Home Reposessed??

strandroad

cookie1977 wrote: »

And this is good for the tax payer and society how?

Taxpayers fund options cheaper than paying the mortgage and the whole bureaucratic/legal bank hullabaloo that goes with it.
Society gets its natural, transparent property sector.

Peanut2011

melekalikimaka wrote: »

I think people with foresight decided to sit on the rent side of the fence tbh

With the foresight or other options? With the best foresight in the world I still remember the time when it was nearly impossible to find the place to rent. So if you had a young family who would not have their parents place as a back up and had to have their own roof over their head than they did not have a choice.

I know lots of families who were trying their best during good years to save as much as they could just to afford their own roof. They were the kind of people that I say I have all the sympathy for. They are the ones that were let down by the government as the government did not want to put their builder friends in order as they would have lost in support and financial donations..... But fear not, all these politicians are still very well covered and they won't have to worry about their future.

lima

cookie1977 wrote: »

This is the attitude that I dislike.

Did you see what that person said to me?? What's the difference, I'm only looking out for me and my family.

Zamboni

Peanut2011 wrote: »

With the foresight or other options? With the best foresight in the world I still remember the time when it was nearly impossible to find the place to rent. So if you had a young family who would not have their parents place as a back up and had to have their own roof over their head than they did not have a choice.

I know lots of families who were trying their best during good years to save as much as they could just to afford their own roof. They were the kind of people that I say I have all the sympathy for. They are the ones that were let down by the government as the government did not want to put their builder friends in order as they would have lost in support and financial donations..... But fear not, all these politicians are still very well covered and they won't have to worry about their future.

Stop greying the area with rhetoric about politicians and stick with the core idea of personal responsibility.
Nobody was FORCED to buy.
There are other labour markets, there are other rental markets, there are other property markets.
They chose to buy.

Peanut2011

mhge wrote: »

Yes, but you either have an income and you can rent or you don't/have only minimum, so you're eligible for social welfare.

Not quite!!

Mortgage value €350k
Mortgage to pay off €325k
House value €150k

You give the house back, bank does quick sale to get the cash in they get €120k, you still have a mortgage of €205k and no house and a rent to pay as well!!!

Do you think people can do that??

What you are saying is that the person in that case if is better off leaving work and going on the dole??

cookie1977

mhge wrote: »

The banks have taken their hit, they've been taken over, shareholders have been wiped out. They will also work with the new bankruptcy schemes. I don't think they have written down bad loans, where is this coming from? They accounted for this possibility when they were asking for money to cover their losses, that doesn't mean losses need to be realised as it will only sink them further - it's the same money, only in different pocket.
What helps no one is to block their assets and burden them further with unpaid mortgages. They sit on properties because politicians want to prevent market correction, not because they like to.

The banks are trying to double down on the debt. They got a bailout once they wrote down the bad debts. Now they want all or as much of the debt they can (which is fine to a point) but instead of trying to pursue a deal and a shared responsibility they'd rather repossess. It does not make sense.

Taxpayers fund options cheaper than paying the mortgage and the whole bureaucratic/legal bank hullabaloo that goes with it.
Society gets its natural, transparent property sector.

Where do yo get that idea?

D3PO

Ive followed this thread for weeks but havent bothers posting. Mainly because Lima was pissing me off and acting like an idiot with the crassness of his posts even if there were some degress's of validity to them to the point Id end up having a posting holiday if I had then.

First things first stop with the "they" Beaner, Zamboni, Lima et all posting as if everybody that bought during the boom are part of the problem, were all living beyond their means, spashing the cash on keeping up with the jones's etc.

Thats simply not true. Many, infact the majority given that 90 odd percent of mortgages are performing made prudent decisions at the time based on their circumstances and continue to pay their way just as much as those that are renting. As oen of those people (bought 2005 but happily pay my way without whining i take issue to being lumped in as part of the problem as a boom time buyer)

As for repossessions. I believe that both sides of the argument have valid points although nobody seems to be taking onboard the others. Cookie is correct in his assertion that you cannot just blanket reposses 106,000 properties or whatever the figure bandies out a little earlier was.

That wouldnt correct the market, wouldnt fix the banks insolvency issues and wouldnt be good for the economy in a broader scale, however it has to be acknowledged that there are far too few repossessions happening and the current situation isnt helping either.

but these people who are in default need to get a grip with reality aswell. If you cant afford your mortgage you figure out a way to best manage your debt, lengthen your mortgage term, rent out a room (i dont care if that means a stranger living with you your wife and children) buy own brand food, get your clothes in pennys or dunnes, sell your tv, get rid of sky / ntl, sell your car and buy a 1995 run around instead, get rid of your mobile phone etc. if that means you dont get to celebrate Christmas well sorry guys but thats life thats the position your in.

everything outside of light, heat, food and shelter is a luxury. Im pretty sure if this was the approach taken a large chunk of those people could if they genuinely wanted to pay their debt, but they choose not to as their are spoilt and think the world owes them.

