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
Thinking about giving keys back to the bank..
Options
Comments
-
If you read my post correctly you'll see what my crystal ball is and no, there is no contradiction in my post.
Further to my post I'd argue that there is no meeting of the minds in these contracts because on side , the buyer has pertinent information withheld (sales history) and therefore these contracts should not be enforceable
.
The only people I'd like to see in shackles are the people who were the architects of this ponzi scheme.
Again, how many of them are held accountable?
The wink, wink, nod, nod culture in Ireland is despicable IMO.
I fully agree with your last sentiments - the "ah shure it'll be grand!" approach coupled with the "who you know" mindset is indeed one of (if not THE) biggest problems we have in this country really and until it changes we won't ever evolve/grow as a country.
But part of that is accepting responsibility for ones actions and choices in life - such as in the case of the OP here. No one forced him to sign for a mortgage, and I'm sorry "but everyone else was doing it/the media told us the prices were only going to keep rising" etc isn't a valid excuse in my book.
No one NEEDS to own property. It's something I can only put down to the 800 years nonsense of "dey tuk our land!" that has left us with a national obsession around owning a half-assed built semi-D in the middle of nowhere or a shoebox sized "apartment" in the suburbs for the price of a small fortune just to "get on the property ladder" (a term I despise I have to say)
That and greed/keeping up with the Joneses - where many people became convinced that they too could become property kings, flipping them every few years for a tidy profit.
Well I'm sorry, because while I have every sympathy for those who are now genuinely struggling as a result, but those choices were made by people who were aware (or whose duty it was to be aware) of all the responsibility and consequences of that action - INCLUDING the line "your investment/home may go down (in value) as well as up"
Again, I got the calls every fortnight too from the bank offering me "free money" and I had friends telling me that "shure renting is dead money" (which it's not - I have the sole use of a apartment right now that's 8 minutes from my workplace, close to major shopping centres and the M50, LUAS adjacent etc - none of which I could have afforded if I was buying), but maybe because I was a teenager in the 80s and lived through some very hard financial times as a family, I appreciate the value of a euro and thus realised that no way was the aforementioned shoebox/semi-D on the northside of Dublin (for example) every actually WORTH nearly half a MILLION of those euros!
I'm not saying I'm a financial guru or could see the future, but it shouldn't be my problem (or financial liability as a taxpayer) that others went nuts and overextended themselves either - no more than I'd expect anyone else to pay my personal loan for example.And respectfully I'd argue that it's attitudes like yours that if left unchallenged will guarantee many more generations of of Irish to be condemned to subjugation.
Again. as per the above, this might sound harsh but that's tough! You roll the dice and you take your chances. There's no guarantees in life, just as there never actually was in property. Certainly the lenders should be legally required to work with their clients to make those repayments realistic/manageable but that's as far as it goes. I have my own debts and bills to pay, I don't need anyone else's as well.
I can see where you're coming from, I really can, but the fact is that that debt doesn't just disappear - it's merely passed on to someone else. In this case that's the customers of that bank through higher fees/charges, and seeing as the public "owns" most of these banks now, the taxpayer generally has to pay the tab - and THAT'S where my problem is with it.cookie1977 wrote: »I'd agree with some of what you say but that debt forgiveness in some situations is valid. Say a person looses their PPR/PDH and they have no money. Bank sells home and there's still an outstanding balance. If it's shown that the owner cannot pay and payment would lead to penal servitude then the overhang should be forgiven. Let the person start again. There's no more that can be down to them.
If it were the case that the banks were absorbing these losses from their own balance sheets then I'd be more open to the idea, but they're not and they won't when they can pass the bill off to the rest of us.Re politics. Why not enter yourself (honest question that). Also a proportional representation system with a list system would stop the parish politics substantially
You wouldn't be the first to suggest that
but alas as the system exists today any real change is impossible (party whip system being one big reason). Even if you run as/vote for an Independent, you'll still end up with one of the "big two" who as as bad as each other
Unfortunately the ones needed to make those changes are the ones who benefit most from the current system... which brings me back to the start of this post 0 -
-
-
Net migration is actually -34,400.
Considering we're supposed to be in a baby boom the population shifts downward from the boom years are huge.
