Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Home Reposessed??
Options
Comments
-
I must have argued this same point a hundred times before.
A person can be against bailouts for personal/household debt and also against bailouts for banks and big business. The two are not mutually exclusive in fact they would tend to follow from each other.
Yes but the consequences of a a raft of repossessions will be a huge tax burden in re housing those people. These people are simply not paying their mortgages so they can keep up their lifestyles. They're not paying because they cant there for repossession will result in them having to be rehoused. A form of bailout. You dont want them to stay in their houses and try to repay. You want them out so you can get a cheap house. Your ideals are pretty loose. You're only against bailouts when it helps you get what you want.0 -
We have lots of empty estates out in longford and that for them.
I'm against all bailouts. I was in favour of the standard deposit protection that we had agreed with the banks and that is about it.0 -
-
Why should i be the one living in a dump having to commute 100 miles a day? Let the people who ****ed up live that life.0
-
cookie1977 wrote: »...But a proper hit would have seen them being folded up rather than being bailed out as some capitalists on here claim they want to see happen those who cannot pay their mortgages. They got to write off their "bad debts" and collect money from the government and ECB to off set these losses yet they are not negotiating with suffering home owners.
They got taken over by us. If they were left to their own devices, they would have repossessed properties and sold them on to get their money back. You won't allow them to repossess so we the taxpayer have to keep them afloat.
If the banks can repo, property prices would crash temporarily, then recover. The good thing about that is its all just a "value". Nobody is out of pocket until they sell so although the value of their property went down, they don't lose. Then about now (5 years later) we would see it all coming back. Instead, your system of do nothing or help the needy just shuts down everything and we sit here scratching ourselves for a decade whilst the whole thing goes to ****e.
Your arguement for no repossessions is more damaging than for repo's in my opinion. The only difference is now the whole country is screwed instead of the gamblers!0 -
Advertisement
-
They got taken over by us. If they were left to their own devices, they would have repossessed properties and sold them on to get their money back. You won't allow them to repossess so we the taxpayer have to keep them afloat.
If the banks can repo, property prices would crash temporarily, then recover. The good thing about that is its all just a "value". Nobody is out of pocket until they sell so although the value of their property went down, they don't lose. Then about now (5 years later) we would see it all coming back. Instead, your system of do nothing or help the needy just shuts down everything and we sit here scratching ourselves for a decade whilst the whole thing goes to ****e.
Your arguement for no repossessions is more damaging than for repo's in my opinion. The only difference is now the whole country is screwed instead of the gamblers!
I dont know where you've gotten the idea that I've said do nothing. Go back and read what I've suggested. In a number of cases repossessions may have to happen and as far as BTL goes well they're a whole different kettle of fish. The only argument many proponents of repossession have is that it'll bring down house prices for them. That's a poor, selfish argument in a modern society to me anyway.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,613 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 15358
I read this again and again. The banks took a risk that if a person did not repay their mortgage either due to job loss, pay cuts or whatever then they would the property as security. They also knew in the event that this security was worth less than teh outstanding debt they could pursue that person for this money. If they didn't have it then they could declare themselvse bankrupt.
Nothing has since changed. Those were the rules of engagement that both sides agreed to. That is what the buyer signed and they should have been seriously worried about hte possibility of serious negative equity and job losses in a bubble economy. Their choice and they got it wrong.
We all know that taking on banking debt was a huge mistake so why repeat it?
The difference being however that no one banker bar only recently, Sean Fitzpatrick, has been held accountable for their practices during the boom years. Unconditional bailouts have been given and bankers continue to get bonuses.
There is ZERO inventive on the banks to ensure it doesn't repeat0 -
The banks were waiting for people to get into trouble first before talking to them.cookie1977 wrote: »
Of course they took a hit, I understand that. But a proper hit would have seen them being folded up rather than being bailed out as some capitalists on here claim they want to see happen those who cannot pay their mortgages. They got to write off their "bad debts" and collect money from the government and ECB to off set these losses yet they are not negotiating with suffering home owners.
I have no problem with them lending nor expecting that money back. My point as has always been my point is that simple repossessing is not necessarily the best answer for the banks, the mortgagee nor the public at large. That's if we want to see our country get back on it's feet. Debtors should pay back their debt, clearly. But why reposes when there are so many options to pursue first.
