Home Reposessed??

cookie1977

gutteruu wrote: »

This point is driving me nuts! We paid!!!!!! Or did they find it at the end of a rainbow? We are paying back the loan that paid them!! (This doesn't even include the 15 billion from the national pension reserve fund that we will be screwed for in 10 years time)

What gives these people the god given right to remain in their homes whilst people who rent get evicted when they don't pay. There is a massive number of people renting in this country and they have all fallen victim to the exact same circumstances as those who are living for free, but they get kicked straight out if they don't pay. No questions, no sad stories, no bitching, no lock ins etc!

So...What makes a person living for free in a bank owned home so much more important than a family renting? Why can they not be evicted when its perfectly fine to have a greater percentage of renters open to eviction daily without question.

Honestly do you really believe that those in arrears are living the life of reilly in their houses?

I take your point in that I do have sympathy for renters struggling. But they are different situations. I am not advocating debt forgiveness outright. Also do you know how difficult it is to evict a renter in Ireland today? Have a read around some of those threads in here. But that aside.

If a renter is in a property in which they cannot pay the rent, the option is for them to move to a cheaper place or as a final solution to be housed by the state as it is not and has never been their house to stay in. Assumung the usual options have been considered and are not sufficient (lengthining mortgage, paying 66% of the interest only for up to 5 years etc...) if a mortgagee is in arrears and struggling there are options which should be considered. If they owed 300,000 and were unable to meet the current repayments but could say meet half the repayments while the bank takes the other share such that after 20 years the property is sold and the bank get that their half of the value of the house back with the original buyer getting their share and they walk away and start again or they could buy the bank out if that's an option.

This way we dont end up with a house repossessed, the bank gets instant money and the promise of cash in 20 years from the sale (more than likely value will have increased) and the tax payer does not end up supporting another family in rehousing, the family have some extra cash hopefully to spend in the domestic economy and stress all round is reduced. The tax payer/imf/ecb has already paid the bank in the recapitalisation for the bad mortgage so any money the bank can get is a plus for them (and us). The owner repays half the debt for half the equity rather than getting away scot free but also is not saddled with a life time of debt which would be penal.

If none of the above is possible for what ever reason then maybe a repossession is the only solution open, but at least a viable option to help the indebted person is considered.

ted1

People who bought in the boom have a tracker mortgage , those who bought recently are being screwed on interest rates to cover those on tracker rates. So realisitacally the gap between repayments for those who bought high and are in negative equity and those who bought low isn't that much.

So I don't see why I should be bailing out others

cookie1977

ted1 wrote: »

People who bought in the boom have a tracker mortgage , those who bought recently are being screwed on interest rates to cover those on tracker rates. So realisitacally the gap between repayments for those who bought high and are in negative equity and those who bought low isn't that much.

So I don't see why I should be bailing out others

not everyone has trackers who bought in the boom. many also lost them for a variety of reasons. I would also not agree with your assessment of interest repayments either.

lima

cookie1977 wrote: »

Honestly do you really believe that those in arrears are living the life of reilly in their houses?

I take your point in that I do have sympathy for renters struggling. But they are different situations. I am not advocating debt forgiveness outright. Also do you know how difficult it is to evict a renter in Ireland today? Have a read around some of those threads in here. But that aside.

If a renter is in a property in which they cannot pay the rent, the option is for them to move to a cheaper place or as a final solution to be housed by the state as it is not and has never been their house to stay in. Assumung the usual options have been considered and are not sufficient (lengthining mortgage, paying 66% of the interest only for up to 5 years etc...) if a mortgagee is in arrears and struggling there are options which should be considered. If they owed 300,000 and were unable to meet the current repayments but could say meet half the repayments while the bank takes the other share such that after 20 years the property is sold and the bank get that their half of the value of the house back with the original buyer getting their share and they walk away and start again or they could buy the bank out if that's an option.