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/441562-population-and-migration-estimates-april-2012.html#document/p1
0 -
Kaiser2000 wrote: »
I can see where you're coming from, I really can, but the fact is that that debt doesn't just disappear - it's merely passed on to someone else. In this case that's the customers of that bank through higher fees/charges, and seeing as the public "owns" most of these banks now, the taxpayer generally has to pay the tab - and THAT'S where my problem is with it.
If it were the case that the banks were absorbing these losses from their own balance sheets then I'd be more open to the idea, but they're not and they won't when they can pass the bill off to the rest of us.
You wouldn't be the first to suggest that but alas as the system exists today any real change is impossible (party whip system being one big reason). Even if you run as/vote for an Independent, you'll still end up with one of the "big two" who as as bad as each other
Unfortunately the ones needed to make those changes are the ones who benefit most from the current system... which brings me back to the start of this post
It does come back to the banks but there are a major cause of all of this. I still dont see how you can push blame and therefore cost solely on to all people in arrears. The solution will cost someone yes but why not create a super tax for a period of time on the banks or a super fine (as was muted by the USA on their banks). Yes the banks will recoup it through charges etc but what exactly do you do about that?
I said it before, I still think that there's so much arrears and so much more potential arrears if/when rates or more taxes/external pressures increase (there is a time bomb that's going to go off soon, maybe late this year maybe next year but very soon as far as I'm concerned). If you want the domestic economy to grow you've got to give people confidence to spend and no matter how much some hate the idea of debt deals or limited debt forgiveness, we need these people to be spending in the economy. I've talked before about deals that may help with this but like it or not something has to be done other than out right repossessions and saddling people with debt for decades. It has to. The economy will not grow without it without it.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Kaiser2000 wrote: »That's where manageable repayments that change according to changes in the person's circumstances come in.
I'm not expecting that someone who's found themselves laid off, on the dole on €800 a month should pay every last cent of that to the bank - but they should be paying something
For example...
As I've said here before, I was laid off at the end of 2009 and out of work for a year. the FIRST thing I did on day 1 of my unemployment was call the bank to renegotiate payments on my personal loan. I similarly called the ESB and gas companies to explain the situation to them.
As a result, I paid a significantly lower amount each month while I searched for work. It wasn't easy, but I managed it and when I got a job a year later, even though it involved a 1000 km per week commute and paid less than my old one, I still rang the bank back and offered to pay more (not the same as the original amount, but a fair number based on my increased means).
THAT'S how (in my opinion anyway) you manage your debts. Sure it means swallowing your pride, being upfront and honest about it, and being fair with the bank - but the idea of "just walking away" from my responsibilities, or saying "ah shure, I'll pay you back when/if I get a new job!" was never on the table and to be honest, never even entered my head.
It may take me longer, and it may cost me a little more (interest adjustments etc), but in the end I'll repay everything I owe because that's what I agreed to do, and it's not your responsibility (or anyone else's) to pay it for me. It was my choice to take on those debts and I have to live with the consequences.
Yes but not everyone is as educated on these matters. The banks dont go through things with you in the event of problems. Many people get scared, get worried, dont realise that they should do exactly what you did. I know many would like to blame them and say tough luck but that isn't necessarily their fault.
We have a culture (partly due to our penal laws on debt which are the worst in Europe) of not talking about it. If people did talk about it and banks worked with people then maybe we wouldn't have as much problems. Even looking at the reporting on arrears on the central bank website shows worrying statistics. There are large numbers of people going back into arrears even after a deal has been done. If the correct deal was done then this shouldn't happen. Certainly not in the numbers that the central bank is reporting.
I'll give you an example that happened to me. I wanted to reduce my capital payments on my PPR/PDH by 400 for 1 year to help my family out while we're at the peak of our costs (kids). I went through the MARP process and the banks own mortgage advisor said that my current expenditure on "entertainment/scoial life/ presents etc..." was very low, as were my bill costs and that was I sure I did not want to increase those costs. I told her they were what they were because we're economising and know I wanted to be 100% honest about it. She agreed I needed the 400 euro per month for the short term (this would mean I was still paying full interest, part capital for 1 year) and that was what she proposed to her bosses (our bank). The bank came back and refused the offer and instead only offered an 11 year extension to our mortgage reducing the monthly repayments by only 200 euro. We accepted reluctantly as it would take too long to go through the internal and external appeals process but this to me was a stupid mistake on the bank (except for the significant increase in interest the bank will get on the life of the mortgage).
