Moved Country. Not paying my mortgage anymore

kegzmc

donalg1 wrote: »

Because you took out the mortgage maybe.

LOL. I walked into that one! Well spotted

jsd1004

donalg1 wrote: »

Its pretty understandable why people would be annoyed by this, you took out a mortgage on a second property (borrowed recklessly obviously) now that it hasnt worked out you have decided that the mortgage is too big so your not paying it, instead you are going to ask others to pay it for you while you take out a smaller mortgage elsewhere and live comfortably leaving those that are paying your other mortgage here struggle on for a bit more.:mad:

How is this different to people not paying the household charge, television licence, vat bills, welfare scroungers, this country is a banana republic and as far as i can see if you dont look after yourself the country wont look after you.

Pat Mustard

donalg1 wrote: »

They made their bed so maybe they should lie in it rather than ask others who were sensible to lie in it for them.

People who apply for bankruptcy in the UK can be discharged from bankruptcy and their debts in 12 months.

Irish people have gone to the UK and have succeeded in this.

There is no need to carry an unsustainable burden of debt in all cases. When someone comes out of bankruptcy (after 12 months in the UK), the debt is gone.

Zamboni

kegzmc wrote: »

Why should I deny my kids a better life trying to pay off a mortgage on a house I'll never return to?

Seeing as you've asked...
You willfully entered into contracts and are attempting to abdicate responsibility for the completion of that contract to the tax paying citizens of Ireland.
You are setting a terrible example to your children by your lack of good citizenship, honesty, integrity and trustworthiness.
If that is part of the better life you envisage for your children then fair enough.

donalg1

The Mustard wrote: »

People who apply for bankruptcy in the UK can be discharged from bankruptcy and their debts in 12 months.

Irish people have gone to the UK and have succeeded in this.

There is no need to carry an unsustainable burden of debt in all cases. When someone comes out of bankruptcy (after 12 months in the UK), the debt is gone.

The OP took out the mortgage so the OP should pay his mortgage, its very simple really, and before you say he cant afford it, he is taking out another mortgage in another country leaving the rest of us to pick up his bill.

donalg1

jsd1004 wrote: »

How is this different to people not paying the household charge, television licence, vat bills, welfare scroungers, this country is a banana republic and as far as i can see if you dont look after yourself the country wont look after you.

There is a bit of a difference between a mortgage and the household charge now in fairness. Why should eveyone else pay for his mistakes and greed.

curlzy

donalg1 wrote: »

Course you can blame the public, I am a member of the public and didnt borrow more than I could repay, I certainly didnt buy a second home either.

If people believed the "hype" well thats their own fault, gotta love the way people who never had any intention of owning a second home went out and bought one because "everyone else was doing it" and now moan that its not fair that someone didnt tell them not to do it.

People got greedy it didnt work out and now its everyone elses fault but their own. They made their bed so maybe they should lie in it rather than ask others who were sensible to lie in it for them.

I'm a member of the public too. I've a great job, excellent salary, I don't have a mortgage or kids so I'm sitting pretty as they say. Yeah my taxes blah blah blah but I STILL don't blame the people that are in the sh*ts now. They weren't greedy, people have very very very short memories.

We were lambasted with "property ladder", "second property to rent" morning, noon and night by people we should have been able to trust. The failings of our financial institutions and politicians are laughable and ridiculous, no lay person could be expected to foresee what was going to happen. Greed doesn't come into this. I don't blame anyone that's doing what the OP is doing, he's not some millionaire property developer, he's a dad that's trying to look after his kids.

I'm really tired of people blaming the innocent in this. It's easy to rant at Joe Public, much harder (but better) to put the blame where it belongs.

fasttalkerchat

They could force you into bankruptcy probably.

Motorist

Zamboni wrote: »

Seeing as you've asked...
You willfully entered into contracts and are attempting to abdicate responsibility for the completion of that contract to the tax paying citizens of Ireland.
You are setting a terrible example to your children by your lack of good citizenship, honesty, integrity and trustworthiness.
If that is part of the better life you envisage for your children then fair enough.

By continuing to pay the mortgage which the bank wrecklessly approved you for, you are setting a terrible example for your kids. In fact, you may as well get the word MUG tattooed across your forehead.

daltonmd

The Mustard wrote: »

People who apply for bankruptcy in the UK can be discharged from bankruptcy and their debts in 12 months.

Irish people have gone to the UK and have succeeded in this.

There is no need to carry an unsustainable burden of debt in all cases. When someone comes out of bankruptcy (after 12 months in the UK), the debt is gone.

But he's not bankrupt. He can afford to repay the mortgaes and he is even buying another house, he'll never qualify and I doubt he really wants to go that far.

daltonmd

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

They could force you into bankruptcy probably.