In some ways unfortunately I blame a lot of mortgagee's who are in arrears. They didn't approach the banks early enough to explain their difficulties. But that aside they should be afforded an opportunity to pay back the banks.0 -
WhatNowForUs? wrote: »The banks were waiting for people to get into trouble first before talking to them.
I dont quite understand. Would it not be better to approach the bank since the mortgagee would know about their worsening situation first?0 -
I would have thought so. I presume they are doing it now but not when it all kicked off.cookie1977 wrote: »
I dont quite understand. Would it not be better to approach the bank since the mortgagee would know about their worsening situation first?0 -
Advertisement
-
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
when a house worth say 350k 4 years ago is selling for 160k and you have a decent deposit then it is better THAN 4 years ago.0 -
Look at it from my side (and plenty of others)
2005 at some ****e party
Mr X-"I have two houses now, its the only way to go. I'm looking to add another now in the next year. Oh you rent? hahah you need to get on the ladder. Rent is dead money mate"
2012
Mr X -"Joe its not fair, the banks have ruined us. All I'm asking is for them to share the burden. I though we were becoming a more caring society again. "
This is exactly the way I feel too. I used to be so annoyed coming home and all that everyone spoke about was property this property that.
I do not know those people or their kids, so what if they live on the same island, They are nothing to do with me same way as a poor family in Africa or Delhi are nothing to do with me so why should I give them sympathy?
Let the people who overborrowed get their properties repossessed. Yeah if they do a deal with the band then fair enough, as long as they pay back everything the owe within their lifetimes (or the lifetimes of their kids)0 -
This is exactly the way I feel too. I used to be so annoyed coming home and all that everyone spoke about was property this property that.
I do not know those people or their kids, so what if they live on the same island, They are nothing to do with me same way as a poor family in Africa or Delhi are nothing to do with me so why should I give them sympathy?
Let the people who overborrowed get their properties repossessed. Yeah if they do a deal with the band then fair enough, as long as they pay back everything the owe within their lifetimes (or the lifetimes of their kids)
eeesshh. No man is an Island. You need the country to do well too in order to thrive and (the country) be stable. The me, myself and I attitude many on here have is what helped us get into this situation in the first place.0 -
There should be no debt forgiveness.If a person cannot afford their mortgage,they should have to be financially audited and a new figure that they can afford be decided.The loan period should then be extended accordingly.It would mean that there would be fewer repossessions and the banks would get ALL their money eventually.In order to keep their houses people would need to be prepared to accept a much lower standard of living.If you cannot pay your mortgage,you cannot have SKY tv,nights out etc.I know someone who is involved with a very large Credit Union and deals with people who are struggling to repay loans.When he goes through their figures they often have large amounts being spent on luxuries which they somehow feel an entitlement to.They would rather miss a repayment than miss out on drinking,gambling,shopping,SKY,smoking,takeaways,Starbucks,taxis etc.A lot of them also decide that if they cannot pay all of their loan,they pay nothing.I think a lot of mortgage holders are falling into this trap.A bank will find it hard to get a repossession on a home where the owner is paying a decent amount every month.0
-
There should be no debt forgiveness.If a person cannot afford their mortgage,they should have to be financially audited and a new figure that they can afford be decided.The loan period should then be extended accordingly.It would mean that there would be fewer repossessions and the banks would get ALL their money eventually.In order to keep their houses people would need to be prepared to accept a much lower standard of living.If you cannot pay your mortgage,you cannot have SKY tv,nights out etc.I know someone who is involved with a very large Credit Union and deals with people who are struggling to repay loans.When he goes through their figures they often have large amounts being spent on luxuries which they somehow feel an entitlement to.They would rather miss a repayment than miss out on drinking,gambling,shopping,SKY,smoking,takeaways,Starbucks,taxis etc.A lot of them also decide that if they cannot pay all of their loan,they pay nothing.I think a lot of mortgage holders are falling into this trap.A bank will find it hard to get a repossession on a home where the owner is paying a decent amount every month.
I'd agree with this. If you enter the MARP process this is what essentially happens.0 -
Judging by your syntax and phrasing your from the back end of the Eastern Block...
I am 100% from Dublin. I assure you this is my opinion. Recently returned to this island from living abroad most of the time you all thought you were rich. Like it or not you bought in a game and lost the game. Now I may have to help bail you out? I remember everyone in 2005 sneering at me because I wasn't interested in 'getting on the ladder'. Time to pay your debts people and let nature take its course.0 -
greenpilot wrote: »Judging by your syntax and phrasing your from the back end of the Eastern Block...