This way we dont end up with a house repossessed, the bank gets instant money and the promise of cash in 20 years from the sale (more than likely value will have increased) and the tax payer does not end up supporting another family in rehousing, the family have some extra cash hopefully to spend in the domestic economy and stress all round is reduced. The tax payer/imf/ecb has already paid the bank in the recapitalisation for the bad mortgage so any money the bank can get is a plus for them (and us). The owner repays half the debt for half the equity rather than getting away scot free but also is not saddled with a life time of debt which would be penal.

If none of the above is possible for what ever reason then maybe a repossession is the only solution open, but at least a viable option to help the indebted person is considered.

Look, if that's what it would take for the economy to not crumble then so be it. However, the artificially maintained house prices will remain and I would still be paying more for a house because of those people who bought in the boom. Therefore I would need to be compensated too - how about people who were renting or not living in Ireland during the boom get tax cuts whilst the people with boom mortgages pay more tax? that seems fair to me.

And another thing, after the last 10 year, ever since the euro came in, I do not trust Irish people one bit. They all became money hungry and whilst there are honest people out there, I cannot tell the difference between them so I would not trust any of them, especially when it comes to their claims of hardship (with the nice car outside and the 2xholidays + sky + iPads for the kids). So I really don't see this working, so I think they should bear the brunt of this hardship and take a life lesson from it.

cookie1977

lima wrote: »

Look, if that's what it would take for the economy to not crumble then so be it. However, the artificially maintained house prices will remain and I would still be paying more for a house because of those people who bought in the boom. Therefore I would need to be compensated too - how about people who were renting or not living in Ireland during the boom get tax cuts whilst the people with boom mortgages pay more tax? that seems fair to me.

And another thing, after the last 10 year, ever since the euro came in, I do not trust Irish people one bit. They all became money hungry and whilst there are honest people out there, I cannot tell the difference between them so I would not trust any of them, especially when it comes to their claims of hardship (with the nice car outside and the 2xholidays + sky + iPads for the kids). So I really don't see this working, so I think they should bear the brunt of this hardship and take a life lesson from it.

You have such a dim view of people I don't know what I can say to you. As I said before if you're so unhappy why did you return to the country and why haven't you decided to move again. You're obsessed with house prices as much as those you dispise. There is no difference between you and them.

lima

cookie1977 wrote: »

You have such a dim view of people I don't know what I can say to you. As I said before if you're so unhappy why did you return to the country and why haven't you decided to move again. You're obsessed with house prices as much as those you dispise. There is no difference between you and them.

I'm extremely happy but that's not anything to do with this situation.

People are collectively lobbying to get off paying their dues. I have lived a fair life, went to college, emigrated, came back to start a good job. I'm paying tax, I deserve a home, and I will pay the market rate for one.

But in the meantime all this stuff unconnected to me happened, and all these people are being assisted by the state in staying in houses they cant afford to live in. Skewing the natural progression of a peak/trough. That is all. I love people, I love my friends and family, but an unconnected event is making it difficult to own a home.

No need to be so harsh on me personally, it's money at the end of the day, you are familiar with that with your two properties aren't you? I'm sure if you were in positive equity you wouldn't be here empathizing about the poor renters who won't have a pension pot when they retire?

cookie1977

lima wrote: »

I'm extremely happy but that's not anything to do with this situation.

People are collectively lobbying to get off paying their dues. I have lived a fair life, went to college, emigrated, came back to start a good job. I'm paying tax, I deserve a home, and I will pay the market rate for one.

But in the meantime all this stuff unconnected to me happened, and all these people are being assisted by the state in staying in houses they cant afford to live in. Skewing the natural progression of a peak/trough. That is all. I love people, I love my friends and family, but an unconnected event is making it difficult to own a home.

No need to be so harsh on me personally, it's money at the end of the day, you are familiar with that with your two properties aren't you? I'm sure if you were in positive equity you wouldn't be here empathizing about the poor renters who won't have a pension pot when they retire?