Not if he can pay, is working in another country and even able to purchase another home with a 50% deposit - it may be a less expensive house, but the banks could rightfully see that as their money.

Pat Mustard

donalg1 wrote: »

The OP took out the mortgage so the OP should pay his mortgage, its very simple really, and before you say he cant afford it, he is taking out another mortgage in another country leaving the rest of us to pick up his bill.

The OP has decided to leave the debt (and the property) behind. What we say amongst ourselves is academic.

jsd1004

donalg1 wrote: »

There is a bit of a difference between a mortgage and the household charge now in fairness. Why should eveyone else pay for his mistakes and greed.

We are paying because a mistake was made to guarantee the banks by a corrupt government.

Pat Mustard

daltonmd wrote: »

But he's not bankrupt. He can afford to repay the mortgaes and he is even buying another house, he'll never qualify and I doubt he really wants to go that far.

I know he's not bankrupt.

He can make an application to become bankrupt.

Bankruptcy is a release from debt (where it is done properly).

donalg1

curlzy wrote: »

I'm a member of the public too. I've a great job, excellent salary, I don't have a mortgage or kids so I'm sitting pretty as they say. Yeah my taxes blah blah blah but I STILL don't blame the people that are in the sh*ts now. They weren't greedy, people have very very very short memories.

We were lambasted with "property ladder", "second property to rent" morning, noon and night by people we should have been able to trust. The failings of our financial institutions and politicians are laughable and ridiculous, no lay person could be expected to foresee what was going to happen. Greed doesn't come into this. I don't blame anyone that's doing what the OP is doing, he's not some millionaire property developer, he's a dad that's trying to look after his kids.

I'm really tired of people blaming the innocent in this. It's easy to rant at Joe Public, much harder (but better) to put the blame where it belongs.

Oh sorry I didnt realize he was forced to buy the second property. A dad trying to look after his kids is he, well how many kids does the man have that he needed a second home to house them in?

He decided to buy the second home not some millionaire property developer, so he should be the one to live with the consequences and not just walk away from them.

I must have been one of the lucky ones that wasnt forced into a bank and made take out a second mortgage that I couldnt afford, maybe I was sick that day.

donalg1

jsd1004 wrote: »

We are paying because a mistake was made to guarantee the banks by a corrupt government.

We are paying because people borrowed money they could never repay and now are just walking away from their responsibilities, the bailout was as a result of the greed of a nation be it a property developer or a person who decided they wanted a piece of the action and so bought a second home despite the fact they couldnt afford it, never wanted one before and had no actual need for it.

Pat Mustard

jsd1004 wrote: »

We are paying because a mistake was made to guarantee the banks by a corrupt government.

Hanlon's Razor states: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Stupidity rather than corruption imo.

seamus

The Mustard wrote: »

I know he's not bankrupt.

He can make an application to become bankrupt.

Bankruptcy is a release from debt (where it is done properly).

Bankruptcy would require him to show that he has insufficient means to service both his family's needs and his debts. This doesn't appear to be the case. The OP in this case is considering not paying one of his debts because he finds it inconvenient, not because he can't afford it.

djimi

curlzy wrote: »

I'm a member of the public too. I've a great job, excellent salary, I don't have a mortgage or kids so I'm sitting pretty as they say. Yeah my taxes blah blah blah but I STILL don't blame the people that are in the sh*ts now. They weren't greedy, people have very very very short memories.

We were lambasted with "property ladder", "second property to rent" morning, noon and night by people we should have been able to trust. The failings of our financial institutions and politicians are laughable and ridiculous, no lay person could be expected to foresee what was going to happen. Greed doesn't come into this. I don't blame anyone that's doing what the OP is doing, he's not some millionaire property developer, he's a dad that's trying to look after his kids.

I'm really tired of people blaming the innocent in this. It's easy to rant at Joe Public, much harder (but better) to put the blame where it belongs.

To the best of my knowledge no bank has ever sat anyone down at gunpoint and forced them to take out a mortgage. Blame the banks all you want; end of the day it was the general public who took out huge mortgages and landed themselves in debt that would cripple them if the slightest thing went wrong. Dont get me wrong, I have sympathy for anyone who is stuck in a bad situation because of what has happened these past few years, but anyone who didnt stop for a second and think what might happen if they take out a 100% mortgage in a property market that was almost guaranteed to implode at some point only has themselves to blame for their predicament.

OldNotWIse

Why not just sell them, put whatever you get off the mortgages, and then tackle the combined "leftover" debt after they are sold?

It's unfortunate that you have gone into negative equity but if the houses had gone up in value and you sold them and made a huge profit, would you be happy to give some of that profit to the state?