I dont have sympathy with anybody who is in default. I couldnt care their situation. I took into account every what if scenario before I got my mortgage including what if I lose my job, what if interest rates hit double digits etc. If others were too ignorant to do the same thats just tough.

pay up or apply for bankrupty simple as.

Peanut2011

Zamboni wrote: »

Stop greying the area with rhetoric about politicians and stick with the core idea of personal responsibility.
Nobody was FORCED to buy.
There are other labour markets, there are other rental markets, there are other property markets.
They chose to buy.

Obviously to YOU there will never be any good argument in this case. You just want people out of their own houses!

However if you look at my previous posts you can see that I am all for personal responsibility. Wonder when will Sean Quinn or the Fitzpatrick fella full fill theirs? How about the huge pension pots topped up in AIB by the taxpayer money to people who ran the banks to the ground.

Sure one rule for them and one for the ordinary workforce.

beaner88

Peanut2011 wrote: »

Obviously to YOU there will never be any good argument in this case. You just want people out of their own houses!

However if you look at my previous posts you can see that I am all for personal responsibility. Wonder when will Sean Quinn or the Fitzpatrick fella full fill theirs? How about the huge pension pots topped up in AIB by the taxpayer money to people who ran the banks to the ground.

Sure one rule for them and one for the ordinary workforce.

They don't own the houses.

D3PO

lima wrote: »

Darling I came home because I got an offer of a well paid permanent job, and also because I wanted to buy a cheap repo'd house. Your offending me me shows how much of a begrudger you are as you are clearly jealous of the fact I am debt free and living the life with my great job and money.

i agree with the premise of a lot of what your believe regarding repos but jesus why do you hAve to be such a smug git ?

just becasue I agree doenst mean Im happy about the situation. Show a bit of class

Peanut2011

beaner88 wrote: »

They don't own the houses.

Oh right... Will you tell that to Enda and Co when Revenue comes knocking on the door looking for the Household Tax!

strandroad

Peanut2011 wrote: »

You give the house back, bank does quick sale to get the cash in they get €120k, you still have a mortgage of €205k and no house and a rent to pay as well!!!

Whether there should be some sort of a writedown if a house is surrendered is another question - I believe the new bankruptcy laws make it possible to a degree?

cookie1977

D3PO wrote: »

Ive followed this thread for weeks but havent bothers posting. Mainly because Lima was pissing me off and acting like an idiot with the crassness of his posts even if there were some degress's of validity to them to the point Id end up having a posting holiday if I had then.

First things first stop with the "they" Beaner, Zamboni, Lima et all posting as if everybody that bought during the boom are part of the problem, were all living beyond their means, spashing the cash on keeping up with the jones's etc.

Thats simply not true. Many, infact the majority given that 90 odd percent of mortgages are performing made prudent decisions at the time based on their circumstances and continue to pay their way just as much as those that are renting. As oen of those people (bought 2005 but happily pay my way without whining i take issue to being lumped in as part of the problem as a boom time buyer)

As for repossessions. I believe that both sides of the argument have valid points although nobody seems to be taking onboard the others. Cookie is correct in his assertion that you cannot just blanket reposses 106,000 properties or whatever the figure bandies out a little earlier was.

That wouldnt correct the market, wouldnt fix the banks insolvency issues and wouldnt be good for the economy in a broader scale, however it has to be acknowledged that there are far too few repossessions happening and the current situation isnt helping either.

but these people who are in default need to get a grip with reality aswell. If you cant afford your mortgage you figure out a way to best manage your debt, lengthen your mortgage term, rent out a room (i dont care if that means a stranger living with you your wife and children) buy own brand food, get your clothes in pennys or dunnes, sell your tv, get rid of sky / ntl, sell your car and buy a 1995 run around instead, get rid of your mobile phone etc. if that means you dont get to celebrate Christmas well sorry guys but thats life thats the position your in.

everything outside of light, heat, food and shelter is a luxury. Im pretty sure if this was the approach taken a large chunk of those people could if they genuinely wanted to pay their debt, but they choose not to as their are spoilt and think the world owes them.

I dont have sympathy with anybody who is in default. I couldnt care their situation. I took into account every what if scenario before I got my mortgage including what if I lose my job, what if interest rates hit double digits etc. If others were too ignorant to do the same thats just tough.

pay up or apply for bankrupty simple as.

