Tricky Mortgage Situation

daltonmd

mhge wrote: »

I don't think this is right because there are no issues with the house itself, only with "societal issues", which are outside of the bank's expertise. I understand that should the environment suit you, you'd have no major problems with paying it off while living in the house, so not sure what you mean by economy related issues. It's a bit like wanting to rescind the mortgage because someone's abusive ex-partner lives next door.

I think that your case is not a typical unsustainable mortgage, because your issues are external to the contract you have with the bank and your finances. Legal aid should be sought and the whole thing may turn out to be quite complicated.

Societal? Well this led him to have to move and rent - and I think that he's on 50% less than what he was on, is down to the economy.

strandroad

daltonmd wrote: »

Societal? Well this led him to have to move and rent - and I think that he's on 50% less than what he was on, is down to the economy.

I agree, but the fact that the location is problematic is completely external to his dealings with the bank. It's like getting a loan for a car and then finding out that the car had been stolen and is now impounded - you don't go to the bank to have your loan cancelled on this basis.
I am asking what the OP means by economy because from his first post I understood that they would be able to pay the mortgage had they not moved out.

daltonmd

mhge wrote: »

I agree, but the fact that the location is problematic is completely external to his dealings with the bank. It's like getting a loan for a car and then finding out that the car had been stolen and is now impounded - you don't go to the bank to have your loan cancelled on this basis.
I am asking what the OP means by economy because from his first post I understood that they would be able to pay the mortgage had they not moved out.

If you discovered that the car was stolen and is now impounded, then you can return to where you bought it and take action against them if needs be.

You are protected under the consumer act.

fairuse

That's exactly what I meant dalton.

Thanks all of you for the advice and idèas, based on it I had a frank and helpful chat with the bank on the phone. I have an appointment to chat to them Wednesday in person.
I'm sorry that some people seem to think I'm chancing my arm in some way. I still believe the burden has to be shared. This situation was not created by me, so why automacilly should I be the sole looser?

Anyway we could argue about this for days,

Signing off and thanks to the many many people who offered great advice, anon

daltonmd wrote: »

Societal? Well this led him to have to move and rent - and I think that he's on 50% less than what he was on, is down to the economy.

strandroad

If you discovered that the car was stolen and is now impounded, then you can return to where you bought it and take action against them if needs be.

Yes, but it's not the bank you go back to, it's the seller. OP could perhaps sue the agent for misrepresenting the property, for what it's worth. But the bank is a third party - in their view, the OP chose not to live there, the house still stands and his income still exists.
I would talk to the solicitor before doing anything else.

piperh

daltonmd wrote: »

BTW - whether I agree or disagree with mortgage debt write offs or det restructing is irrelevant - because it is going to happen whether I like it or not. The trick is to target and help those who are in completely unsustainable situations.

If you you think there can be recovery without this then you are wrong.

Your very right there Dalton, a friend whose quite high up in BOI said its being discussed daily at the moment and its 90% positive it will be in next yr.

Personally its not my favourite idea as i fail to see why when i and my family have gone without to pay my mortgage and not fall into arrears should others some of whom have said screw it (not all have said this) or those that haven't paid for whatever reason be allowed to walk away with this arrears right off. Really unfair on a large portion of homeowners but i also think something does need to be done but i'm not sure what.

fairuse wrote: »

Thanks all of you for the advice and idèas, based on it I had a frank and helpful chat with the bank on the phone. I have an appointment to chat to them Wednesday in person.
I'm sorry that some people seem to think I'm chancing my arm in some way. I still believe the burden has to be shared. This situation was not created by me, so why automacilly should I be the sole looser?

Anyway we could argue about this for days,

Signing off and thanks to the many many people who offered great advice, anon

I'm sorry you've found yourself in this position and first and foremost your families health and well being need to come first so i understand you looking for a solution. I'm glad you've spoken to the bank this is a huge step in the right direction and i'm sure they will be flexible even if not writing off your loan.

My own opinion is the onus is on you here, yes the bank lent you the money but you went and looking for it they didn't come to you and say hey we have a fantastic house you should buy. But my own opinion is not important here what is is finding a solution and moving on with a future for you and your family, Good luck with this.

daltonmd

mhge wrote: »

Yes, but it's not the bank you go back to, it's the seller. OP could perhaps sue the agent for misrepresenting the property, for what it's worth. But the bank is a third party - in their view, the OP chose not to live there, the house still stands and his income still exists.
I would talk to the solicitor before doing anything else.