I dont go into the bookies and put money on a horse, and demand my initial stake back if he falls and breaks a leg. A gamble is a gamble, but so may people seem to think they should be allowed to gamble but still retain some kind of protection if the gamble fails.

donalg1

djimi wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge no bank has ever sat anyone down at gunpoint and forced them to take out a mortgage. Blame the banks all you want; end of the day it was the general public who took out huge mortgages and landed themselves in debt that would cripple them if the slightest thing went wrong. Dont get me wrong, I have sympathy for anyone who is stuck in a bad situation because of what has happened these past few years, but anyone who didnt stop for a second and think what might happen if they take out a 100% mortgage in a property market that was almost guaranteed to implode at some point only has themselves to blame for their predicament.

Exactly.

Why couldnt they just stop and think for a second and ask themselves what would happen if I lost my job tomorrow could I afford my mortgage then or mortgages.

Tazz T

The OP didn't choose to lumber us with his debt. The government choose to lumber us with his debt.

Stop blaming the OP and blame the government.

OldNotWIse

donalg1 wrote: »

Oh sorry I didnt realize he was forced to buy the second property. A dad trying to look after his kids is he, well how many kids does the man have that he needed a second home to house them in?

He decided to buy the second home not some millionaire property developer, so he should be the one to live with the consequences and not just walk away from them.

I must have been one of the lucky ones that wasnt forced into a bank and made take out a second mortgage that I couldnt afford, maybe I was sick that day.

Agree. I know so many people who lied about their wages in order to get huge, bumped up mortgages. The multiples were there for a reason - to protect people from borrowing beyond their means. Some people even took out 110% mortgages so they could use the extra money to add on conservatories or buy a new car.

I am tired reading about people in the papers saying they have a mortgage of 500k and they cannot pay it as they are on a "modest income" - how in the name of all thats good did they manage to get a mortgage of half a million on a "modest" wage???

Zamboni

Tazz T wrote: »

The OP didn't choose to lumber us with his debt. The government choose to lumber us with his debt.

Stop blaming the OP and blame the government.

Did they drag him into the bank and make him fill out mortgage applications?

donalg1

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Agree. I know so many people who lied about their wages in order to get huge, bumped up mortgages. The multiples were there for a reason - to protect people from borrowing beyond their means. Some people even took out 110% mortgages so they could use the extra money to add on conservatories or buy a new car.

I am tired reading about people in the papers saying they have a mortgage of 500k and they cannot pay it as they are on a "modest income" - how in the name of all thats good did they manage to get a mortgage of half a million on a "modest" wage???

And why did they take out a mortgage of 500k on modest wage.

A friend of mine built there house and told me they got an extra 50k on their mortgage to furnish it. I couldnt believe it when they told me. They will be paying for thier first couch for thirty years with interest long after they have gotten rid of it absolute nonsense when you think about it.

djimi

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Why not just sell them, put whatever you get off the mortgages, and then tackle the combined "leftover" debt after they are sold?

It's unfortunate that you have gone into negative equity but if the houses had gone up in value and you sold them and made a huge profit, would you be happy to give some of that profit to the state?

I dont go into the bookies and put money on a horse, and demand my initial stake back if he falls and breaks a leg. A gamble is a gamble, but so may people seem to think they should be allowed to gamble but still retain some kind of protection if the gamble fails.

Banks usually wont allow you to sell a property that is in negative equity. Best the OP can do is talk to the bank about coming up with some kind of personal loan to cover the NE, which by the sounds of it they have already tried.

donalg1

Zamboni wrote: »

Did they drag him into the bank and make him fill out mortgage applications?

Apparently that must have happened quite a lot during the boom, some banks even had a net they cast from the roof and hauled people in that way

Highly Salami

Zamboni wrote: »

Did they drag him into the bank and make him fill out mortgage applications?

No-one forced the banks to give out mortgages.

Pat Mustard

seamus wrote: »

Bankruptcy would require him to show that he has insufficient means to service both his family's needs and his debts. This doesn't appear to be the case. The OP in this case is considering not paying one of his debts because he finds it inconvenient, not because he can't afford it.

That seems to be correct at this point in time. There would seem to be no point in applying for bankruptcy in Ireland at the moment.

I know little enough about English law, but I'd guess that you are right. OP would have to be insolvent to apply for bankruptcy in the UK, i.e. not able to meet his debts as they fall due.

People who have gone to the UK to apply to be made bankrupt have gone over, got new jobs and a got new place to rent. Their circumstances change a lot from what they were back in Ireland.

djimi

Highly Salami wrote: »

No-one forced the banks to give out mortgages.

No they didnt, but they only gave out mortgages to those who asked for them. Bottom line is that its up to you, the borrower, to know how much money you can afford to pay and to understand the risks involved in borrowing that amount. The banks were stupid in how much they allowed people to borrow, but they never forced anyone to borrow a penny.

People need to take responsibility for their own actions.