Now if they're unable to see the merits and negatives of a deal where I wasn't in arrears (pre arrears) and still (in my mind anyway) screw it up the offer then I cannot believe that they are properly negotiating with those in arrears and substantial arrears.
Many in arrears are scared and worried and dont know what to do and this needs to be addressed as currently it all seems to be in the banks favour (particularly with the new legislation due in soon). PS I'm 35
0 -
cookie1977 wrote: »Yes but not everyone is as educated on these matters. The banks dont go through things with you in the event of problems. Many people get scared, get worried, dont realise that they should do exactly what you did. I know many would like to blame them and say tough luck but that isn't necessarily their fault.
We have a culture (partly due to our penal laws on debt which are the worst in Europe) of not talking about it. If people did talk about it and banks worked with people then maybe we wouldn't have as much problems. Even looking at the reporting on arrears on the central bank website shows worrying statistics. There are large numbers of people going back into arrears even after a deal has been done. If the correct deal was done then this shouldn't happen. Certainly not in the numbers that the central bank is reporting.
I'll give you an example that happened to me. I wanted to reduce my capital payments on my PPR/PDH by 400 for 1 year to help my family out while we're at the peak of our costs (kids). I went through the MARP process and the banks own mortgage advisor said that my current expenditure on "entertainment/scoial life/ presents etc..." was very low, as were my bill costs and that was I sure I did not want to increase those costs. I told her they were what they were because we're economising and know I wanted to be 100% honest about it. She agreed I needed the 400 euro per month for the short term (this would mean I was still paying full interest, part capital for 1 year) and that was what she proposed to her bosses (our bank). The bank came back and refused the offer and instead only offered an 11 year extension to our mortgage reducing the monthly repayments by only 200 euro. We accepted reluctantly as it would take too long to go through the internal and external appeals process but this to me was a stupid mistake on the bank (except for the significant increase in interest the bank will get on the life of the mortgage).
Now if they're unable to see the merits and negatives of a deal where I wasn't in arrears (pre arrears) and still (in my mind anyway) screw it up the offer then I cannot believe that they are properly negotiating with those in arrears and substantial arrears.
Many in arrears are scared and worried and dont know what to do and this needs to be addressed as currently it all seems to be in the banks favour (particularly with the new legislation due in soon). PS I'm 35
Well see that's my point though - the banks need to be made (legally required if need be) work with their customers to agree realistic and manageable terms with them that are appropriate to their changing needs.
What happened in your case is that process failed. You approached them openly and honestly and went through their processes and they still rejected something which their own application officer conceded you needed.
That's an internal process failure where the faceless "review board" didn't note this conclusion from their own staff member (or it wasn't included on the internal application), and ultimately you now being in arrears (if I read that right) is their fault, not yours.
That's what I'm talking about when I say lenders should be forced to work with people. If you hadn't given them full disclosure of the situation, or if you hadn't been entirely honest about the circumstances and they rejected it, or if you hadn't approached them at all until they had started chasing you for money then that's different but by the sounds of it you did everything you could to avoid going into arrears.
All you need to do then is keep full records of the application, any correspondence/notes, details of people you dealt with etc - so that if (god forbid) it does get messy/legal down the road, you can show you honestly made a genuine effort to repay which is all you can do... but there's a massive difference between restructuring an agreement to manageable levels, and asking for part/all of that agreement to simply be "written off"/"forgiven" and THAT'S where my problem lies with the idea.
EDIT to add: In your place I probably would have rejected the €200, pointed to the conclusion of their own staffer and told them to go look at it again/take me to court and the judge can decide.. but that's easy for me to say sitting here! Like my own situation at the time, I realise it's not always that simple when you're faced with the pressures that prompted the request in the first place.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cavehill Red wrote: »Please walk me through this slowly. How exactly has the country benefitted and in what tangible ways from the bank bailouts?
Also, to what extent do you believe the banks that were bailed out were 'systemic' as you put it, and do you actually believe that the alternative to bailing out those banks would have been 'total chaos and turmoil'?
