Home Reposessed??

D3PO

lima wrote: »

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.

you have a serious chip on your shoulder mate. You really need a lesson in humility.

Theres a difference between having a reasoned argument as to why you believe a certain thing should happen in the current housing market and to just being a snide nasty begrudger.

I agree these houses should be repod but all I can think of right now is how Id love to scoff at your in a bad situation to make you understand how much of an ass your coming across as.

melekalikimaka

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.

the warning signs were beeping (yeah yeah i know some people didnt see them) buying a house is a huge decision, in general people who bought at that time should really have actively looked into the stability of the market before parting with their cash, we can blame banks and the government til the cows come home, but its odd how some people saw the signs and others ignored them

cookie1977

melekalikimaka wrote: »

the warning signs were beeping (yeah yeah i know some people didnt see them) buying a house is a huge decision, in general people who bought at that time should really have actively looked into the stability of the market before parting with their cash, we can blame banks and the government til the cows come home, but its odd how some people saw the signs and others ignored them

All were guilty to be honest. Problem is none of them are trying very much to get over the problem.

jmayo

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.

Re-teach ?
I didn't know there was a civics curriculum ?

D3PO wrote: »

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

And not just civics, but a mandatory basic economics/household budgeting junior cert course.
Don't know if Home Economics or Commerce covers this, but they are not mandatory AFAIK ?

mhge wrote: »

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?

Exactly.
Basically a lot of people appeared to forget that bank employees that gave out mortgages or mortgage brokers were sales people who got commission on sales.
Some people appeared to spent more time buying a car than they did in purchasing property.
I still recall hearing middle aged woman interviewed on radio talking about seeing a queue to buy apartments whilst on way home and how she decided to stop and buy one for one of the sons and another son was called so he could buy one for himself.
FFS it was a property with at least a 20 year contract attached and they treated it like it was queuing for the latest U2 album or Harry Potter book outside HMV. :rolleyes:

I went into a building society to enquire about a mortgage for an investment property (it was cheap by the standards of the time and in Limerick) and I was told that with my deposit I shouldn't just consider one but a few.
I was even told how I could talk up the fact my sole trader revenues had increased year on year for 4 odd years.
That whole conversation left me cold and copperfastened my already opinion that not alone was property way overpriced, but the idiots handing out the loans might as well have been part of some ponzi scheme.

cookie1977

lima wrote: »

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.

Walk a mile in someone else’s shoes before you try to judge their journey. That goes for your mates too.

lima

D3PO wrote: »

you have a serious chip on your shoulder mate. You really need a lesson in humility.

Theres a difference between having a reasoned argument as to why you believe a certain thing should happen in the current housing market and to just being a snide nasty begrudger.

I agree these houses should be repod but all I can think of right now is how Id love to scoff at your in a bad situation to make you understand how much of an ass your coming across as.

I am simply being blunt about it, showing that not everyone is being sucked into leniency of the situation through empathy.

cookie1977

jmayo wrote: »

Re-teach ?
I didn't know there was a civics curriculum ?



And not just civics, but a mandatory basic economics/household budgeting junior cert course.
Don't know if Home Economics or Commerce covers this, but they are not mandatory AFAIK ?

Wasn't it always the doss class Civics and practical finances should be thought in school and it should be compulsary.

jmayo wrote: »

Exactly.
Basically a lot of people appeared to forget that bank employees that gave out mortgages or mortgage brokers were sales people who got commission on sales.
Some people appeared to spent more time buying a car than they did in purchasing property.

If you surveyed most mortgage holders now they probably could not tell you the interest rate they're on or the monthly repayment.

jmayo wrote: »

I still recall hearing middle aged woman interviewed on radio talking about seeing a queue to buy apartments whilst on way home and how she decided to stop and buy one for one of the sons and another son was called so he could buy one for himself.
FFS it was a property with at least a 20 year contract attached and they treated it like it was queuing for the latest U2 album or Harry Potter book outside HMV. :rolleyes:

I went into a building society to enquire about a mortgage for an investment property (it was cheap by the standards of the time and in Limerick) and I was told that with my deposit I shouldn't just consider one but a few.
I was even told how I could talk up the fact my sole trader revenues had increased year on year for 4 odd years.
That whole conversation left me cold and copperfastened my already opinion that not alone was property way overpriced, but the idiots handing out the loans might as well have been part of some ponzi scheme.

