Banks set spending limits for families in mortgage trouble

oldyouth

TURRICAN wrote: »

You only get one life and no way will the bank tell me how to run it!

But the courts will when they make a judgement against for an action taken by the bank for failing to meet your commitments. Same outcome but just more expense that you will have to bear, eventually

davet82

davet82 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/latest-news/banks-despicable-for-setting-limits-on-family-spending-3264775.html

Bankers are setting out spending limits to what a family can live on before agreeing deals on mortgages in trouble.

Some examples:



Surely this can't be right to be dictated to what you can and cannot spend money on? I know alot of people will say its their own fault but this seems extreme and wrong to me.

Any thoughts?

WOW, they're quite generous, we're getting by with much less than that!!!

L.Jenkins

The banks has some fúcking brass neck to be at that of craic.

Itzy

Itzy wrote: »

The banks has some fúcking brass neck to be at that of craic.

Don't forget that the banks are looking after "their" money!
They sprayed it about like seeds into what they thought was fertile soil, then the rains of "growth" failed, but they are determined to have the first cut of the (diminished) crop!

HeyThereDeliah

Don't see a problem if it helps families keep their homes and get them back on track financially. It is kinda like closing the gate after the horse has bolted I suppose.

Pottler

tan11ie wrote: »

Oh the sheep of Ireland :pac:

Baad Banks after these as well?

Rabidlamb

Our neighbour who filled out one of those means assessment forms was advised by her bank that broadband was a luxury like Sky Sports.
So you increase the chances of her paying her mortgage by removing the most useful tool she has to get a job . . . . . right.

Lets face it, the banks don't have a moral leg to stand on.
I'm lucky I don't have an extortionate mortgage or crazy term.
If I was looking into a 35 year black hole & being gouged on variable rates I'd be enjoying my 3-4 years rent free right now.

UCDVet

They aren't setting spending limits. You can spend any amount you want on whatever you want.....so long as you repay the debt you agreed to repay.

These 'limits' are for people who are saying 'HELP! I can't pay you back the money I took - even though I said I would!'

Since it's now in-fashion to be broke and in-fashion to screw 'evil bankers'; bankers are concerned that some people *gasp* might lie about their inability to repay loans. So, before they GIVE YOU a break on the money YOU AGREED to pay back, they are setting standards.

They have no legal obligation to do so. They are, literally, giving broke people a break.

davet82

there is alot of talk in this thread of people who cant budget or got too big of a mortgage but there are people out there that budget just fine and could easily afford their mortgage but then they lost their jobs!

smurgen

Gurgle wrote: »

Shocking, banks trying to give people financial advice.

"Live cheaper in order to meet your commitments."
Truly despicable.

Yeah especially after getting them into trouble in the first place by shoving cheap credit down their throats only 5 years ago to buy holidays,new cars and new kitchens-basically sh1t they didnt need in the first place.

HeyThereDeliah

smurgen wrote: »

Yeah especially after getting them into trouble in the first place by shoving cheap credit down their throats only 5 years ago to buy holidays,new cars and new kitchens-basically sh1t they didnt need in the first place.

I don't think the banks forced anyone into buying property, people themselves knew what they were getting into, greed was the biggest problem and wanting the holiday home in Spain to make themselves feel important.

okiss

The banks should be told that they can't hold people to ransom to before they will help them out.
The banks were giving out money like it was going out of fashion for a few years and it they had used some common sense things would be better now.
They should remember what you sow you shall reap.
A bank worker telling a person to lose sky sports/ sky movies is ok but telling them to lose broadband is not.
For 2 adults and 2 teens €65 a month on mobiles is not a lot but that works at €15 a month each and someone get €5 a month more.
Some people are quite happy to borrow money and not pay it back when. Other people will be trying hard to pay of there debts.

omahaid

To be fair, doesn't everyone have a spending limit? I have a mortgage and am not in trouble but I too have a spending limit, it's called "all my money after my bills", don't need the bank to set it for me as the atm does that.

okiss

The banks should be told that they can't hold people to ransom to before they will help them out.
The banks were giving out money like it was going out of fashion for a few years and it they had used some common sense things would be better now.
They should remember what you sow you shall reap.
A bank worker telling a person to lose sky sports/ sky movies is ok but telling them to lose broadband is not.
For 2 adults and 2 teens €65 a month on mobiles is not a lot but that works at €15 a month each and someone get €5 a month more.
Some people are quite happy to borrow money and not pay it back when. Other people will be trying hard to pay of there debts.

OnTheCounter

pickarooney wrote: »

Why do people spend such ludicrous amounts on mobile phones? Surely a fiver a month is more than enough for anyone, especially anyone in financial trouble.

seriously? Smoke signals only go so far and it would cost more than a fiver to feed the pigeons.