I agree with you completely. But I still feel there are valid (unfortunate) reasons for why people are in default. I bemoan those doing nothing about it and would prefer to see them getting the help they need. I too did my best to plan and to date, thankfully, it's paid off. This does not mean that those that did not were fools. You don't need a degree in finance to get a mortgage. The banks should have looked closer at people's finances and employment situautions and they simple did not.

When I applied for a mortgage the bank advisor urged me to put down all sources for income. Even potential sources. I heard of people getting loans of their parents temproarily to lodge into an account to show they had saving. Banks then began offering 100% mortgages. It simply is not fair, in my mind anyway, to blame solely those that took mortgages and are now in arrears/default.

strandroad

cookie1977 wrote: »

The banks are trying to double down on the debt. They got a bailout once they wrote down the bad debts. Now they want all or as much of the debt they can (which is fine to a point) but instead of trying to pursue a deal and a shared responsibility they'd rather repossess. It does not make sense.

How can they be more responsible? They are not even proper banking institutions anymore, they have been wound down or taken over. Any money you want them to forgive is coming from the same source - the state - just via different routes. Until they are weaned off any losses they accept will end up with us anyway, whether they have been pencilled into the bailout plan or not.

cookie1977 wrote: »

Where do yo get that idea?

Can you read back some please? It has been covered several times, I believe.

cookie1977

mhge wrote: »

Whether there should be some sort of a writedown if a house is surrendered is another question - I believe the new bankruptcy laws make it possible to a degree?

I actually thought they did not include that recommendation.

Scortho

Peanut2011 wrote: »

Isn't this what Enda and Co. are doing with the pumping the money to the banks and paying the bondholders??? We are all paying for it as a result!

Furthermore you are only focusing on the investment properties, the real issue is the Family Homes!! If you look at the people that bought dooring the boom, it was middle class that did it as it was cheaper to pay the mortgage than it was to rent.

Why was this?? Well planning laws for once favoured the estate builders rather than individual builds and than lets talk about all the incentives the government at the time was giving so one would buy....

Look at the Priory Hall?? There are many more estates like this where the government and local councils have failed in their duty but who is left suffering???

Same way many, many new families who looked to buy their first family home are now stuck in "commuter" towns with the houses who are not worth the mortgage they have, never mind anything else and who the government is going to milk again with the property tax.

Never mind the fact that many families like this are struggling to pay the mortgage and other bills but now they will have to pay all this extra just so that the spineless shower of ar*** in the Dáil can keep their perks, pensions and salaries!

I am all for paying my own way and have been all along. I am not asking for debt forgiveness but maybe the banks could look at reduced rates of interest on troubled mortgages or what ever other way there is. After all, they got re-capitalised by the government with peoples money.

The only thing the banks have done since is raise every single interest rate they have to hit the same people that bailed them out yet again.

If the family are on social welfare and lose the house, they can apply for rent allowance. If they aren't and are working, are they not allowed rent? Or is that a nasty word on this island?

For the people who bought properties in priory hall, they should be looked after! If this means the government taking the hit and having to rebuild the units, then they should as it was the council who approved if. We should then inact building inspection legislation so that dodgy buildings can't be built again.

If a family bought a home in navan or newbridge with the intention to live there for the rest of their lives, why can't they commute anymore? If it was ok to commute 5 years ago why can't one commute now?

For troubled loans the bank will sit down and work out a plan. They'll look at what you earn and see what you can afford to pay back! They know that they can't get blood from a stone. However they might tell you to cancel the sky subscription, the plan b health insurance and sell the 5 series that is sitting out on the driveway and buy a smaller car instead. If you have none of these luxuries, well then they won't tell you!

I'm in favour of home repossessions where a person is in arrears, however they shouldn't have to pay back the difference. They've taken there hit!

What I'm also in favour of is the bank extending out the loan period so that the person can have reduced monthly mortgage repayments in line with local rents. the person might be in trouble today, but they might be back on there feet in 2 years time.

Just because the house is worth less than what you paid for it, doesn't mean that you should get that portion written off ex gratia.

D3PO

cookie1977 wrote: »

When I applied for a mortgage the bank advisor urged me to put down all sources for income. Even potential sources. I heard of people getting loans of their parents temproarily to lodge into an account to show they had saving. Banks then began offering 100% mortgages. It simply is not fair, in my mind anyway, to blame solely those that took mortgages and are now in arrears/default.

the moment I heard on the radio about 100% mortgages I remeber saying jesus this will be a disaster.