It's just your opinion it's being skewed. If you cannot afford the home you want now because of the price then reassess the situation and buy a home you can afford. Why do you feel you're entitled to pay less. You don't know what the bottom is. You're just assuming this isn't the bottom because it's not the price you want to pay. No one knows what the bottom is or what would happen with more repossessions.

I have no idea what your last comment means either.

lima

cookie1977 wrote: »

I have no idea what your last comment means either.

You come across as sympathetic to boom mortgage owners who are struggling, because you have a mortgage, bought for 'investment' and can relate to them. I'm saying you wouldn't be sympathetic to struggling renters who were going to lose a lot of money by not investing for their future pensions if the boom was still happening, i.e You are one sided, just like me, except on the other side!

cookie1977

lima wrote: »

You come across as sympathetic to boom mortgage owners who are struggling, because you have a mortgage, bought for 'investment' and can relate to them. I'm saying you wouldn't be sympathetic to struggling renters who were going to lose a lot of money by not investing for their future pensions if the boom was still happening, i.e You are one sided, just like me, except on the other side!

I could not disagree more with you. It's clear you've read your own thoughts into what I've posted. And I'm still unclear as to what parts of your posts mean

Peanut2011

the_syco wrote: »

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!"?

My point was about the people who can no longer maintain to pay their mortgage payments. If you have looked in to that you would also know that there is limited amount of steps banks will attempt.

If your mortgage was €1,500 a month and now you found yourself out of work, do you think the bank would accept €50 a week to keep the house???

In this case you are unable to make a reasonable contribution towards your mortgage and the only option you have is to give up the house. In this case the residual is the problem.

I personally don't know of anyone who bought the house "just to get on the property ladder", but rather for the sake of creating their own stable roof over their heads. The property they bought may not have been ideal for next 20-30 years but it would have been all they could afford with a view that in next 10-15 years should they need to they will be able to sell what they had and get something else.

kunst nugget

Peanut2011 wrote: »

I personally don't know of anyone who bought the house "just to get on the property ladder", but rather for the sake of creating their own stable roof over their heads. The property they bought may not have been ideal for next 20-30 years but it would have been all they could afford with a view that in next 10-15 years should they need to they will be able to sell what they had and get something else.

Eh, that's a description of people attempting to use the property ladder right there.

Peanut2011

gutteruu wrote: »

edit: lower prices were hinted at as a result of repossessions, but not the reason behind wanting them.

The property prices would drop if there were mass repossession as the banks would than have to dispose of the liability as those properties would not be their assets. In turn they would take what they could.

So instead of the asset on their books worth €350k, they would have a liability of €150k (lets say for the sake of the argument). Would would plug that loss??

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

How do you get that someone saved if they were unable to pay their mortgage?? If they were not paying their mortgage all they did was accrue interest on top of the mortgage, they hardly saved anything! I'd love to see what you are basing this opinion on?

I'm sure if they did not pay their rent they would be kicked out by landlord.

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.

See my first reply, who would pay for the difference?

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).

Again, how are they saving??

Peanut2011

gutteruu wrote: »

What gives these people the god given right to remain in their homes whilst people who rent get evicted when they don't pay. There is a massive number of people renting in this country and they have all fallen victim to the exact same circumstances as those who are living for free, but they get kicked straight out if they don't pay. No questions, no sad stories, no bitching, no lock ins etc!

So...What makes a person living for free in a bank owned home so much more important than a family renting? Why can they not be evicted when its perfectly fine to have a greater percentage of renters open to eviction daily without question.

If the evicted person could start fresh like someone from rented property there would be no problem. The issue is the Mortgage value Vs the property value.

I would have no problem if people were evicted and than meant that their mortgage is cleared with maybe having their credit history affected by 5-6 years. The problem is that the person is evicted and still expected to make the payments they could not have done in the first place.

If you rent and are evicted your landlord is not chasing you for payment for the rest of your contract! Is he?

gutteruu

To declare bankruptcy for 150 weeks and walk away free of hundreds of thousands of euros worth of crippling debt seems like a fantastic deal! Too good to be true even.