You are a bad judge. I actually couldn't give a shi*e where you think I'm from.
Judging from your incorrect use of 'your' where it should be 'you're', you don't have a particularly good grasp of English, mate.0 -
You're forgetting the bank bailout also bailed out shareholders.
Ehhh would you mind telling that to the shareholders in Anglo or the ones in BOI/AIB whose shares went from €15 to 15cents?
FFS the amount of sh**e thrown around in these threads is unbelievable.cookie1977 wrote: »The other high cost is the bank gaurantee scheme. But leaving that aside I have to say I am surprised by the "let them eat cake" thinking here. Is it really "it's their fault so stuff them"?
I kinda hoped we'd moved to a more feeling country since the recession but it seems not.
I am getting really fooking sick and tired of this sh**e thrown out about solidarity, being a caring society, looking after the vulnerable and now being a feeling country when people are basically looking for handouts to get them out of their massive personal debts.
None of these people were talking about solidarity, being a caring society, looking after the vulnerable or being a feeling country when they were flush with money, or rather other peoples' money that they signed up for with their finanical institutions.
Now when the sh** has hit the fan they want to spread it about.
It is true what a couple of posters have highlighted here about how anyone that was renting was looked down as some type of poor eejit and all the Paddies could talk about was how much their property was worth or how many properties they had.
During the boom a friend of mine who was living in Sweden was home one Christmas and he thought the place had gone mad, including his own family some of whom were buying property in places in Eastern Europe they had never even visited.
The writing was on the wall for anyone who cared to notice, but it was like a bunch of teenagers who had gotten the keys to mammy and daddies drinks cabinet.
Those partying hardest listened least.
Shure the boom was going to get even boomier and weren't we going to have the first soft landing in history from the biggest property bubble in history. :rolleyes:
A large number of people are going to have to face it, they lived beyond their means, they borrowed too much based on a false premise (overly high earnings due to boom or full time employment in area historically with none), and that they can never hope to pay back their debts.
They are going to have to face fact that they can't walk away from their debts and at the same time hang on to their property.
Would it work that way with their jeep or BMW ?I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
Ehhh would you mind telling that to the shareholders in Anglo or the ones in BOI/AIB whose shares went from €15 to 15cents?
FFS the amount of sh**e thrown around in these threads is unbelievable.
I am getting really fooking sick and tired of this sh**e thrown out about solidarity, being a caring society, looking after the vulnerable and now being a feeling country when people are basically looking for handouts to get them out of their massive personal debts.
None of these people were talking about solidarity, being a caring society, looking after the vulnerable or being a feeling country when they were flush with money, or rather other peoples' money that they signed up for with their finanical institutions.
Now when the sh** has hit the fan they want to spread it about.
It is true what a couple of posters have highlighted here about how anyone that was renting was looked down as some type of poor eejit and all the Paddies could talk about was how much their property was worth or how many properties they had.
During the boom a friend of mine who was living in Sweden was home one Christmas and he thought the place had gone mad, including his own family some of whom were buying property in places in Eastern Europe they had never even visited.
The writing was on the wall for anyone who cared to notice, but it was like a bunch of teenagers who had gotten the keys to mammy and daddies drinks cabinet.
Those partying hardest listened least.
Shure the boom was going to get even boomier and weren't we going to have the first soft landing in history from the biggest property bubble in history. :rolleyes:
A large number of people are going to have to face it, they lived beyond their means, they borrowed too much based on a false premise (overly high earnings due to boom or full time employment in area historically with none), and that they can never hope to pay back their debts.
They are going to have to face fact that they can't walk away from their debts and at the same time hang on to their property.
Would it work that way with their jeep or BMW ?
Wow more generalisms. Em I cannot live in a jeep and if my jeep was repossessed my government would not give me another one. Bad example comparing a car to a house. We've got to be practical. And that means everyone. Yes we've got to get people to live within their means while they work out their debt and that means giving up/cutting back on lots of luxaries so be it. It goes with the territory of being in debt. But it serves no one for a house to be repossessed (not even the bank who are only thinking short term) other then the person wanting to buy it for cheap.
