Home Reposessed??

cookie1977

Certainly the new bancruptcy laws once they come in seem to be a lot less penal thankfully (previously it could be possible to die still in bancruptcy). There's also a difference between personal debt and debt such as PPR. It does no one good to loose a PPR as far as I can see.

Surely a negotiated settlement if possible is a lot better then reposession followed by rehousing? I think it would. I may have too much faith in my fellow man but I'd still bet most people in debt would like a way out that satisfies all.

I do worry though about the numbers of people ignoring debt thinking it'll go away. Whether that's due to stress, ignorance or plain stubburness it's not the way to approach it. It's better to speak with people who can help. Even by talking to your bank you will get protection for up to 5 years under MARP. Head in sand helps no one least the indebted person.

cookie1977

professore wrote: »

On topic, would people in this situation prefer to be able to declare some sort of bankruptcy where they would lose the house and any possessions worth taking (maybe stuff worth over a grand) that would see them free to return to a normal credit existence after say 2-3 years,

OR

Pay the banks some barely affordable amount that left them with a minimum basic standard of living until their circumstances improved, possibly for the rest of their lives?

I know which I would choose, option 1.

Did you have a read of the McWilliams idea? If feasible let the home owner share the property ownership with the bank for 20 years. Home owner pays half the mortgage and house can be sold in 20 years where the bank gets half the sale value. Or maybe the owner could buy out the bank. Just one option.

professore

cookie1977 wrote: »

An we needed the troika's cheap cash only after bailing the banks out and finding no one else trusted us with loans other then at ridiculous rates. Any way back to the main point on house reposessions.

There's a reason they didn't trust us - we proved (or rather our government proved) that they couldn't do basic maths to see that if people stopped buying houses the entire tax base would collapse !

In a nutshell, the banks are bailed out - we're not paying back the promissory notes right now - the banks are actually paid the government over €1 billion a year in fees for it !!!!! So basically last year we didn't pay a penny into the banks, they gave us money, yet we're still WAAAY short!!!!

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/government-aims-to-end-costly-bank-guarantee-scheme-3242064.html

and we're still overspending by 13.6 billion last year
http://www.irishtimes.com/indepth/budget2012/

professore

cookie1977 wrote: »

Did you have a read of the McWilliams idea? If feasible let the home owner share the property ownership with the bank for 20 years. Home owner pays half the mortgage and house can be sold in 20 years where the bank gets half the sale value. Or maybe the owner could buy out the bank. Just one option.

I have seen it, and I think it has merit. In fact if this whole thing had been treated more like a business in the first place, and the banks been allowed to go, or at the very least Anglo, we would have been in a far better place now.

I run a small business, and customers have gone bankrupt over the years. All you can do is try to get what you can out of them, but there comes a point that you just have to write the rest off. That's capitalism. I won't knowingly extend thousands (or even hundreds) in credit to a customer who I have a fair idea won't be able to pay me - if I do I should will take the consequences, as the banks should have.

cookie1977

professore wrote: »

I have seen it, and I think it has merit. In fact if this whole thing had been treated more like a business in the first place, and the banks been allowed to go, or at the very least Anglo, we would have been in a far better place now.

I run a small business, and customers have gone bankrupt over the years. All you can do is try to get what you can out of them, but there comes a point that you just have to write the rest off. That's capitalism. I won't knowingly extend thousands (or even hundreds) in credit to a customer who I have a fair idea won't be able to pay me - if I do I should take the consequences, as the banks should have.

The rights or wrongs of the bailout are not under discussion here. We're talking about home reposession. The bailout happened.

professore

cookie1977 wrote: »

Certainly the new bancruptcy laws once they come in seem to be a lot less penal thankfully (previously it could be possible to die still in bancruptcy). There's also a difference between personal debt and debt such as PPR. It does no one good to loose a PPR as far as I can see.

Surely a negotiated settlement if possible is a lot better then reposession followed by rehousing? I think it would. I may have too much faith in my fellow man but I'd still bet most people in debt would like a way out that satisfies all.

I do worry though about the numbers of people ignoring debt thinking it'll go away. Whether that's due to stress, ignorance or plain stubburness it's not the way to approach it. It's better to speak with people who can help. Even by talking to your bank you will get protection for up to 5 years under MARP. Head in sand helps no one least the indebted person.

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.

professore

cookie1977 wrote: »

The rights or wrongs of the bailout are not under discussion here. We're talking about home reposession. The bailout happened.

It was an answer to your question about McWilliams, and I only made the other comments to illustrate my answer.

cookie1977

I'd ask some of the posters in the thread what kind of society would we have if we repossesed all these houses. Do they believe it would really solve all/most of the problems the country has?

cookie1977

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.

They're not. That's the problem. They're thinking extremely short term. Get the cash in, get the bad debts off the books and no room for negotiation. If it wasn't for MARP I think the courts would see a lot more reposessions.

strandroad

cookie1977 wrote: »

I'd ask some of the posters in the thread what kind of society would we have if we repossesed all these houses. Do they believe it would really solve all/most of the problems the country has?