Whilst I believe banks and the government have fault in causing the mess, they do not have financial responsibility. Everybody makes their own decisioins we dont have non recourse mortgages in this country.

You dont need a degree in finance to know that if you needed 100% or to go to a sub prime lender to get a mortgage that it wasnt a good thing.

nor did you need to be of above average intelligence to know that putting down phantom income streams i.e rent a room if you had no intention of doing so, or getting a loan of a deposit to make it look better on your applicaion that you were playing with fire.

sorry but people have to take responsibility for their own actions.

the whole government, bank, mortgage holder thing is no different than if it were some other situation, like if you rear ended a car that had faulty break lights, yes that driver has certainly played a significant part in your crash but ultimatley your at fault, you shouldnt have driven so close that you couldnt stop regardless.

accept responsility. Move on and lean your life lesson.

strandroad

cookie1977 wrote: »

I actually thought they did not include that recommendation.

Correct me if I'm wrong now as I'd have to brush up on the new rules. But isn't it a part of one's bankruptcy process - you surrender everything and live on minimum for a period, after which your debts are discharged? The problem was that it used to take 12 years to clear, but now will be shorter with some more options?

For the record, I have full understanding and sympathy for people who need to go through this and I wish they had options to complete it within a reasonable period of time. It's just keeping people in houses they clearly can't afford that I am debating as not good for anyone.

cookie1977

mhge wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong now as I'd have to brush up on the new rules. But isn't it a part of one's bankruptcy process - you surrender everything and live on minimum for a period, after which your debts are discharged? The problem was that it used to take 12 years to clear, but now will be shorter with some more options?

For the record, I have full understanding and sympathy for people who need to go through this and I wish they had options to complete it within a reasonable period of time. It's just keeping people in houses they clearly can't afford that I am debating as not good for anyone.

Under the current rules mortgages taken out prior to some time in 2008 or 9 (can't remember which) cannot be repossessed, but this will change later this year. Under current bankruptcy laws it is possible to die of old age and still be in bankruptcy as only a court can remove bankruptcy. So if a debtor argued against you being released then you might never be released. This will change thankfully but we don't know the full details of the new bill. That's my understanding anyway.

Fiery mutant

I still hear of ppl in trouble not paying their mortgage, and they still have their full sky sports package, two nights out at the weekend and the like. It's these ppl I have no sympathy for.

But some ppl are genuinely trying to get out of it and making every effort. I know of one guy who took all the light bulbs out of his house, and they use candles. Only turn on the tv for 2 hours a night, to watch a DVD or rte, no sky, then it's board games and books. These ppl are really trying and I h ope it turns for them and everyone else putting in real effort to cut their costs.

cookie1977

D3PO wrote: »

the moment I heard on the radio about 100% mortgages I remeber saying jesus this will be a disaster.

Whilst I believe banks and the government have fault in causing the mess, they do not have financial responsibility. Everybody makes their own decisioins we dont have non recourse mortgages in this country.

You dont need a degree in finance to know that if you needed 100% or to go to a sub prime lender to get a mortgage that it wasnt a good thing.

nor did you need to be of above average intelligence to know that putting down phantom income streams i.e rent a room if you had no intention of doing so, or getting a loan of a deposit to make it look better on your applicaion that you were playing with fire.

sorry but people have to take responsibility for their own actions.

the whole government, bank, mortgage holder thing is no different than if it were some other situation, like if you rear ended a car that had faulty break lights, yes that driver has certainly played a significant part in your crash but ultimatley your at fault, you shouldnt have driven so close that you couldnt stop regardless.

accept responsility. Move on and lean your life lesson.

You'd still be surprised by how people behave when they're in arrears. Maybe we need to re teach civics classes in school and teach practical things about civilian life.

D3PO

Fiery mutant wrote: »

I still hear of ppl in trouble not paying their mortgage, and they still have their full sky sports package, two nights out at the weekend and the like. It's these ppl I have no sympathy for.

But some ppl are genuinely trying to get out of it and making every effort. I know of one guy who took all the light bulbs out of his house, and they use candles. Only turn on the tv for 2 hours a night, to watch a DVD or rte, no sky, then it's board games and books. These ppl are really trying and I h ope it turns for them and everyone else putting in real effort to cut their costs.

i hope the latter people get out of it too. But id go as far as saying that the tv should be sold and the dvd player too. harsh but thats life.

Peanut2011

Scortho wrote: »

If the family are on social welfare and lose the house, they can apply for rent allowance. If they aren't and are working, are they not allowed rent? Or is that a nasty word on this island?

No never said that but the issue is the below point you mentioned. It's the difference between the mortgage and the house value that bank achieves that is the problem.