And that's another reason why banks need to shoulder some of the burden

D3PO

lima wrote: »

I am simply being blunt about it, showing that not everyone is being sucked into leniency of the situation through empathy.

and Ive shown the same lack of leniency without having to scoff at those who regardless of greed, misfortune, mismanagement or miseducation find themselves in a position they didnt forsee.

you can still be empathetic of somebody whilst towing a hardline. I think they should have their houses repossesed but the differenc eis you come across as wanting to help them pack and then throwing a party as they leave their family home distraught.

OMD

lima wrote: »

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.

When was "back in the day"?

the_syco

cookie1977 wrote: »

Look at the increased rates of suicide.

You bring suicide into the equation, you bring emotions into the equation.

beaner88 wrote: »

You think bailouts are a good thing.

To a degree, yes. They ensured our banks still exist (what bank would sanely come to a country where all the bank have gone bust), and that there was still someone who lent to the companies in Ireland.

Peanut2011 wrote: »

Not quite!!

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

You give the house back

Why "You give the house back"? Why not continue to pay for it? Or did you buy a place to get "onto the property ladder!"?

D3PO wrote: »

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

Agreed. To me, 100% mortgages were mortgages for people that could not save.

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?

Everything bar the "family home".

Fiery mutant wrote: »

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.

Although I commend their approach, it may cost them more if they don't use enough electricity, as they may be hit by a "low usage" charge.

=-=

People should cop on what qualifies as a luxury and what isn't. Sky is a luxury, as is internet. You don't need it to live. Likewise with the latest up to date phone. Having a TV, altough not not need to live, is needed to know what is happening around them. The news on the radio just doesn't really cut it anymore.

Gurgle

cookie1977 wrote: »

If you surveyed most mortgage holders now they probably could not tell you the interest rate they're on or the monthly repayment.

Most people might not know their current interest rate, but I expect the vast majority know how much the monthly payment is.

D3PO

the_syco wrote: »

Having a TV, altough not not need to live, is needed to know what is happening around them. The news on the radio just doesn't really cut it anymore.

want to keep up with the news go to the library and surf the web for free. you can watch the news on the rte player or whatever.

tv is a luxury everything outside a the basic necessities to live is. THe sooner people realise this the better.

cookie1977

Gurgle wrote: »

Most people might not know their current interest rate, but I expect the vast majority know how much the monthly payment is.

Ask your friends next time you see them. Tell them it's for a survey online. I trust you'll be honest with the outcome

cookie1977

the_syco wrote: »

You bring suicide into the equation, you bring emotions into the equation.

And there is a problem with this why?

cookie1977

D3PO wrote: »

want to keep up with the news go to the library and surf the web for free. you can watch the news on the rte player or whatever.

tv is a luxury everything outside a the basic necessities to live is. THe sooner people realise this the better.

Re TV. I hope people would have switched to basic tv as in tv licence tv and not any subscription services but I would also say that in this day and age (and many I'm sure will disagree) that broadband should be a basic necessity

D3PO

cookie1977 wrote: »

Re TV. I hope people would have switched to basic tv as in tv licence tv and not any subscription services but I would also say that in this day and age (and many I'm sure will disagree) that broadband should be a basic necessity

why is braodband a necessity ? do you need it to live ? no ergo its not a necessity.

this is the thinking that has peoples backs up like me. You cant afford it you dont have it.

you start with broadbands a necessity then you end up with sure the two week holiday in Spain is.

No way if its not a basic balanced meal 3 times a day, a roof and warmth then its not not necessary,

cookie1977

D3PO wrote: »

why is braodband a necessity ? do you need it to live ? no ergo its not a necessity.

this is the thinking that has peoples backs up like me. You cant afford it you dont have it.

you start with broadbands a necessity then you end up with sure the two week holiday in Spain is.

No way if its not a basic balanced meal 3 times a day, a roof and warmth then its not not necessary,

I think the UN have labelled broadband an essential now. I'll try dig up the reference. I don't equate holidays to Broadband at all.

link:
The United Nations Says Broadband Is Basic Human Right

OMD

cookie1977 wrote: »

I think the UN have labelled broadband an essential now. I'll try dig up the reference. I don't equate holidays to Broadband at all.

link:
The United Nations Says Broadband Is Basic Human Right

What the UN actually said is not quite the same as what Forbes think they said. Certainly broadband in every home is not a human right and the UN do not say that it is

http://singularityhub.com/2011/06/12/un-declares-internet-access-a-human-right-but-fast-and-cheap-may-be-as-important-as-open/

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf

cookie1977

I'd disagree:

From the UN website
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?Cr=broadband&NewsID=40191

“It is vital that no one be excluded from the new global knowledge societies we are building. We believe that communication is not just a human need – it is a right.”