But the point is that there is recourse when yo ubuy a car and something goes wrong - you can't for property.

His income is not what it was - 50% of it exists.

He should talk to his lender as he has done, and try to work out a solution based on his situation now, not what people think he should have done.

daltonmd

piperh wrote: »

Your very right there Dalton, a friend whose quite high up in BOI said its being discussed daily at the moment and its 90% positive it will be in next yr.

Personally its not my favourite idea as i fail to see why when i and my family have gone without to pay my mortgage and not fall into arrears should others some of whom have said screw it (not all have said this) or those that haven't paid for whatever reason be allowed to walk away with this arrears right off. Really unfair on a large portion of homeowners but i also think something does need to be done but i'm not sure what.

I doubt that it's anyones preferred option - and yes it must stick in the craw of people who are struggling and doing without to repay mortgages. But if I can ask you a personal question? How many paychecks or illness's or some kind of "shock" are you away from being in the same situation?

You are struggling now, today - with repaying your mortgage. How many more cuts/higher taxes/newer taxes can you take without it being too much?
If you get ill and can't work? Because a lot of people struggling today, who have boom mortgages, are one way or the other going to have problems at some stage. It may take 6 months, a year - but very ery few people repaying 2006 mortgages are ever going to see 2006 wages, low rate of tax, low interest rates, for a very long time.

The more your disposable income is cut - the higher your mortgage debt is.

piperh

daltonmd wrote: »

I doubt that it's anyones preferred option - and yes it must stick in the craw of people who are struggling and doing without to repay mortgages. But if I can ask you a personal question? How many paychecks or illness's or some kind of "shock" are you away from being in the same situation?

You are struggling now, today - with repaying your mortgage. How many more cuts/higher taxes/newer taxes can you take without it being too much?
If you get ill and can't work? Because a lot of people struggling today, who have boom mortgages, are one way or the other going to have problems at some stage. It may take 6 months, a year - but very ery few people repaying 2006 mortgages are ever going to see 2006 wages, low rate of tax, low interest rates, for a very long time.

The more your disposable income is cut - the higher your mortgage debt is.

My husband was out of work sick for 7mnths after being crushed by a truck leaving him with serious injuries that have left him in constant pain and he will definately be crippled within 10yrs as the damage is ongoing. We lived on statuatory sick pay for that time as i was unable to work as i was his carer. We had only returned to Ireland 8mnths before his accident so apart from sick pay were not eligible for help with the mortgage. He went back to work against the Drs wishes because we simply could not manage any longer, he took his brace off to work and put it back on to drive and at home.

So yes we have been in that situation and are still playing catch up today robbing peter(not literally) to pay paul every month.

I do have sympathy for the op as i have said he needs to look after his families welfare first and foremost and hopefully we'd all do the same. Its just i think arrears writeoff is very unfair on those that have continued to pay including the op.

As i also said i do not know the answer but something seriously needs to be done to help people.

Ray Palmer

You know this is really simple. If the op expected to give the bank portion of any profit then fair enough. Now that is so unlikely I don't think it warrants discussion.
I do sympathise I just think it is ridiculous to suggest the bank is anyway responsible in this situation. There certainly are cases where the banks should be made to take some responsibility.
The people to blame are the scumbags who terrorised the family.

Zamboni

daltonmd wrote: »

I doubt that it's anyones preferred option - and yes it must stick in the craw of people who are struggling and doing without to repay mortgages. But if I can ask you a personal question? How many paychecks or illness's or some kind of "shock" are you away from being in the same situation?

Contingency planning ffs.

I swear to fvck I am going nuts with the damned lack of cop on, financial management, prudence, planning, informed decision making in the retarded population of this fvcktard country.
You and the rest of the bleeding hearts can put your arm around the idiots (itz de bankz fault) and pay the cheque for them because I am out.
It is like some quasi-communist country where society is only as smart as the dumbest members, take from the prudent and give to the reckless.

Infuriating.

Rant over.

daltonmd

Zamboni wrote: »

Contingency planning ffs.

I swear to fvck I am going nuts with the damned lack of cop on, financial management, prudence, planning, informed decision making in the retarded population of this fvcktard country.

Rant over.

So, people who bought in the boom who have lost their jobs, taken huge reuctions in pay, who have seen lower disposable income, higher costs of living, new taxes and charges brought in can now make "contingency plans" - great I must drop a note to the last government - you know so they can foresee everything like you.