OnTheCounter

Deleted User wrote: »

"Here's your spending limit per month, after what you owe us, go do what you like with that". That I have no problem with. Dictating how much is to be allocated to what is a step too far.

that is what they are doing.

they are just showing the makeup of that figure.

Stinicker

Its just the beginning.

http://tallyman.ie/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/bertie.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/AM_Juli_2010_-_3zu4.jpg/220px-AM_Juli_2010_-_3zu4.jpg
http://static.bbc.co.uk/history/img/ic/640/images/resources/people/adolf_hitler.jpg

Lando Griffin

Wouldn't listen them bankers with the mess they made of everything.
If anyone knows anything about property and mortgages its an auctioneer.

bbam

Chucken wrote: »

With their modest wages they could have got a modest mortgage!

People borrowed way beyond their means so tough s**t now if they have to grow up and live on a budget...like real people!

Chucken wrote: »

It didnt take a genius to figure out that if people took out 120% mortgages, they were eventually going to land in hot water.

I'm sorry for people, I really am, but nobody forced them to get into so much debt. If they had learned to budget before they applied for all the money, maybe things would have turned out differently.

In fairness a mortgage contract is a two way contract. There is as much responsibility on the banks to ensure responsible lending happened, actually they are the financial experts so they should have a slightly higher responsibility where poor mortgage decisions were made, if they aren't recognised as financial experts compared to the mortgage holders then how can they now suddenly give good advice..

Face facts, the banks preyed on a system that allowed them sell bigger and bigger mortgages which suited them as they were on commission payments for selling each mortgage, the bigger the mortgage the more commission.

Yes people made mistakes but many were easily lead by unscrupulous bank employees.. Its a shame on the banks and government that the solution now is to bury into a life of servitude.

uberalles

Well when the interest rates start to climb everyone will need to know how to bend right over

Boskowski

Look, if someone is looking for a 'break' cos they're 'broke' why would the bank take their word for it?

So they go through their finances and when they find €65 quid for phone and €75 for Sky and similar stuff they will obviously go and say 'you're kid din, right?'.

Whats so outrageous about that?

And to all those people who whine about banks throwing money at us, what else could we do but borrow? Grow up.

dvpower

bbam wrote: »

In fairness a mortgage contract is a two way contract. There is as much responsibility on the banks to ensure responsible lending happened.

I can't find that clause in my mortgage contract.

My name is URL

Itzy wrote: »

The banks has some fúcking brass neck to be at that of craic.

Brass necks all round tbh. Banks for 'all of a sudden' deciding that they need to get tough on stragglers, and everyone else for decrying the fact; after 5 years of moaning about how the banks weren't doing enough to attain a sustainable level of lending/resolve with customers.

MysticalRain

Lambsbread wrote: »

I don't like the idea of banks dictating how people should live their lives, however, people need to take responsibility for their obligations!

Don't see how the bank can enforce this in any case.

Beggars can't be choosers.

Death and Taxes

davet82 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/latest-news/banks-despicable-for-setting-limits-on-family-spending-3264775.html

Bankers are setting out spending limits to what a family can live on before agreeing deals on mortgages in trouble.

Some examples:



Surely this can't be right to be dictated to what you can and cannot spend money on? I know alot of people will say its their own fault but this seems extreme and wrong to me.

Any thoughts?

Of course its right!
The OWE a debt, would you sooner either contribute some of your salary so they can head to the pub, or do you just want the rest of taxpayers to do it!
If they dont like the limits imposed on the Celtic Tiger lifestyles they can opt to consent to repossession of the house!

niallo27

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Of course its right!
The OWE a debt, would you sooner either contribute some of your salary so they can head to the pub, or do you just want the rest of taxpayers to do it!
If they dont like the limits imposed on the Celtic Tiger lifestyles they can opt to consent to repossession of the house!

65 euro a month between 4 people on their phones is hardly a Celtic tiger lifestyle, nor is 200 euro on entertainment.

Lord Trollington

The irony in all of this is that despite us owning the banks we can't tell them how to run their business.

They raise interest rates when they like. They pay out bonuses when they like.

The lend us a couple of hundred thousand for one house and they are going to tell us how to live our lives.

I'd love to kick one of them square in the face.

Death and Taxes

niallo27 wrote: »

65 euro a month between 4 people on their phones is hardly a Celtic tiger lifestyle, nor is 200 euro on entertainment.

It is when you are expecting someone else to subsidise it through their taxes.

Gurgle

niallo27 wrote: »

65 euro a month between 4 people on their phones is hardly a Celtic tiger lifestyle, nor is 200 euro on entertainment.