Deep breath.
We have had this debate many many times either her or in Politics and I would still be of the opinion, like a lot more people I would guess, that two banks were systemic to the Irish economy.
They would be BOI and AIB.
The number of people banking with them, the number of businesses banking with them, would mean their demise would have disasterous consequences for the Irish economy.
Claiming otherwise is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Anglo and INBS definetly were niche players, too exposed to the Irish property bubble and this was evident at the time of the bailout/guarantee.
Also CB and IFRSA also knew, yes knew, the shenanigans that they had been up to over the years and that should have been enough to warn the Dpet of Finance and government.
Of course CB, IFSRA, Dept of Finance and government were incompetent gimbs looking out for their mates.
So much for regulation and governance.
Yes there would have been consequences to the demise of those two, probably for pension funds and the like or for banks that had exposure to them (ehhh IL&P/PTSB for instance).
But IMHO it would be similar to battelfield triage where limbs were removed to protect the body itself.
Trying to save everything was a death sentence of sorts.
Of course you may have the opinion that they should all swing, but lets be realistic how would our country function if the majority of people and businesses had no bank in the morning ?
I have been employed in 5 different companies and contracted in a lot more.
I would say 80% odd of them used either AIB or BOI for their banking.
What would happen to those businesses if suddenly their bank was gone.
The benefit, if you want to label it as such, to us bailing out systemic banks was that we continued having some semblance of a banking system, even if it is insolvent and not fully functioning from the lending perspective.
If they hadn't been bailed out we would have had riots in the streets as people were queueing looking for their savings.
Overnight the majority of people's cash flow, credit cards, bank cards would be useless.
Now if you want to try a Pol Pot year zero then that is fine, but if you want to have an economy of some sort it aint good.
BTW I am using the definition of "bailed out" loosely here, I am not getting into the actual mechanisms, but just generally agreeing that the taxpayer would have to come to their aid in some monetary fashion.They should have bailed out boi and aib, stayed completely out of anglo,
leave it to bondholders ,let it fail ,as dictated by market forces.
Putting billions into anglo made no sense,most loans were to builders ,or developers ,it was built on speculation and reckless lending .
Totally agree.
BTW if you keep typing like that I will get you a new keyboard for next christmas. I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
op the bankruptcy in the uk seems one of your best options, i know of a couple in serious n/e who rented a house for 3months and 1 day and got their bills sent to their place (up north) to prove thye were living their and were able to claim bankruptcy in the uk and everything is grand for them now. another option is personnal insolvency. another selling the house, lets say you still owe 150k after they sell that will stay in the mortgage account.. in the meantime you go and rent another property, the bank will get you to fill out a balancing sheet with your ingoings and outgoings (you must tell truth 100% or lima will hunt u down and cut ur balls off), the bank will send this to the top boys in the bank who will in turn assess this and decide what u can afford to pay off the 150k a month.. if u refuse to pay this amount they will bring u to court were the judge will decide how must to pay over a certain amount of time ( the judge is more likely to be on your side than the bankers)..
when all is sorted lima and all the cry babies will open their payslip and see a 1 euro increase in tax
0 -
op the bankruptcy in the uk seems one of your best options, i know of a couple in serious n/e who rented a house for 3months and 1 day and got their bills sent to their place (up north) to prove thye were living their and were able to claim bankruptcy in the uk and everything is grand for them now. another option is personnal insolvency. another selling the house, lets say you still owe 150k after they sell that will stay in the mortgage account.. in the meantime you go and rent another property, the bank will get you to fill out a balancing sheet with your ingoings and outgoings (you must tell truth 100% or lima will hunt u down and cut ur balls off), the bank will send this to the top boys in the bank who will in turn assess this and decide what u can afford to pay off the 150k a month.. if u refuse to pay this amount they will bring u to court were the judge will decide how must to pay over a certain amount of time ( the judge is more likely to be on your side than the bankers)..
when all is sorted lima and all the cry babies will open their payslip and see a 1 euro increase in tax
clearly you havent read the ops full post. Wants to open a business back here next year, if he applies for bankruptcy he cannot be the director of a company for a significant length of time ergo that is a terrible option for him besides which the OP can pay and wont.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement