Should people be evicted from houses they cant afford?

clairefontaine

earlyevening wrote: »

but there's a cost to leaving people in their homes and allowing them not to repay their mortgages. We own the banks. We'll have to pump in billions more if the banks can't function, ie expect their loans to be repaid.

The situation must be viewed from both sides.

I think some posters only focus on poor homeless families living on the streets which is exaggerating the consequence of repossession. IMO.

Which is exactly why they need to rethink their bludgeoning taxes. If people cant afford to repay them, then the banks wont get their money, the families will be on social welfare housing, in which the government gives checks to a landlord to subsidise rent, and which will be paid for by tax revenue.

Can you not see the farce in it all?

Legs.Eleven

If they cant afford mortgage, I imagine they'll have to look for an affordable place to rent. They ought to be able to find a rent lower than their onerous mortgage payments. If they cant afford that, seek rent allowance etc. This would normally be the case.

But as I said, they're renting plus paying back their shortfall debt in Ireland, which would be massive in Ireland. Renting is not cheap in Ireland anymore from what I hear.

And if getting rent allowance was so easy, surely we all would? If even one person is working, regardless of their income, they're not entitled to it. You need to be homeless for at least 6 months before you can apply.

Shortfall debt? negotiate. Repay it over time. If you cant, declare bankruptcy. Life is tough sometimes. Start again in a rented, affordable home. Probably fewer sleepless nights than when they had the arrears etc.

Not repeating myself again but if someone can't afford mortgage repayments even at negotiated rates, how are they going to be able to afford rent? You make it sound so easy. How can a family who can't afford mortgage repayments pay the shortfall debt and rent?

And you can't just claim bankruptcy at the drop of a hat, particularly right now. Even if you do, you still need somewhere to live.

Things are desperate as you say, but there has to be a solution other than wipe out everyone's debts and keep the asset they cant afford.

Never once suggested wiping out debt. I wouldn't be in favour of this. I would be in favour of putting a freeze on repayments until the home owner is in a position to repay them though in extreme cases.

PS Do you genuinely know somebody who sleeps on the streets because they cant afford rent? ie not a substance abuser

Yes. Because repossessions haven't happened on any grand scale in Ireland yet because of a legal loophole in the law, we haven't seen this happen. I've seen it first hand here in Spain though where repossession, up till recently, were widespread and had devastating consequences. Those people ended up on the street because they couldn't afford rent. Some were housed by charities but not the majority.

Do you honestly believe that everyone who ends up on the street got there because of substance abuse? That's pretty naive, if you don't mind me saying.

As I said, I don't think some people understand how bad things are for some people.

oldyouth

Why should a person who acted recklessly with their finances still have the enjoyment of a better home than those who were prudent. They still enjoy the advantages that a more affluent area enjoys (schools, parking, crime etc). No, they shouldn't be turfed out but the Bank/State should take a financial stake in the property when it is eventually sold when the occupiers pass on. These houses are partly OUR assets.

NO DEBT FORGIVENESS but lets not turf ordinary people on the streets.

Gloomtastic!

Heard on the news that homes to the value of €17billion are in arrears, some €5billion of which are over 2 years overdue.

I also heard the government are going to sort it out this week!

What a grand little country we have.....

Legs.Eleven

mrbad wrote: »

It's really simple.if you Can afford a house, u buy and live in it.if you can not afford,you rent.or be housed by the government. Someone Over stretches themselves financly, that is a big Problem. Otherwise someone who is living in a larger house than they Can afford gets a hand out from everyone else. Is that fair? They get to Live in a Home that they can't afford and we all pay.theywont be turfed out on the street,they will be homed.
I hear People giving out a lot about people being evicted(we've such a low rate in comparison to other eu States) but they also give out About paying Household taxes and other increases in dirt, or bank charges etc. etc

Who's suggesting a handout or even cancellation of debt or being bailed out? I certainly am I not.

If they're housed by the government or rent allowance, then it's still the tax payers that'll be footing the debt.

It makes no sense to me to evict people and have houses that can't be sold sitting there unused (because they won't be sold at the moment) while the owners of those homes who can't afford rent either get housed by the government or receive rent allowance (if they're lucky) paid for by us.

galwayrush

oldyouth wrote: »

Why should a person who acted recklessly with their finances still have the enjoyment of a better home than those who were prudent. They still enjoy the advantages that a more affluent area enjoys (schools, parking, crime etc). No, they shouldn't be turfed out but the Bank/State should take a financial stake in the property when it is eventually sold when the occupiers pass on. These houses are partly OUR assets.

NO DEBT FORGIVENESS but lets not turf ordinary people on the streets.