Its a feckin dream for a middle income couple raising a family these days. Try €20 a month on credit and €0 on entertainment.

Death and Taxes

Lord Trollington wrote: »

The irony in all of this is that despite us owning the banks we can't tell them how to run their business.

They raise interest rates when they like. They pay out bonuses when they like.

The lend us a couple of hundred thousand for one house and they are going to tell us how to live our lives.

I'd love to kick one of them square in the face.

They tell those who borrowed too much and wont repay it how to live their lives, and rightly bloody so!

fedor.2.

Lord Trollington wrote: »

The irony in all of this is that despite us owning the banks we can't tell them how to run their business.

They raise interest rates when they like. They pay out bonuses when they like.

The lend us a couple of hundred thousand for one house and they are going to tell us how to live our lives.

I'd love to kick one of them square in the face.

Tell that to the guy that wouldnt let me at the safe earlier, he wouldnt listen to me

CruelCoin

davet82 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/latest-news/banks-despicable-for-setting-limits-on-family-spending-3264775.html

Bankers are setting out spending limits to what a family can live on before agreeing deals on mortgages in trouble.

Some examples:



Surely this can't be right to be dictated to what you can and cannot spend money on? I know alot of people will say its their own fault but this seems extreme and wrong to me.

Any thoughts?

You are in mortgage difficulty and go cap-in-hand to the bank you owe money to and ask them for leniency.

In return for their leniency, they ask that you not fritter your (their) money away.

Its perfect acceptable to me.

davet82

CruelCoin wrote: »

You are in mortgage difficulty and go cap-in-hand to the bank you owe money to and ask them for leniency.

In return for their leniency, they ask that you not fritter your (their) money away.

Its perfect acceptable to me.

I understand what your saying but its the hypocrisy that annoys me more than anything

Wacker The Attacker

Anyone wrote: »

I dont have any issues with it, if people want a "deal" on their mortgage they have to change their lifestyles. Its impossible to monitor and enforce though.

Wont the bank be able to see whats coming in and out of the bank account

CruelCoin

davet82 wrote: »

I understand what your saying but its the hypocrisy that annoys me more than anything

Not clear on where the hypocrisy lies.

Please clarify?

You owe them money,

By not setting and adhering to a budget, you are making the active conscious decision not to do all in your power to honour your debts.

I'm not entirely certain that making that kind of decision is any different than outright theft.

davet82

CruelCoin wrote: »

Not clear on where the hypocrisy lies.

Please clarify?

You owe them money,

By not setting and adhering to a budget, you are making the active conscious decision not to do all in your power to honour your debts.

I'm not entirely certain that making that kind of decision is any different than outright theft.

you cant concede the banks making sensible financial decisions as hypocritical seeing the mess they got themselves into?

alot of people owe alot of money who could budget perfectly and borrowed within their means at the time but have since lost their job (due to the banks and their crazy money management), yes they should try to pay what they can within reason but i wouldnt be dictated to either on how or what the little money i have is spent on.

CruelCoin

davet82 wrote: »

you cant concede the banks making sensible financial decisions as hypocritical seeing the mess they got themselves into?

alot of people owe alot of money who could budget perfectly and borrowed within their means at the time but have since lost their job (due to the banks and their crazy money management), yes they should try to pay what they can within reason but i wouldnt be dictated to either on how or what the little money i have is spent on.

You may have less money, but that does not absolve you of your debt.

The funds wqere supplied on the understanding your would honour the repayment.

Its not something you should be able to say "meh, i don't feel like it" to.

ArtSmart

Interesting. Sort of a regulation for the masses.




regulation.

regulation.

hmmmm


now where did I hear that word before...?

davet82

CruelCoin wrote: »

You may have less money, but that does not absolve you of your debt.

The funds wqere supplied on the understanding your would honour the repayment.

Its not something you should be able to say "meh, i don't feel like it" to.

thats not what i'm talking about, of course you cant walk away scott free from a debt, its a different issue what i'm talking about but i think the banks will have to come around to the fact that some of these debts cannot and will not be paid off through no fault of SOME of the borrowers in regards to what you are talking about

Lord Trollington

WileyCoyote wrote: »

They tell those who borrowed too much and wont repay it how to live their lives, and rightly bloody so!

They tell those who they threw money at several years ago signing them up to mortgages for houses that they realistically cannot pay and will never own how to live their lives.

Yes the moral high ground now is great.