Many of the issues that current indebted people are facing now were not of their own creation. Mass reposessions serve no one. Better to leave the person where they are and work out some plan for long term repayment. And if that means in some (severe) cases that there's a right down of the debt or a shared partnership in the property (ala McWilliams) with the bank owning half of it for sale at a later date, then so be it.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,613 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 15358
Plenty of suggestions being given that sound very like debt bondage to me, which is a form of slavery.
Also, this is relevant.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/warning-over-debt-fuelled-suicides-579602.html0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm with jmayo.
Enough BS rhetoric about solidarity and de bankz.
You signed a contract and reaped the benefit. Now fulfill the terms of the contract or deal with the consequences.
And faceman, to use suicide as some form of carrot for debt forgiveness is just, well, tasteless.0 -
Plenty of suggestions being given that sound very like debt bondage to me, which is a form of slavery.
Also, this is relevant.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/warning-over-debt-fuelled-suicides-579602.html
I really think we're going to see big increases in suicide over debt over the coming year. It's absolutely awful as I really think if people spoke about their debt issues more publicly there wouldn't be so much of an issue. No one on here wants to see people take suicide as an option over debt but if we did "care" more about people in debt then maybe we wouldn't speak so matter of factly. Debt is not a dirty word. It's how we deal with people in debt that's important.
The fact that there are people right now ducking and diving from the postman and phone calls and door bell rings over debt is a crying shame and really is a thundering disgrace. Do you really believe these people want to live this way?
Do the posters in favour of repossessions really believe that all those people in debt and arrears deserve what they get? You've no willingness to see them helped work out the debt and live better productive lives on their own two feet?0 -
cookie1977 wrote: »Wow more generalisms. Em I cannot live in a jeep and if my jeep was repossessed my government would not give me another one. Bad example comparing a car to a house.
It is similar in terms of failure to repay the outstanding loan and ultimate loss of the asset.
Granted there is more protection for a property used as a home, but it still doesn't mean that normal rules of borrowing/repayment never come into affect.cookie1977 wrote: »We've got to be practical. And that means everyone. Yes we've got to get people to live within their means while they work out their debt and that means giving up/cutting back on lots of luxaries so be it. It goes with the territory of being in debt. But it serves no one for a house to be repossessed (not even the bank who are only thinking short term) other then the person wanting to buy it for cheap.
But you have to admit some cases are beyond help and it serves no one, including the debtor, to carry on with the charade.
It needs to be made easier for these situations to be resolved.
Debtor walks away with nothing and are in bankruptcy for few years.
Lender gets house, resells house or even rents house back to debtor.
Either way house does not continue in ownership of failed debtor.
The other thing that has been hinted at is that there are some mortgage holders/defaulters who are refusing to even attempt to repay their debts and they are holding out for this "bailout for the little guy" where they get their debt written off and they get to keep their house.
That can never happen.cookie1977 wrote: »Many of the issues that current indebted people are facing now were not of their own creation. Mass reposessions serve no one. Better to leave the person where they are and work out some plan for long term repayment. And if that means in some (severe) cases that there's a right down of the debt or a shared partnership in the property (ala McWilliams) with the bank owning half of it for sale at a later date, then so be it.
And many of the issues are of the debtors own making.
They often signed up for huge mortgage, often on inflated earnings, and often took on other detbs.
In some cases the debts aren't just for their homes.
I know of numerous people who decided to remortgage to afford deposit on other proeprty (often foreign property), to buy new cars, to buy boats, to offload credit card debts, personal loans, etc.
It was complete madness for some.
What about repossessions of rental properties ?
What repossessions where borrower has made no attempt to repay ?
The housing market will always be in limbo as long as there is huge chunk of property that should be repossessed and hasn't and as long as the state has a stockpile that it will not release to the market.I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
It is similar in terms of failure to repay the outstanding loan and ultimate loss of the asset.
Granted there is more protection for a property used as a home, but it still doesn't mean that normal rules of borrowing/repayment never come into affect.
But you have to admit some cases are beyond help and it serves no one, including the debtor, to carry on with the charade.
It needs to be made easier for these situations to be resolved.
Debtor walks away with nothing and are in bankruptcy for few years.
Lender gets house, resells house or even rents house back to debtor.
Either way house does not continue in ownership of failed debtor.
The other thing that has been hinted at is that there are some mortgage holders/defaulters who are refusing to even attempt to repay their debts and they are holding out for this "bailout for the little guy" where they get their debt written off and they get to keep their house.
