayments will this get written off? Cos i did hear that it's 5 years until your name is cleared again from the ICB but is that when you have paid it or it's automatically after 5 years deleted?

If you are lucky they might suspend the interest or lower it a bit, but you still have to pay back the loan. There will be no loans written off for ordinary people at all. None.

nesf

Jessica2501 wrote: »

Hi, I have a question and was wondering if you could help. If you have a loan which was taken out in 2006 but are unable to make repayments will this get written off? Cos i did hear that it's 5 years until your name is cleared again from the ICB but is that when you have paid it or it's automatically after 5 years deleted?

This isn't the place to look for financial advice. Seriously, talk to MABS: http://www.mabs.ie/ (it's free and they know what they're talking about)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6917187.ece

why not require the government to step in and write down all existing mortgages on principal private residences by 10%? The cost to the state would be just over €8 billion, a little more than the known overpayment that the banks are receiving for the dodgy loans being parked in Nama.

http://www.independent.ie/l

Mr Gilmore unveiled five alternative proposals to kick-start the economy, including a jobs strategy and a guarantee that people will not lose their homes in the recession.

Daithinski

lmimmfn wrote: »

Its capitalism, things dont work out, you fail, you lose your property,

Eh, unless of course you are a bank.

Daithinski

Daithinski wrote: »

Eh, unless of course you are a bank.

no thats not capitalism, thats socialism for the rich or plain old corruption.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6917187.ece


http://www.independent.ie/

Forgot to include this article
http://www.independent.ie

You cannot discuss Nama without addressing some kind of legislative underpinning for dealing with troubled mortgages and negative equity.
But most people also recognise that you simply cannot expect the people of this country to buy into a system that seems to bail out banks, and could even be seen as some way of assisting big borrowers through the current crisis, unless there are measures put in place to help small borrowers who also over-extended themselves. You can't be seen to deal with the consequences of some people's irrational exuberance during the boom and not deal with that of others.

In the interest of our society being fair, the Government needs to deal with the upcoming negative equity crisis. And crisis is not an alarmist word for it. The ESRI report said that if property prices fall by half by the end of 2010, there will be 350,000 households in negative equity.

Willie O'Dea told the Seanad last week that the Cabinet were discussing negative equity and troubled mortgages and means of dealing with them. The good faith of the major banks will not be enough. And when did we start trusting banks as humanitarian institutions?

Brian Lenihan told the Seanad that the expertise of Nama and the SPV would be offered to deal with the issue.

Daithinski

lmimmfn wrote: »

that IS their problem, NOONE and i repeat NOONE asked or forced them to buy, they bought with the normal risk that comes with buying..

Yes it is their problem. No one forced anyone to buy, but they certainly were "asked", and people are suggestible and susceptible to marketing and advertising and this can strongly influence peoples decisions.

The average irish person is not an economist or an expert in these kind of matters and therefore would not surprisingly make these kind of decisions based on the information they are getting from supposedly "trustworthy" sources.

The government have been telling us for years the fundamentals were sound etc, our economy is the envy of europe.

The media played along too the newspapers were full of property advertisements and opinion pieces, there was an abundance of TV shows on property speculation (mainly english made but watched with relish here).


With all of this as a backdrop nobody in authority turned around and said "eh, hang on a minute this is a bad idea".

Its too simplistic to say people weren't "forced" with all that was being said and more importantly unsaid, there was only one way 95% of people were going to act and that was to buy a house if they could.

The problem (one of many) is that NAMA sets a precedent and creates a mindset of bailing people out.

The bailout money is going (ironically) to the people who made the money from selling / developing houses in the first place.

Ultimately if people default on mortgages the taxpayer will be bailing them out indirectly, instead of bailing out the (until recently) homeowner the debt will pass to the bank and then passed on to the taxpayer.

Its all the same in the end.