BUT...

These people refuse it! Why? They obviously can't afford the house they are in. They aren't paying towards the house they are in. There is no prospect of keeping the house they are in. So from my view it seems like they have a plan to keep the house they can't afford and won't pay towards. Why? Do they think cookie is going to convince everyone to write off their debt? The look remarkably like Squatters!!

And before you play the "what will they do card", Ireland has a huge caring social welfare system to help them. The same system that supports the rest of the country when they are broke.

Peanut2011

kunst nugget wrote: »

Eh, that's a description of people attempting to use the property ladder right there.

So in that case anyone who ever bought the house bought it to get on the "ladder" as you see it.

Same as anything else in your life, you buy what you can afford and which works for you. Do you know of anyone who bought their first home as a 5 bedroom detached house cos in 20 years time they planned on having 4 kids???

Peanut2011

gutteruu wrote: »

To declare bankruptcy for 150 weeks and walk away free of hundreds of thousands of euros worth of crippling debt seems like a fantastic deal! Too good to be true even.

BUT...

These people refuse it! Why? They obviously can't afford the house they are in. They aren't paying towards the house they are in. There is no prospect of keeping the house they are in. So from my view it seems like they have a plan to keep the house they can't afford and won't pay towards. Why? Do they think cookie is going to convince everyone to write off their debt? The look remarkably like Squatters!!

And before you play the "what will they do card", Ireland has a huge caring social welfare system to help them. The same system that supports the rest of the country when they are broke.

See there is a difference between the ones that don't want to pay and the ones that can not pay! The second issue is that the options that the banks have out there right now do nothing to meet these people and work out workable solution.

I would say bank is better off getting half the mortgage repayment for however long and freezing the other half. If the person can not pay it bank takes it at the time of the sale of the house....

Bank keeps getting the money, people hold on to their own roof and eventually pay the mortgage off one way or the other. There is no debt forgiveness there.

I have no problem anyone being evicted that simply is refusing to pay. Perfect example was the elderly couple that made the news a while ago who turned out had a huge property portfolio and a 5 bead mansion for the two of them only.

I had no issues with them being evicted as they simply did not want to pay or give up anything they had.

The problem is that many here advocating evictions seem to think everyone is living like that who is in arrears.

kunst nugget

Peanut2011 wrote: »

So in that case anyone who ever bought the house bought it to get on the "ladder" as you see it.

Same as anything else in your life, you buy what you can afford and which works for you. Do you know of anyone who bought their first home as a 5 bedroom detached house cos in 20 years time they planned on having 4 kids???

If you buy a house with the hope of selling it on in 10-15 years to fund the purchase of a bigger house then that is you hoping to move up the property ladder. Why be disingenuous about it?

Peanut2011

kunst nugget wrote: »

If you buy a house with the hope of selling it on in 10-15 years to fund the purchase of a bigger house then that is you hoping to move up the property ladder. Why be disingenuous about it?

So as I said, in that case everyone who ever bought their first home got it to get on the "ladder"?

lima

Peanut2011 wrote: »

If you rent and are evicted your landlord is not chasing you for payment for the rest of your contract! Is he?

Yes, he can e.g: http://www.lynchlaw.ie/letting_agreement.pdf


"If he leaves the property before the tenancy ends,
the landlord may pursue him for the balance of the rent due under this agreement or may sue him for damages."

Peanut2011

lima wrote: »

Yes, he can e.g: http://www.lynchlaw.ie/letting_agreement.pdf


"If he leaves the property before the tenancy ends."

No one is talking about if one leaves, we are talking about if one is evicted.

On another note:

lima wrote: »

how about people who were renting or not living in Ireland during the boom get tax cuts

I cannot tell the difference between them so I would not trust any of them, especially when it comes to their claims of hardship (with the nice car outside and the 2xholidays + sky + iPads for the kids).

The people who were renting in Ireland were the same people who decided to buy as it was economically more viable. For the ones that were not living here, well they did not have to return nor did they contribute anything to the state so why expect something back.