Zamboni wrote: »

You and the rest of the bleeding hearts can put your arm around the idiots (itz de bankz fault) and pay the cheque for them because I am out.
It is like some quasi-communist country where society is only as smart as the dumbest members, take from the prudent and give to the reckless.
Infuriating.

Start packing so - because what's coming down the line is gonna kill you in earnest.

As to the insults - I never resort to name calling - even though you have. You see I believe (as a bleeding heart obviously) that as soon as you begin to criticise your opponent, it becomes obvious that you have run out of ways to defend your view.

These types of insults (ad hominem) are a sure way to lose a debate. It means that your argument is weak.

strandroad

daltonmd wrote: »

So, people who bought in the boom who have lost their jobs, taken huge reuctions in pay, who have seen lower disposable income, higher costs of living, new taxes and charges brought in can now make "contingency plans" - great I must drop a note to the last government - you know so they can foresee everything like you.

And what does it have to do with the OP, who can pay, but won't?

daltonmd wrote: »

Start packing so - because what's coming down the line is gonna kill you in earnest.

Remember that next time when you feel like giving out about the bankers, developers, NAMA, bailouts etc. Surely they deserved to get a helping hand too, just like anyone else.

Zamboni

daltonmd wrote: »

So, people who bought in the boom who have lost their jobs, taken huge reuctions in pay, who have seen lower disposable income, higher costs of living, new taxes and charges brought in can now make "contingency plans" - great I must drop a note to the last government - you know so they can foresee everything like you.

Eh no. They should have had contingency planning in place.
Not much point in contingency planning after the event. Kind of defeats the purpose...

daltonmd wrote: »

As to the insults - I never resort to name calling - even though you have. You see I believe (as a bleeding heart obviously) that as soon as you begin to criticise your opponent, it becomes obvious that you have run out of ways to defend your view.
These types of insults (ad hominem) are a sure way to lose a debate. It means that your argument is weak.

Meh. I had a rant. As I have said before, I think you're a coherent poster and have a lot of time for you posts.
I don't need ad hominem explained to me. Ironically, by explaining ad hominem to me as if I didn't understand it you're resorting to ad hominem yourself :pac:

daltonmd wrote: »

Start packing so - because what's coming down the line is gonna kill you in earnest.

Not packing just yet but definitely staying mobile. I swore I'd leave when Fine Gael brought additional Tax Relief for De Peeple who bought between 2004-2008 so I still have the luggage handy

daltonmd

mhge wrote: »

And what does it have to do with the OP, who can pay, but won't?

Eh he can't pay, he lost 50% of his income and had to move out and pay rent as well.

mhge wrote: »

Remember that next time when you feel like giving out about the bankers, developers, NAMA, bailouts etc. Surely they deserved to get a helping hand too, just like anyone else.

Oh spare me would you. If you bothered to read through my many posts on this subject you will notice that those who don;t agree with me always say:

Why should I
How come I
I I I I I I I

This isn't about individuals - it's about the entire economy and the drag that this is having on it.

I mean everyone is coming out and saying now that it was a bad idea to save the banks - a bit fkn late - but we did it and we're all paying for it.

If you think that avoiding this will in some way save us more pain then you're mistaken.

strandroad

daltonmd wrote: »

Eh he can't pay, he lost 50% of his income and had to move out and pay rent as well.

Eh he can and was paying, and had they not chosen to move out when they changed their mind about the location they would have no problems. It is a negligence to rely on an estate agent's word when buying a family home and a lack of responsibility to expect the bank to pick up the tab.

daltonmd wrote: »

Oh spare me would you. If you bothered to read through my many posts on this subject you will notice that those who don;t agree with me always say:

Why should I
How come I
I I I I I I I

This isn't about individuals - it's about the entire economy and the drag that this is having on it.

I mean everyone is coming out and saying now that it was a bad idea to save the banks - a bit fkn late - but we did it and we're all paying for it.

If you think that avoiding this will in some way save us more pain then you're mistaken.

Sure, let's just go and conjure up more money then, it has served us so well until now...

daltonmd

Zamboni wrote: »

Eh no. They should have had contingency planning in place.
Not much point in contingency planning after the event. Kind of defeats the purpose...