That's the interesting bit, if a person is in court to have their house repossessed, if they can prove that they should have never been given
such a mortgage for any reason in the first place, the bank may get their house, but will have no choice but to forgive any shortfall that arises when they sell it on.

T-K-O

Lets evict they all and flood the market with low value properties. Guess what effect that will have on your home.


Eviction should be a last resort

Bullseye1

The banks also took a gamble and they were the professionals. They should take a hair cut.

Hannibal Smith

no, nobody should be evicted. people bought during a time when their incomes were high and redundancy was no where on the horizon and they were well able to keep up repayments....now you have redundancies ...pay cuts and 3 day weeks...no body should be put out of their homes.

oldyouth

If you have debt forgiveness, you'll only encourage society to take unnecessary risks in the sure knowledge that there won't be any consequences. Don't nail homeowners to the cross on account of the downturn in their circumstances, but let's take a share in the asset for when it returns to value

bnt

In the "standard" economic model for this kind of thing, the bank will repossess a house (evicting the tenants), and then sell it on, with the aim of getting some or all of what they are owed. There's usually a buyer for it.

In the current economic situation, the bank doesn't want every "at risk" house back, because it can't then sell it for a price that makes the hassle worthwhile. Either it would take a huge loss (as is happening in parts of the USA after "jingle mail"), or it would be stuck with the houses on its books, unsure of their value as assets. Taking them back wouldn't do anything good for their cash flow or balance sheets.

In short, the standard economic rationale for repossession and eviction isn't as applicable as it used to be. The "lost" money has already left the system and it's not coming back: it's in the hands of the speculators who made money off the gullible lenders (the banks) or the buyers of mortgages or mortgage-backed securities. For house prices to find their natural level again - they're still way too high for average buyers and their incomes - someone has to take a loss, and (understandably) no-one wants to. :cool:

Trhiggy83

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

no, nobody should be evicted. people bought during a time when their incomes were high and redundancy was no where on the horizon and they were well able to keep up repayments....now you have redundancies ...pay cuts and 3 day weeks...no body should be put out of their homes.

I do have sympathy for people who have been made redundant as i have myself but people didnt buy within their means. I dont think anyone should be asked to leave their home as it is as much the banks fault for granting the mortgages as it is the homeowners. The mortgages should be renegotiated and repossession should only be used as a very last resort if the homeowner has no means to pay back nor any prospect of paying it back.

People do need to accept responsibly for their actions and accept that they screwed up. I wont buy a house if i think i cant repay the mortgage in the event that i lose my job.

I should not be asked to bail the banks out for screwing up and i should also not be asked to pay for others mistakes. The best scenario as far as i can see for everyone is renegotiation of the loans with the banks

earlyevening

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

But as I said, they're renting plus paying back their shortfall debt in Ireland, which would be massive in Ireland. Renting is not cheap in Ireland anymore from what I hear.

And if getting rent allowance was so easy, surely we all would? If even one person is working, regardless of their income, they're not entitled to it. You need to be homeless for at least 6 months before you can apply.



Not repeating myself again but if someone can't afford mortgage repayments even at negotiated rates, how are they going to be able to afford rent? You make it sound so easy. How can a family who can't afford mortgage repayments pay the shortfall debt and rent?

And you can't just claim bankruptcy at the drop of a hat, particularly right now. Even if you do, you still need somewhere to live.

Never once suggested wiping out debt. I wouldn't be in favour of this. I would be in favour of putting a freeze on repayments until the home owner is in a position to repay them though in extreme cases.

Yes. Because repossessions haven't happened on any grand scale in Ireland yet because of a legal loophole in the law, we haven't seen this happen. I've seen it first hand here in Spain though where repossession, up till recently, were widespread and had devastating consequences. Those people ended up on the street because they couldn't afford rent. Some were housed by charities but not the majority.

Do you honestly believe that everyone who ends up on the street got there because of substance abuse? That's pretty naive, if you don't mind me saying.

As I said, I don't think some people understand how bad things are for some people.

The first tranche of repossessions that need to happen are to those who will prob never be able to start repayments again. If it is likely that repayment will restart again in lets say 1 year, the banks would be slow to move for repossession. Long term freezing costs the tax payer money and is not sustainable. It couldn't be tolerated for years on end. The tax payer's interests have to be maintained here as well as the mortgagee's and the bank's interests.

re homelessness in Spain - dont care for the purpose of this discussion. Interested in solutions to an Irish problem.
Do I think homeless people are there due to substance abuse? Apart from very short term issues like a battered wife fleeing her husband, homelessness is almost entirely (in this country) confined to people who have multiple other social/mental health problems. - and the answer to their problems is not to hand them a house...but that's for another thread.

boobar

space_man wrote: »

In light of the comments by the Department of Finance's Secretary General John Moran that many people are living in houses and are refusing to pay or are unable to pay the debt o/s, is he correct and should the banks get tougher on them?