CruelCoin

davet82 wrote: »

thats not what i'm talking about, of course you cant walk away scott free from a debt, its a different issue what i'm talking about but i think the banks will have to come around to the fact that some of these debts cannot and will not be paid off through no fault of SOME of the borrowers in regards to what you are talking about

The inability of a few to repay even with a budget, should not be taken as a reason to absolve those who are able to repay with a budget placed.

davet82

CruelCoin wrote: »

The inability of a few to repay even with a budget, should not be taken as a reason to absolve those who are able to repay with a budget placed.

i'm not saying it should

niallo27

Gurgle wrote: »

Its a feckin dream for a middle income couple raising a family these days. Try €20 a month on credit and €0 on entertainment.

Is that 20 euro between the 4 of you and you spend nothing on entertainment, I find it hard to believe you spent nothing on entertainment for the month.

niallo27

WileyCoyote wrote: »

It is when you are expecting someone else to subsidise it through their taxes.

Our taxes are being used to subsidies the big boys who are walking away from billions, the normal joe soap is just a drop in the ocean.

Brain Stroking

niallo27 wrote: »

the banks should also take responibilty for giving loans to people who clearly could not afford it

Those people cannot afford it now. They could then. Hubby driving an expensive Pajero which he drives to his plastering job in and the wife nipping about in a sexy little Golf in which she gets to her job as a Beautician. Massive 5 bedroom house about to be built just outside the village. Him earning 80k a year and she earning 40k. 3 holidays a year. No sign to the end of the boom. Everyone in Ireland is rich. Yay!

At that point, and applying Banking approved criterias for handing out mortgages, the Banks deemed them to be liquid enough to get the mortgage.
Hubby and the wife were the idiots. They were buying the service. Ever hear a shopkeeper warn you not to buy something in his shop? Caveat emptor applies. Why do the Bank (seller) owe anything to you(the buyer) apart from providing the mortgage? Is it not your job to make sure you can pay it back?

Thats why i turn my hearing off at the incessant whining by those too greedy to see in front of their noses during the "Celtic Tiger"

niallo27

Brain Stroking wrote: »

Those people cannot afford it now. They could then. Hubby driving an expensive Pajero which he drives to his plastering job in and the wife nipping about in a sexy little Golf in which she gets to her job as a Beautician. Massive 5 bedroom house about to be built just outside the village. Him earning 80k a year and she earning 40k. 3 holidays a year. No sign to the end of the boom. Everyone in Ireland is rich. Yay!

At that point, and applying Banking approved criterias for handing out mortgages, the Banks deemed them to be liquid enough to get the mortgage.
Hubby and the wife were the idiots. They were buying the service. Ever hear a shopkeeper warn you not to buy something in his shop? Caveat emptor applies. Why do the Bank (seller) owe anything to you(the buyer) apart from providing the mortgage? Is it not your job to make sure you can pay it back?

Thats why i turn my hearing off at the incessant whining by those too greedy to see in front of their noses during the "Celtic Tiger"

People that were given ten times or even more in some cases their wages were not able to afford it back then. Not everyone that a got a mortgage was greedy in the celtic tiger, many just wanted a home to live in and were afraid they would be left behind.

Brain Stroking

niallo27 wrote: »

People that were given ten times or even more in some cases their wages were not able to afford it back then. Not everyone that a got a mortgage was greedy in the celtic tiger, many just wanted a home to live in and were afraid they would be left behind.

But the very nature of a mortgage is that you receive a multiple of what you are earning. A mortgage allows you to buy/build a house which your wage would never be able to cover.

The bold bit is irrelevant.

Gurgle

Lord Trollington wrote: »

those who they threw money at several years ago...

This is pure bull, Joe Duffy grade psychological ****.

Nobody had money 'thrown' at them. Nobody was forced to take out a loan they couldn't payments on. Nobody was conned into buying property they couldn't afford.

People took bad advice, maybe they were convinced the boom would go on forever or that they had to buy now or lose the chance forever but for whatever reasons people made their own decisions and have to be accountable for themselves.

goodie2shoes

don't get me wrong i'm no fan of the banks. i worked for one for many years so i know how the operate. thankfully i'm debt-free so i don't have much dealings with them, and i intend to keep it that way.

when people took out excessive loans during the boom/bubble, i don't recall anybody putting a gun to their heads. i too was offered 100,000s of €s to borrow if i wished, but i choose not to avail. if i don't have the money in my account i'ld rather go without. that's how i was raised.

people need to face up to their responsibilities and like adults accept the consequences of their actions.

i know it's not easy, but if you make your bed then you lie in it.

niallo27

niallo27 wrote: »

Fiver a month is about 16 cent a day which means you could make a one min call a day off peaks or send 1 text a day.

Who doesn't have some sort of PAYG deal these days? In the UK, I had to top up by a tenner a month to receive 300 free texts, unlimited internet and a pretty good call deal. I never paid more than that.