I don't think it's supposed to solve all/most problems. Nothing can, they can only be solved by joined up thinking and not by any particular single shot.

As to what society we would have - a fair society with its books in order, and also as we are a society with strong social support people who can't afford accommodation would receive rent supplement/social housing and people who can afford to would rent. Nothing out of the ordinary.

cookie1977

mhge wrote: »

I don't think it's supposed to solve all/most problems. Nothing can, they can only be solved by joined up thinking and not by any particular single shot.

As to what society we would have - a fair society with its books in order, and also as we are a society with strong social support people who can't afford accommodation would receive rent supplement/social housing and people who can afford to would rent. Nothing out of the ordinary.

Yes but if there's a solution that gets the banks some cash and allows people to remain in their own homes rather than receiving state support which would you prefer?

strandroad

cookie1977 wrote: »

Yes but if there's a solution that gets the banks some cash and allows people to remain in their own homes rather than receiving state support which would you prefer?

It's impossible to say without knowing how many houses are currently not being paid for and how many situations belong to can't pay vs won't pay. It may very well be a much larger burden than social housing for some of these owners, especially taking into account that some of them are well capable of renting, and that a large number of mortgages in arrears are properties for rent where owners are not at risk (of losing their home) at all.

cookie1977

mhge wrote: »

It's impossible to say without knowing how many houses are currently not being paid for and how many situations belong to can't pay vs won't pay. It may very well be a much larger burden than social housing for some of these owners, especially taking into account that some of them are well capable of renting, and that a large number of mortgages in arrears are properties for rent where owners are not at risk (of losing their home) at all.

A lot of stats are available from the central bank and they dont paint a pretty picture for the tax payer:



http://www.centralbank.ie/polstats/stats/mortgagearrears/Pages/Data.aspx

Wils110

Lol at everyone thinking buying a house now is way better then 4 years ago,I'm riding an ECB tracker mortgage on a house I payed 140,000 less then value..you guys buy now an watch your interest rise over the next 20 years.you be paying more then anyone back to the bank never mind your house value intrest ****s you

strandroad

cookie1977 wrote: »

A lot of stats are available from the central bank and they dont paint a pretty picture for the tax payer:

http://www.centralbank.ie/polstats/stats/mortgagearrears/Pages/Data.aspx

Now out of this data we'd need to separate:
- PPRs from rentals, investments, second houses etc
- "can't pays" from "won't pays"
- "can't afford to rent" from "can afford to rent"
and provide social housing or rent supplement for the subset that meets them.
May still work out cheaper than essentially paying 130k mortgages for all of the above, especially with the stock NAMA already controls.

cookie1977

PDH's are principal private residencies

PDH Private dwelling homes. BTL's have different stats

strandroad

I stand corrected, but the other two points still stand.

cookie1977

If you looked at the stats over the last few quarters they have only gotten worse. And I cannot see how with new taxes on property and new "other" taxes how things will improve next year. So as Einstein said Insainity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. We've got to try something new

strandroad

cookie1977 wrote: »

If you looked at the stats over the last few quarters they have only gotten worse. And I cannot see how with new taxes on property and new "other" taxes how things will improve next year. So as Einstein said Insainity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. We've got to try something new

I think that the point of the thread is that repossessions where due would be something new... They would certainly bring some clarity.

cookie1977

mhge wrote: »

I think that the point of the thread is that repossessions where due would be something new... They would certainly bring clarity.

Repossessions are happening. Maybe not as fast as people want but they are increasing every quarter. It does no one good from what I can see. While some are maybe needed others could have been avoided if deals were done to give the home owner some time.

For example a friend of mine wanted to reduce their capital repayments by 400 euro a month for 1 year on their mortgage. That would still see them repaying full interest and some capital but would allow them to create some savings. But the bank refused that and offered them a 9 year extension on their mortgage resulting in a monthly reduction of less then 200. To me that just doesn't make sense and I imagine the banks are doing similar stupid things with other customers who either have a short term issue with repayments or are struggling at the present. There's just zero imagination their only short term needs.

strandroad

You may have a point here, but from what was featured in the media a typical repossession would start as a poor mouth story and in time would develop into a bad investments/years of head in the sand story. Perhaps we need more stories to show the full picture. But from can be seen now if they continue dealing with such situations as they would with any other investment debt, they can go on for a good while before they start turfing out homeowners (not that anyone gets turfed out on the street, realistically) and in the meantime the situation may well improve for the latter.

cookie1977

mhge wrote: »

You may have a point here, but from what was featured in the media a typical repossession would start as a poor mouth story and in time would develop into a bad investments/years of head in the sand story. Perhaps we need more stories to show the full picture. But from can be seen now if they continue dealing with such situations as they would with any other investment debt, they can go on for a good while before they start turfing out homeowners (not that anyone gets turfed out on the street, realistically) and in the meantime the situation may well improve for the latter.

I think the problem here is that so many are embarrassed and afraid by this. I used to listen to Drivetime when they had a reporter visiting the repossession courts every week. Very sad altogether. This has to be looked at in the bigger picture.