Should they not be made to move to a more modest adode?
Will is cost us too much to evict them?
Where does your sympathy lie?

If they can afford to pay but don't then evict them.

If the reasons for non payment are related to loss of job then all other options should be explored with eviction being the last resort. I think this is what Moran suggested and I think there is a certain logic to it.

After eviction, the evictee and family could avail of social housing and avoid being homeless.

For those who can not service debts on mortgages for rental properties, again repossession is warranted.

space_man

Trhiggy83 wrote: »

I do have sympathy for people who have been made redundant as i have myself but people didnt buy within their means. I dont think anyone should be asked to leave their home as it is as much the banks fault for granting the mortgages as it is the homeowners. The mortgages should be renegotiated and repossession should only be used as a very last resort if the homeowner has no means to pay back nor any prospect of paying it back.

People do need to accept responsibly for their actions and accept that they screwed up. I wont buy a house if i think i cant repay the mortgage in the event that i lose my job.

I should not be asked to bail the banks out for screwing up and i should also not be asked to pay for others mistakes. The best scenario as far as i can see for everyone is renegotiation of the loans with the banks

but aren't us Irish famous for taking responsibility and holding people to account for their actions?
i mean whenever our politicians screw-up, they immediately tender their resignations, dont they?:rolleyes:

earlyevening

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

no, nobody should be evicted. people bought during a time when their incomes were high and redundancy was no where on the horizon and they were well able to keep up repayments....now you have redundancies ...pay cuts and 3 day weeks...no body should be put out of their homes.

So you suggest we need a time machine to sort this out?? :rolleyes:

Legs.Eleven

re homelessness in Spain - dont care for the purpose of this discussion. Interested in solutions to an Irish problem.

It's relevant because repossessions (the very kind we're discussing) have happened here and the same thing would happen in Ireland if they were widespread i.e. homeless families. You hold a very myopic viewpoint if you don't mind me saying. Spain's collapse in their property sector has been very similar to our own. I think it'd be wise to learn from the mistakes of others so as not to make them ourselves. This kind of narrow-minded thinking got us here in the first place.

All around the country are even more ghost estates than there were previously because of evictions just sitting there falling into disrepair. The very same thing would happen in Ireland.

mrbad

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Who's suggesting a handout or even cancellation of debt or being bailed out? I certainly am I not.

If they're housed by the government or rent allowance, then it's still the tax payers that'll be footing the debt.

It makes no sense to me to evict people and have houses that can't be sold sitting there unused (because they won't be sold at the moment) while the owners of those homes who can't afford rent either get housed by the government or receive rent allowance (if they're lucky) paid for by us.

glad ur not leggs11. yes the gov wil accomadate them,but in a very basic home.something in keeping with the fact that they have no money.
it makes excellent sence to evict.that nice home in rathgar that they cant afford is being paid for by everyone else.evict,and home them in cheap flats somewhere and then when they can afford it they can buy.
anyhow,in the next few years coming this will happen. we all had neighbours on our streets who bought nicer homes ..better cars...newer kitchens ..holidays abroad. and they borrowed.for all the soft talk and kind words from the government, they will b if they cant make payments,evicted.

Legs.Eleven

mrbad wrote: »

glad ur not leggs11. yes the gov wil accomadate them,but in a very basic home.something in keeping with the fact that they have no money.
it makes excellent sence to evict.that nice home in rathgar that they cant afford is being paid for by everyone else.evict,and home them in cheap flats somewhere and then when they can afford it they can buy.
anyhow,in the next few years coming this will happen. we all had neighbours on our streets who bought nicer homes ..better cars...newer kitchens ..holidays abroad. and they borrowed.for all the soft talk and kind words from the government, they will b if they cant make payments,evicted.

Most people who can't afford to pay their mortgages are not living in nice houses in Rathgar.

The idea that home owners who can't afford repayments have been living in the lap of luxury up to now is ridiculous.

space_man

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Most people who can't afford to pay their mortgages are not living in nice houses in Rathgar.

The idea that home owners who can't afford repayments have been living in the lap of luxury up to now is ridiculous.

no i agree most people foolishly got in above their heads and given the collapse are struggling to keep body 'n soul together. i have sympathy for these.

but there's a sizeable minority of mortgage-holders (many of whom are buy to lets) who having effectively seen their investments wiped out are refusing to (throw good money after bad) pay, and would love nothing better than see some blanket debt-forgiveness. this will/can not be allowed to happen. no sympathy for this group whatsoever.
kick 'em out i say!