That can never happen.
And many of the issues are of the debtors own making.
They often signed up for huge mortgage, often on inflated earnings, and often took on other detbs.
In some cases the debts aren't just for their homes.
I know of numerous people who decided to remortgage to afford deposit on other proeprty (often foreign property), to buy new cars, to buy boats, to offload credit card debts, personal loans, etc.
It was complete madness for some.
What about repossessions of rental properties ?
What repossessions where borrower has made no attempt to repay ?
The housing market will always be in limbo as long as there is huge chunk of property that should be repossessed and hasn't and as long as the state has a stockpile that it will not release to the market.
Cars and houses are not similar in my mind in anyway.
Absolutely, there will be cases where repossessions are the only option, and if that's the case then so be it. Rental/BTL properties are a separate issue. I speak only of PPR/PDH. In cases where borrower has made no attempt to pay it still maybe feasible to work out a deal. Maybe the borrower was too scared or uneducated about the options. It does not mean that they were living the high life without a care in the world.
What ever the reason for the debt, if it's the PPR/PDH then every option has to be looked at and every workable scenario which allows the owner to stay in the home has to be considered.
What is scary to me is so many people post on boards about final notices and possible reposessions which is the end game. How did they let it go so far before seeking help? I dont believe we can blame them all. There has to be a re education of people that debt, while hard, is not a dirty word. It's got to be dealt with in a serious fashion and if people have this explained to them and a deal can be worked out then they should not fear debt or repossession.0 -
We have to get the message out then, debt is not a dirty word. We need to let our kids know that they don't need to be scared of debt. If they ever get into trouble they will be let off paying their debt and they will get to keep the asset. Because that's the sort of caring society we live in. The only people to watch out for are those oddballs who don't buy on credit.0
-
We have to get the message out then, debt is not a dirty word. We need to let our kids know that they don't need to be scared of debt. If they ever get into trouble they will be let off paying their debt and they will get to keep the asset. Because that's the sort of caring society we live in. The only people to watch out for are those oddballs who don't buy on credit.
Pointless!0 -
Just wondering - is there any sympathy for the guy who played the game correctly?
The person that read the market correctly.
The person that saved.
The person that rented despite the derision of their contempories.
The person that avoided luxuriant spending.
The person that avoided taking on any finance.
The person that now, for all intents and purposes should be able to buy a beautiful house for a rock bottom price but can't because of state interference in what should be a free market?
The person that now has to continue to rent because the floor is still after five years being artificially propped up.
The person that now has increased taxation to cover increased MIR for people that purchased between 2004-2008.
The person that now has to sit back and see unemployed people living in beautiful houses they never paid for and maybe never will.
Just wondering.0 -
No Zamboni because they are in the minority and the government only need to appease the majority who are still in love with property as a wealth generator. You do a poll and ask most people do they think an increase of 10% in property prices is a good thing and they will agree.0
-
Just wondering - is there any sympathy for the guy who played the game correctly?
The person that read the market correctly.
The person that saved.
The person that rented despite the derision of their contempories.
The person that avoided luxuriant spending.
The person that avoided taking on any finance.
The person that now, for all intents and purposes should be able to buy a beautiful house for a rock bottom price but can't because of state interference in what should be a free market?
The person that now has to continue to rent because the floor is still after five years being artificially propped up.
The person that now has increased taxation to cover increased MIR for people that purchased between 2004-2008.
The person that now has to sit back and see unemployed people living in beautiful houses they never paid for and maybe never will.
Just wondering.
You're equating someone up to their eyeballs in debt, facing the harsh realities that they could loose their home and possibly so scared out of their wits that they dont know what to do or what the future holds to someone who has no debt, looking to buy a house at a better price then it was a few years ago and is also so intelligent they didn't jump on the so called bandwagon? Just wondering.0 -
Advertisement
-
cookie1977 wrote: »You're equating someone up to their eyeballs in debt, facing the harsh realities that they could loose their home and possibly so scared out of their wits that they dont know what to do or what the future holds to someone who has no debt, looking to buy a house at a better price then it was a few years ago and is also so intelligent they didn't jump on the so called bandwagon? Just wondering.
No. You are just trying to put words in my mouth.
If you read - you will see I haven't "equated" anybody with anybody.
PS: Read my signature for your spelling error.0
Advertisement