Exactly - it's fine for us to wag the finger and say "you should have" - people didn't out of greed, stupidity, out of a national belief from the very highest in the land that property would only go up. We know all that - but we are where we are (I know I hate it) and as I have said to you - it is not that I agree with it - if I sit and think about it then it makes me mad. But I can look at the whole situation and my view is that many people are simply too far gone, the housing market is frozen and they want to build more houses?

Zamboni wrote: »

Meh. I had a rant. As I have said before, I think you're a coherent poster and have a lot of time for you posts.
I don't need ad hominem explained to me. Ironically, by explaining ad hominem to me as if I didn't understand it you're resorting to ad hominem yourself :pac:

Rant away - but look at the whole issue and the negative effects. You are coming from a different angle - you believe that by turfing people out and selling all the property that this will be good for buyers and the economy, I believe it will be anything but good.
The banks will collapse (we should have let them go, but we didn;t) and the taxpayer will have to sink more money into them.

Zamboni wrote: »

Not packing just yet but definitely staying mobile. I swore I'd leave when Fine Gael brought additional Tax Relief for De Peeple who bought between 2004-2008 so I still have the luggage handy

That bugged me, throwing more money on the problem instead of dealing with it.
Listen - as I said in an ideal world everyone should repay their debts, in an ideal world if they could they would. But this situation is akin to the one in the entire eurozone, Germany knows how to solve the problem, they just want to get everything they can from the rest of the plebs in return for it.

The banks/gov also know how to solve the problem, the trick is, as I said, to try to get as much as they can from those in trouble, It's already in motion and we cannot stop it.

So the argument of should it happen or should it not, is gone - it's how to target it in the right way to eliminate those who don't want to pay.

daltonmd

mhge wrote: »

Eh he can and was paying, and had they not chosen to move out when they changed their mind about the location they would have no problems. It is a negligence to rely on an estate agent's word when buying a family home and a lack of responsibility to expect the bank to pick up the tab.

"We paid every mortgage repayment when not living there and our rent elsewhere, which decimated our finances. During this time, my income halved due to the recession,"

Not sure why this isn't clear enough for you?

mhge wrote: »

Sure, let's just go and conjure up more money then, it has served us so well until now...

Well it worked for FF who were voted back in remember, of course no-one voted for them, no, no.. - while we're at it, let's conjure up another boom - cos that's what it will take to sort the problem out.

strandroad

daltonmd wrote: »

"We paid every mortgage repayment when not living there and our rent elsewhere, which decimated our finances. During this time, my income halved due to the recession,"

Not sure why this isn't clear enough for you?

In your own quote: We paid every mortgage repayment
and also: and though all this never missing a payment
Even with lower income they can pay, they just don't want to. And the fact that they moved out has nothing to do with the mortgage itself.

daltonmd wrote: »

Well it worked for FF who were voted back in remember, of course no-one voted for them, no, no.. - while we're at it, let's conjure up another boom - cos that's what it will take to sort the problem out.

Great stuff so, and in the meantime it will help greatly if we reimburse each other for the houses we no longer like.

daltonmd

mhge wrote: »

In your own quote: We paid every mortgage repayment
and also: and though all this never missing a payment
Even with lower income they can pay, they just don't want to. And the fact that they moved out has nothing to do with the mortgage itself.

Cherry picking much? From the very same line in my post:

During this time, my income halved due to the recession

strandroad

daltonmd wrote: »

Cherry picking much? From the very same line in my post:

During this time, my income halved due to the recession

Precisely. And yet he was still able to pay the mortgage. Even with the rent, although the latter pushed them into the risky zone.
He must have been earning enough to support the mortgage even with the drop. His troubles arose from the renting situation.

piperh

mhge wrote: »

In your own quote: We paid every mortgage repayment
and also: and though all this never missing a payment
Even with lower income they can pay, they just don't want to. And the fact that they moved out has nothing to do with the mortgage itself.

daltonmd wrote: »

Cherry picking much? From the very same line in my post:

During this time, my income halved due to the recession

Ok playing devils advocate here but notreally helping the op much.

The op was in a position to make payments on lets be fair not a huge mortgage when you consider an average 4 bedroom house in meath forexample at the height of the boom was worth €340,000 and they are now worth €150,000. He was also in a position to make rent payments which a large majority of people aren't in a position to do so although his income halved it must have been pretty decent in the first place. A rental of €800 a mnth equates to €9600 a year. He maybe had savings which allowed him to live seperate from his mortgaged home we do not know that so we cannot say he didn't have contingency plans but using saving at this rate they wouldn't last forever.