D3PO

cookie1977 wrote: »

I'd disagree:

From the UN website
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?Cr=broadband&NewsID=40191

I agree. Internet is a right. But internet in the home is not. You can use the internet for free in your local library. That is more than sufficent to meet anybodies rights.

cookie1977

D3PO wrote: »

I agree. Internet is a right. But internet in the home is not. You can use the internet for free in your local library. That is more than sufficent to meet anybodies rights.

I take your point but we'll agree to disagree

gutteruu

Peanut2011 wrote: »

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.

Quinns in Jail, Fitzpatrick is up on charges. Politicians salaries and bankers pensions are so unbelievably insignificant to the tens of billions we are discussing its not worth mentioning and is all off topic anyway.

cookie1977 wrote: »

One mans choice is anothers no choice. Like many on here now wanting repossessions so they can get a house. Why don't they wait patiently and save and see what happens to the market. Why do you almost revel in the possibility of repossessions? No one seems to answer this (other then those that don't want repossessions but want to see people repay, which is good in my mind) and I've asked it a few times.

Because we are half a bloody decade later and nothing is happening except people living for free in big houses they can't afford. Hows about the rest of the country get OUR housing market back instead of it being held hostage by squatters!

cookie1977

gutteruu wrote: »

Quinns in Jail, Fitzpatrick is up on charges. Politicians salaries and bankers pensions are so unbelievably insignificant to the tens of billions we are discussing its not worth mentioning and is all off topic anyway.

Quinn's at home for Christmas still as far as I know.

gutteruu wrote: »

Because we are half a bloody decade later and nothing is happening except people living for free in big houses they can't afford. Hows about the rest of the country get OUR housing market back instead of it being held hostage by squatters!

Those squatters are people too. People who may be trying their best but not making much head way due to their circumstances.

gutteruu

cookie1977 wrote: »

Those squatters are people too. People who may be trying their best but not making much head way due to their circumstances.

So screw the rest of us? Lets all hang around until they are ready to let us get on with it?

cookie1977

How are you being screwed? House prices are the lowest they've been in years. Sorry they're not low enough for you but such is life. You'd be happy to have a family evicted so you can get a house cheaper? Just so I'm clear where you're coming from.

gutteruu

cookie1977 wrote: »

How are you being screwed? House prices are the lowest they've been in years. Sorry they're not low enough for you but such is life. You'd be happy to have a family evicted so you can get a house cheaper? Just so I'm clear where you're coming from.

Here you go with prices again! NOBODY in this thread asked for lower prices except YOU! Read the thread again if you need to, as I did! Your just making stuff up, then arguing against it! edit: lower prices were hinted at as a result of repossessions, but not the reason behind wanting them.

I would be happier to see someone who saved 60,000 euro in the last 5 years in rent/mortgage that they refused to pay be moved out of a property they don't own and have no right to be in! Yes! They would go broke for 36 months and then thrive in the new growing economy!

Our bank, can then claim some money back by selling, reducing everyones interest rates and liability. This would in turn grow the economy as more disposable income, create a housing market so people can actually buy houses.

Or, we could leave those people who saved 60,000 quid in the last few years living for free in the houses being paid for by us (albeit indirectly).

So yes! Evict them!

OMD

cookie1977 wrote: »

I'd disagree:

From the UN website
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?Cr=broadband&NewsID=40191

Which cannot be construed as meaning broadband for everyone is a right. Far from it.

strandroad

cookie1977 wrote: »

How are you being screwed? House prices are the lowest they've been in years. Sorry they're not low enough for you but such is life. You'd be happy to have a family evicted so you can get a house cheaper? Just so I'm clear where you're coming from.

You're using "family evicted" as some sort of ultimate strawman everyone should bow to.

Unfortunately yes, families and other people can get evicted if they can't keep paying their loans. At least welfare net is there to catch them.
If someone invested in Irish bank shares for their pension fund - poof - gone. Dotcom bubble - poof - gone. Business car fleet when the company went to the wall - gone. Much bigger investments gone and no one argues in favour of giving them back to those unfortunate people whose life efforts collapsed around them.

You stop this from happening, you're creating another weird factor to hinder the economy. Another layer of legal and financial mess to untangle.

migu

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

This individual does not do class, just takes pleasure in the misery of others. Lets hope life is always as good to him/her. There is absolutley some merit in what they argue just a pity that they have to be so nasty. Would they feel the same if a loved one found themselves in a similar position? Answer: most likely. Takes all sorts I guess

strandroad

cookie1977 wrote: »

I take your point but we'll agree to disagree

So to recap your recent posts, you're in favour of making frugal folks pay for home broadband of bad mortgagees, who can't even tell what their interest rate is?