In respect to telling the difference between people well luckily for us we don't have to rely on you to. For anyone who is claiming hardship and have the money for iPads and such I would not believe them either but the problem is that you see everyone in that light that say they are struggling.

lima wrote: »

I have lived a fair life, went to college, emigrated, came back to start a good job.

So you were here for as long as it suited you. You were lucky enough to be able to go to college, use the free education Ireland offers and then you decided to go contribute to some other country. In the meantime, the taxpayers who were here still had to make contributions to the education system you used for your benefit without contributing.

Now that you managed to get the "good job" you decided to come back and try to live high life while others who did not have the choices you did suffer. Well I guess lucky you! Don't begrudge others just cos they were not as lucky as you were!

kunst nugget

Peanut2011 wrote: »

So as I said, in that case everyone who ever bought their first home got it to get on the "ladder"?

Well, if they're thinking about it in terms of being their 'first' home then yeah.

cookie1977

gutteruu wrote: »

To declare bankruptcy for 150 weeks and walk away free of hundreds of thousands of euros worth of crippling debt seems like a fantastic deal! Too good to be true even.

BUT...

These people refuse it! Why? They obviously can't afford the house they are in. They aren't paying towards the house they are in. There is no prospect of keeping the house they are in. So from my view it seems like they have a plan to keep the house they can't afford and won't pay towards. Why? Do they think cookie is going to convince everyone to write off their debt? The look remarkably like Squatters!!

And before you play the "what will they do card", Ireland has a huge caring social welfare system to help them. The same system that supports the rest of the country when they are broke.

I don't think you read anything on here. Do you not thing the taxpayer is already over burdened without having to take on housing mass numbers of evicted families? Would it not be better to see them pay part of their debts? Just because you evict them does not suddenly result in them being able to repay the debt. They're still in debt but not only are they now homeless, they're reliant on the state too

jmayo

cookie1977 wrote: »

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

For once we agree.

cookie1977 wrote: »

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

Ehhh that would be fine if the banks, at least the homegrown ones, were not in our ownership.
Thus you are asking the taxpayers to should the burden
And as a taxpayer the answer to that is shag off.

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

Oh for God's sake don't drag another bureaucratic joke of an organisation into this bloomin debate.

gutteruu wrote: »

Quinns in Jail, Fitzpatrick is up on charges.

Well wippeee doo.
quinns were in jail for contempt, nothing else.
They still haven't paid back the now state owned bank for their borrowing.
And before you dare drag the sh**e about possibily illegal loans to act as share support schemes, they have also acknowledged previously they borrowed hundreds of millions for property.
We can talk about moving on when they are repaid. :mad::mad:

As for fitzpatrick he is being charged, that doers not equal being convicted and does not equal repaying the millions he and his sprogs owe the taxpayers. :mad:

gutteruu wrote: »

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.

You are now exhibiting traits of some public servants who use the argument about how little certain amounts are in the grand scheme of things.
Well sunshine all those little amounts add up to big amounts. :mad:

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!

BTW if you are talking about squatters then why not look at the quinn family whose mortgages, homes, cars, weddings, cakes were all paid for by their company.
Lets see how much benefit in kind that adds up to and see them pay it back to the revenue.
Then we can look at the families of the fingeltons, the fitzpatricks, the drumms, the lyngs, the nearys, the cowens, the aherns, etc.

cookie1977 wrote: »

And we're building all these properties where???? People on here have said that repossessions will lead to cheaper houses. I do not believe this is so.