What we do know is that he no longer wishes to take all the responsibilty of his mortgage and maybe his money is running out. The question is how to put this situation right for everybody involved op his family and the bank?

Ray Palmer

While you seem so sure the bank should bare some if this how much are you thinking?
Obviously not 50% as they didn't have much input in the house you chose.
As the bank didn't decide to move and rent you can't hold them responsible for the loss since then.
So of the negative equity from when you moved out what % do you think they should take the hit on?
I don't see it is their responsibility at all but you must have some logic to how much you feel they are responsible for.

daltonmd

piperh wrote: »

Ok playing devils advocate here but notreally helping the op much.
The op was in a position to make payments on lets be fair not a huge mortgage when you consider an average 4 bedroom house in meath forexample at the height of the boom was worth €340,000 and they are now worth €150,000. He was also in a position to make rent payments which a large majority of people aren't in a position to do so although his income halved it must have been pretty decent in the first place. A rental of €800 a mnth equates to €9600 a year. He maybe had savings which allowed him to live seperate from his mortgaged home we do not know that so we cannot say he didn't have contingency plans but using saving at this rate they wouldn't last forever.

Really? Read the OP post again.

piperh wrote: »

What we do know is that he no longer wishes to take all the responsibilty of his mortgage and maybe his money is running out. The question is how to put this situation right for everybody involved op his family and the bank?

No, what we know is that he was presented with a set of circumstances - called life. The stress he and his wife went through was the reason that they had to move. They spent their savings on doing it up and paying for both the mortgage and the rent and in the meantime his income reduced by 50% - the present tenants are leaving in October.

What he wants to do is to move on and try to negotitate something with the bank.

I know Zamboni will hate me for saying this , but - If you murdered someone in this country, you wouldn't serve the sentence that you and others here seem to want people who made financial mistakes, to serve.

And while that mortgage may not seem huge to you - it is to the OP because if you have rising costs of homeownership and declining income then the debt is getting bigger all the time.

And I have to ask you something. I read your situation and it must have been awful - but you said that people should put their families welfare first, yes? Your husband, by your own admission went against his doctors orders and returned to work - knowing his condition will cripple him in 10 years time.
How is that looking after your families welfare?
I know it may seem like it in the short term - but will you look back and say "I'm glad my husband put this mortgage before his health" - you are robbing peter to pay paul - and you are the very kind of person who may need this not too far in the future.

That people are making these choice, jeopardising their health, is indicitive of how serious this problem is becoming.

piperh

daltonmd wrote: »

Really? Read the OP post again.

No, what we know is that he was presented with a set of circumstances - called life. The stress he and his wife went through was the reason that they had to move. They spent their savings on doing it up and paying for both the mortgage and the rent and in the meantime his income reduced by 50% - the present tenants are leaving in October.

What he wants to do is to move on and try to negotitate something with the bank.

I know Zamboni will hate me for saying this , but - If you murdered someone in this country, you wouldn't serve the sentence that you and others here seem to want people who made financial mistakes, to serve.

And while that mortgage may not seem huge to you - it is to the OP because if you have rising costs of homeownership and declining income then the debt is getting bigger all the time.

And I have to ask you something. I read your situation and it must have been awful - but you said that people should put their families welfare first, yes? Your husband, by your own admission went against his doctors orders and returned to work - knowing his condition will cripple him in 10 years time.
How is that looking after your families welfare?
I know it may seem like it in the short term - but will you look back and say "I'm glad my husband put this mortgage before his health" - you are robbing peter to pay paul - and you are the very kind of person who may need this not too far in the future.

That people are making these choice, jeopardising their health, is indicitive of how serious this problem is becoming.

I did reread the op and it reads as he was in a position to pay originally and is not now which happened to a lot of people. I also say his finances have taken a battering. So whereas others were saying he should have had a contingency plan i was saying he clearly did at the begining however that is no longer the case.

I think you'll find at no point have i said he should be punished and actually said i thought he was right going to discuss it with the bank and trying to find a way forward. We were all guilty of taking the money thrown at us, we didn't have to accept it but we did.

I meant by everyday standards that a mortgage of around €300,000 was not uncommon as that was what average family homes were selling for. Not that it wasn't a big debt. Any debt be it €1,000 or €30,000 is big if you don't have the money to repay it.