Even the number of postings on boards of people who've been avoiding discussing or dealing with their debt/arrears until it's nearly too late is worrying.

Suicide numbers in ireland were 527 in 2009 and the figure for 2010 is expected to top 600 (it takes almost 2 years to compile suicide numbers) and this year it's though those numbers could be as high as 1000.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/three-people-now-die-from-suicide-every-day-of-the-year-3010723.html

It's unlikely that some or most of these are not due to the recession. Debt in this country is seen as a dirty word. As Faceman mentioned earlier in the USA they hand back the keys and suffer bad credit for a while but it's more common to go boom and bust and boom again. While as I said, it should not be easy to get out of debt it has to be a practical solution for all concerned.

beaner88

cookie1977 wrote: »

I think the problem here is that so many are embarrassed and afraid by this. I used to listen to Drivetime when they had a reporter visiting the repossession courts every week. Very sad altogether. This has to be looked at in the bigger picture.

Even the number of postings on boards of people who've been avoiding discussing or dealing with their debt/arrears until it's nearly too late is worrying.

Suicide numbers in ireland were 527 in 2009 and the figure for 2010 is expected to top 600 (it takes almost 2 years to compile suicide numbers) and this year it's though those numbers could be as high as 1000.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/three-people-now-die-from-suicide-every-day-of-the-year-3010723.html

It's unlikely that some or most of these are not due to the recession. Debt in this country is seen as a dirty word. As Faceman mentioned earlier in the USA they hand back the keys and suffer bad credit for a while but it's more common to go boom and bust and boom again. While as I said, it should not be easy to get out of debt it has to be a practical solution for all concerned.

Non-recourse mortgages are a good idea but I haven't heard a single debt writeoff fan talk about them going forward. They are a good solution for future crashes but should not be used for current debt dodgers. Get them out of their houses as soon as possible and get them into the cheaper or the cheapest accomodation out there. The banks could do a long term debt deal for the remainder that could follow them after their death. Nobody should be making money of their mistakes at out cost.

I'd hate to be in a situation where I was looking a neighbour who cost the state 200K going off on a regular holidays and buying new cars ten years down the line.

cookie1977

Well if the house is reposessed then really any debt left over should be written off if people cannot afford it. I know that was in some of the bancruptcy proposals but not sure if it'll come through the actual bill. You can't get blood out of a stone.

beaner88

cookie1977 wrote: »

Well if the house is reposessed then really any debt left over should be written off if people cannot afford it. I know that was in some of the bancruptcy proposals but not sure if it'll come through the actual bill. You can't get blood out of a stone.

WHy should it be written off? That was not in the contract they signed. I have a huge shareholding in these banks that you want to write off 100Ks worth of debt. Why should I take the hit? You can get plenty of blood from these stones. Park the interest and let them pay it off over their lifetime or take it out of their estate when they are dead? That is fair. Of course nobody wants that as that would mean paying for their mistakes and missing out on all those great holidays in the next 40 years.

cookie1977

What more can they pay if the house has been reposessed? The banks have already written off the bad debt so any cash the get is a plus for them. Would you like to see them bpaying back 20 euro a month in perpetuity. Perhaps even pass on the debt to their children?

faceman

beaner88 wrote: »

I have a huge shareholding in these banks that you want to write off 100Ks worth of debt. Why should I take the hit?

Because you made a terrible investment decision perhaps?

The debt was already written off at the time of the bailout. Why aren't you calling the banks and government to task for misleading you investment decision rather than seeking the punishment of those who aren't to blame?

nacimroc

cookie1977 wrote: »

Well if the house is reposessed then really any debt left over should be written off if people cannot afford it. I know that was in some of the bancruptcy proposals but not sure if it'll come through the actual bill. You can't get blood out of a stone.

Every single person in the country with a mortgage would throw the keys back at the bank. Why pay off something worth less than your paying when you can hand it back with no consequences.

3 years being bankrupt is really a tiny penalty to pay to get out of a lifetime of debt. This new bill should be seen as a real lifeline, but if people are too stuborn, proud, ignorant to take it then they get what's coming to them.

Just on the point of investments, even family homes were investments!

beaner88

cookie1977 wrote: »

What more can they pay if the house has been reposessed? The banks have already written off the bad debt so any cash the get is a plus for them. Would you like to see them bpaying back 20 euro a month in perpetuity. Perhaps even pass on the debt to their children?

Yes. Why not? It's their debt. Why should the banks shareholders have to cover their debt?

It wasn't my investment decision, it was the states. They have billions of euro worth of shareholding actually make that liablities so that works out as as substantial sum for every person, more so for somebody who pays more than their fair share of tax.

faceman

beaner88 wrote: »

Yes. Why not? It's their debt. Why should the banks shareholders have to cover their debt?

It wasn't my investment decision, it was the states. They have billions of euro worth of shareholding actually make that liablities so that works out as as substantial sum for every person, more so for somebody who pays more than their fair share of tax.

You're forgetting the bank bailout also bailed out shareholders.