For the people who bought properties in priory hall, they should be looked after! If this means the government taking the hit and having to rebuild the units, then they should as it was the council who approved if. We should then inact building inspection legislation so that dodgy buildings can't be built again.

Agreed, but I'm afraid they look at this as a beginning of the issue not the only issue.

If a family bought a home in navan or newbridge with the intention to live there for the rest of their lives, why can't they commute anymore? If it was ok to commute 5 years ago why can't one commute now?

Well I can only think that the cost of a commute now is no longer affordable. With increased insurance cost, road tax cost and with the curtailed public transport could all have to do with it.

For troubled loans the bank will sit down and work out a plan. They'll look at what you earn and see what you can afford to pay back! They know that they can't get blood from a stone. However they might tell you to cancel the sky subscription, the plan b health insurance and sell the 5 series that is sitting out on the driveway and buy a smaller car instead. If you have none of these luxuries, well then they won't tell you!

See the issue is that everyone thinks that these people in arrears are the ones that have all that outside their homes. Some may have, but majority of the ones I know who are in arrears or barely making the payments have already done away with all that. Personally if there was anyone out there in arrears and still trying to enjoy the high life I would have no sympathy for them.

I'm in favour of home repossessions where a person is in arrears, however they shouldn't have to pay back the difference. They've taken there hit!

I would fully agree with you there. They lost the home and maybe there would have a ban on mortgage loans for next x amount of years.. If that was implemented you would have a lot more people out there in a much better position.

What I'm also in favour of is the bank extending out the loan period so that the person can have reduced monthly mortgage repayments in line with local rents. the person might be in trouble today, but they might be back on there feet in 2 years time.

Agree, and this option is out there at the moment but you have to be in arrears before the bank will even talk to you. However most mortgages that are in difficulties are the ones that have taken the mortgages out with the maximum term. Furthermore the amount of extra interest this lumps on the top of you at the current options is not designed to help the struggling home-owner but to bleed out the most cash out of them.

Just because the house is worth less than what you paid for it, doesn't mean that you should get that portion written off ex gratia.

Absolutely agree with you here!

D3PO

cookie1977 wrote: »

You'd still be surprised by how people behave when they're in arrears. Maybe we need to re teach civics classes in school and teach practical things about civilian life.

theres certainly an argument for civics classes in school. i think most would be all for it

cookie1977

D3PO wrote: »

i hope the latter people get out of it too. But id go as far as saying that the tv should be sold and the dvd player too. harsh but thats life.

Certainly no new fancy tv's and cut your cloth to your measure but in all honesty how much would you get for a second hand tv? And how much would it pay off the total debt?

Zamboni

D3PO wrote: »

First things first stop with the "they" Beaner, Zamboni, Lima et all posting as if everybody that bought during the boom are part of the problem, were all living beyond their means, spashing the cash on keeping up with the jones's etc.

If you have an issue with a post of mine, have some courtesy and quote it and let me respond to you rather than just lump me in and dismiss out of hand.

Thanks

D3PO

cookie1977 wrote: »

Certainly no new fancy tv's and cut your cloth to your measure but in all honesty how much would you get for a second hand tv? And how much would it pay off the total debt?

A fair point but I believe its more as a gesture and symbol that yes im doing eveything in my power no matter how little.

strandroad

D3PO wrote: »

theres certainly an argument for civics classes in school. i think most would be all for it

I agree. And include a module on "sales techniques resistance". It's always mentioned in this threads how the banks were upselling mortgages, pushing credit cards etc. The question is, so what? It's exactly the same as with your broadband provider or in Tescos where you're blasted with all those 3for2 offers. Do you buy every offer you on your way to the checkout, do you always get the package pushed by the agent on the phone? Surely not, you apply discernment. Why is it that people can do that for selection boxes and can't for biggest decisions of their lives?

flutered

professore wrote: »

I agree with this. I wonder how willing are the banks to do a deal though? Thankfully I don't have personal experience of this.

the problem with this idea is it is not aimed at the ordinary householder, it is aimed at developers etc, the ecb wished to have a cap of 1m for this, but enda and baldy stood up and said no we are caping this at 3m, it shows that when their buddys are involved the can speak out to the ecb,
now my question, will this cover bottlers 1.9 high court judgement.

lima

D3PO wrote: »

i agree with the premise of a lot of what your believe regarding repos but jesus why do you hAve to be such a smug git ?

just becasue I agree doenst mean Im happy about the situation. Show a bit of class

Because these same people sneered at me for renting and not getting on the ladder back in the day. And if their houses became valuable again then they would not give a rats about me or any of the renters again. So I don't care about them.