Ehhh.
Lets see more houses for sale, banks not lending and prices will stay the same.
I can see why you are the one talking about mandatory household budgeting courses for kids.

cookie1977 wrote: »

I don't think you read anything on here. Do you not thing the taxpayer is already over burdened without having to take on housing mass numbers of evicted families? Would it not be better to see them pay part of their debts? Just because you evict them does not suddenly result in them being able to repay the debt. They're still in debt but not only are they now homeless, they're reliant on the state too

I don't think anyone is on about evicting someone that is trying to pay their debts or whose debt can be in some way be stretched over a longer time frame, etc.
They are talking about evicting those who aren't making any effort or in a situation that can never be solved without them going into bankruptcy and giving back the property.

cookie1977

We agree on lots (except the breakdown of quoted posts )

The banks as I've said before have already recapitalised. This is debt which they've taken into account but which they themselves will not do a reasonable deal on. That's why they're happy to repossess as they dont need the hassle of waiting 20years for half the house and continuing to receive mortage on the other half over the same period.

There is a shortage of family homes in the dublin area. The oversupply of property is more to do with outside of dublin and the large number of apartments. Where do we move the evicted family from Dublin??

Some on here are. But I'm not saying absolutely no repossessions. I'm saying where possible lets not pursue that course. Where possible lets look at other options as to why people aren't paying (fear, depression etc...) It's not right to say that all not paying are doing because they dont care. Fear is a major factor. And if we see that the lengthened mortgage doesn't work for the person/family, lets look at other options

gutteruu

Ok! Your right! About everything. I admit. I'm sorry. I'm just off to the bank to stop my mortgage payments. Apparently I've come upon hard times and can't afford to pay my debts. I'm struggling to pay for my family home and want someone else to share my burden. Thanks all!

If we're all going broke, I want to be another one on the receiving end!

cookie1977

gutteruu wrote: »

Ok! Your right! About everything. I admit. I'm sorry. I'm just off to the bank to stop my mortgage payments. Apparently I've come upon hard times and can't afford to pay my debts. I'm struggling to pay for my family home and want someone else to share my burden. Thanks all!

If we're all going broke, I want to be another one on the receiving end!

Good luck with that.

cookie1977

This is partly what I'm talking about when I ask will repossessions actually bring down house prices and what do we do with the evicted families. Granted these properties mentioned here are more than likely BTL's but the same will apply to mass evictions of PPR/PDH. This would result in both a cost to the state and no huge increase in homes appearing on the market to drive down prices as others on here want to see happen.

NAMA has now made 3,900 homes available for social housing, and indeed the snails-pace acquisition of NAMA homes by the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government has been the fault of the Department, not NAMA. That’s not what NAMA says today, that’s the assessment on here – NAMA merely says “the onus for determining the suitability of these units for social housing rests with the local authorities, which assess, in conjunction with the Housing Agency, the demand for identified houses and apartments”

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/nama-issues-detailed-update-for-2012/

Zamboni

cookie1977 wrote: »

There is a shortage of family homes in the dublin area. The oversupply of property is more to do with outside of dublin and the large number of apartments. Where do we move the evicted family from Dublin??

There is absolutely not a shortage of family homes in Dublin.
There are thousands of empty apartments.
Apartments are perfect for family living, but as usual, the Irish have a twisted view of entitlement for a nice 3 bed semi with gardens.

cookie1977

Zamboni wrote: »

There is absolutely not a shortage of family homes in Dublin.
There are thousands of empty apartments.
Apartments are perfect for family living, but as usual, the Irish have a twisted view of entitlement for a nice 3 bed semi with gardens.

Try raising a family in an Irish 1 or 2 bed apartment complex and let me know how you get on. See here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82475033&postcount=335

strandroad

cookie1977 wrote: »

Try raising a family in an Irish 1 or 2 bed apartment complex and let me know how you get on.

Oh, so now they deserve not only a free roof over their heads, but also a certain quality of it, and as you said previously close to their workplace and children's schools. There are 3 and 4-bed NAMAed apartments too, if you haven't noticed.
Your opinions remind me of people who won't accept council housing in another area because they insist on being housed exactly where they grew up. The whiff of entitlement...
If someone can't afford their loans, loses their job or investments, folds their business etc, their life changes, it's unavoidable. You don't expect every unemployed person to receive their full salary anymore; don't expect a family who can't afford their house to have the same standard of a house in the same location provided.