And in reference to my husband he would have been crippled regardless of whether he returned to work or not such was the nature of his injuries. His mental health was being affected as well as his physical because he felt he wasn't supporting his family. Mental health is just as important as physical in my book.

Yes we are juggling the bills there are very few in this day and age who aren't and nobody knows what the future holds and trust me after you've taken a phone call saying your husband has been crushed by a 32t scania i know that as well as most. Life has a way of biting even the most well prepared.

I believe there has to be a way forward for people and don't believe bankruptcy or debt should carry the stigma it does. We need to help people who really are trying but are fighting obstructions from all sides.

daltonmd

piperh wrote: »

I did reread the op and it reads as he was in a position to pay originally and is not now which happened to a lot of people. I also say his finances have taken a battering. So whereas others were saying he should have had a contingency plan i was saying he clearly did at the begining however that is no longer the case.

I think you'll find at no point have i said he should be punished and actually said i thought he was right going to discuss it with the bank and trying to find a way forward. We were all guilty of taking the money thrown at us, we didn't have to accept it but we did.

I meant by everyday standards that a mortgage of around €300,000 was not uncommon as that was what average family homes were selling for. Not that it wasn't a big debt. Any debt be it €1,000 or €30,000 is big if you don't have the money to repay it.

And in reference to my husband he would have been crippled regardless of whether he returned to work or not such was the nature of his injuries. His mental health was being affected as well as his physical because he felt he wasn't supporting his family. Mental health is just as important as physical in my book.

Yes we are juggling the bills there are very few in this day and age who aren't and nobody knows what the future holds and trust me after you've taken a phone call saying your husband has been crushed by a 32t scania i know that as well as most. Life has a way of biting even the most well prepared.

I believe there has to be a way forward for people and don't believe bankruptcy or debt should carry the stigma it does. We need to help people who really are trying but are fighting obstructions from all sides.

I know all about how life changes - I went through it myself - still having surgery 7 years later - my saving grace - I have no mortgage I rent. I suffered a back injury and even if I wanted to throw the brace off I couldn't because I couldn't walk.

But that's besides the point - everyone has a life shock, it may be an unplanned pregnancy, illness, accident - while many can say "plan for it", sadly from about 1996 this country didn't know what a house price fall was.
We brought up a generation on "houses are great - you can't lose".

The only obstruction that matters is that from the banks, we have tried moratoriums, interst only, we have been tinkering around the edges of this problem and have watched it decimate people.

Mental health is important? The Op's mental health is just as important.

piperh

daltonmd wrote: »

We brought up a generation on "houses are great - you can't lose".

The only obstruction that matters is that from the banks, we have tried moratoriums, interst only, we have been tinkering around the edges of this problem and have watched it decimate people.

Mental health is important? The Op's mental health is just as important.

Ah ya see i was bought up in England where theres a hundred council estates to 5 private(slight exageration maybe;)) and only returned to Ireland a few years after Dad had returned home, so my take on it is theres nothing wrong with renting at all.

I agree with what you've said especially about the ops mental health and that of his family and i really do believe that talking to the bank is his best option at the moment.

I suppose the only question is what can be done to help the op and other people in trouble?? It'll take someone far cleverer than me to come up with an answer thats fair to all if there even is one which i'm not sure there is.

Victor

Zamboni wrote: »

Contingency planning ffs.

I swear to fvck I am going nuts with the damned lack of cop on, financial management, prudence, planning, informed decision making in the retarded population of this fvcktard country.
You and the rest of the bleeding hearts can put your arm around the idiots (itz de bankz fault) and pay the cheque for them because I am out.
It is like some quasi-communist country where society is only as smart as the dumbest members, take from the prudent and give to the reckless.

Infuriating.

Rant over.

This might have been acceptable if you didn't quote someone's post. However you did, and in doing that you attacked the poster, not the post. Revision and an apology are appropriate.

Zamboni

Victor wrote: »

This might have been acceptable if you didn't quote someone's post. However you did, and in doing that you attacked the poster, not the post. Revision and an apology are appropriate.

Aye. Apologies to daltonmd. I was hungover and disappointed form the Ireland match and acted out of character. Not an excuse, an explanation.

daltonmd

Zamboni wrote: »

Aye. Apologies to daltonmd. I was hungover and disappointed form the Ireland match and acted out of character. Not an excuse, an explanation.

Apology accepted. Normally you're a bt more tolerant of me when this subject arises!! Forgot about the match lol..