Legs.Eleven

Those refusing to pay and using the crisis as an excuse are a different kettle of fish. It's not those that are being discussed here though.

ronjo

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Those refusing to pay and using the crisis as an excuse are a different kettle of fish. It's not those that are being discussed here though.

Look at the question in the poll.

It's a very confusing thread.

Legs.Eleven

ronjo wrote: »

Look at the question in the poll.

It's a very confusing thread.

Fair enough.


This is in the OP. I was discussing the latter point.

In light of the comments by the Department of Finance's Secretary General John Moran that many people are living in houses and are refusing to pay or are unable to pay the debt o/s, is he correct and should the banks get tougher on them?

Richard Hillman

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Why? What makes them more deserving?

They have been deemed at one stage by the banks to be responsible people. Ok it didnt work out because of maybe a loss of their job but banks despite their recklessness didnt just hand out mortgages to any old riff raff. People may exaggerate that the banks were just handing out 100% mortgages but they were not handing out mortgages to Whacker McGee and Jacinta Hugandkiss with their 72 kids and no job prospects.

These people are likely to either retrain or get back to work as soon as possible unlike Whacker and Jacinta. What im trying to say is that there is a lot of riff-raff on the housing list, its undeniable. People can try and be politically correct about it but its true. People who couldnt afford their mortgages are less likely to be riff raff.

Gatling

Still don't agree with the idea of people who are evicted for non payment of mortgages should be given priority housing ,straight to the bottom of the list and wait like The rest of us ,I can see it now evicted on Monday sign a council lease on Tuesday then listen to the laughter as they party in there new home paid for them ,

As for ghost estates use them to clear current housing lists first and foremost

wolfpawnat

But what makes Fiontan and his overpriced 4 bedroom semi-detached house he HAD to have in Rathmines more important than Mary, a single mother with two children working as a cleaner in a school and the tills in Tesco's who needs a home, or John, who's wife is genuinely on disability and they too have a kid and he is working as a shelf stocker in Aldi.

There are a lot of dossers on that housing list yes, but I grew up in a council estate, and my house was number 62 of 110. And of them only 10 were long term dole arse sitters. The rest were low income families where the chief earner for the house was untrained and low skilled, but still got out of bed in the morning to work! Too much generalisation of an entire area of society by some people.

Mary and John should not have their names put lower on the list when they never took out a 110% mortgage so they could also have a new car too. No, restructuring of the mortgage to a realistic payment on the new lower income of the homeowner is the only option.

clairefontaine

wolfpawnat wrote: »

But what makes Fiontan and his overpriced 4 bedroom semi-detached house he HAD to have in Rathmines more important than Mary, a single mother with two children working as a cleaner in a school and the tills in Tesco's who needs a home, or John, who's wife is genuinely on disability and they too have a kid and he is working as a shelf stocker in Aldi.

There are a lot of dossers on that housing list yes, but I grew up in a council estate, and my house was number 62 of 110. And of them only 10 were long term dole arse sitters. The rest were low income families where the chief earner for the house was untrained and low skilled, but still got out of bed in the morning to work! Too much generalisation of an entire area of society by some people.

Mary and John should not have their names put lower on the list when they never took out a 110% mortgage so they could also have a new car too. No, restructuring of the mortgage to a realistic payment on the new lower income of the homeowner is the only option.

Is it possible to be your own landlord and apply for rent allowance if you are on the dole?

wolfpawnat

clairefontaine wrote: »

Is it possible to be your own landlord and apply for rent allowance if you are on the dole?

I have no idea. Doubt it though. If you had a partner who's name is not on the mortgage, could you get them to be your tenant and see if they could get some? You have to be renting for 6+ months to be eligible for rent allowance anyway so not sure if that would work, but some rents are higher than mortgages anyway. The last place I was renting was 1100 a month, her mortgage was 800 and annual management company costs were 2500, so she still walked away with 1100 since she never maintained the place!!! Not a lot, but still cheaper than the rent.

clairefontaine

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I have no idea. Doubt it though. If you had a partner who's name is not on the mortgage, could you get them to be your tenant and see if they could get some? You have to be renting for 6+ months to be eligible for rent allowance anyway so not sure if that would work, but some rents are higher than mortgages anyway. The last place I was renting was 1100 a month, her mortgage was 800 and annual management company costs were 2500, so she still walked away with 1100 since she never maintained the place!!! Not a lot, but still cheaper than the rent.

So I guess what you could do is rent it out to someone on rent allowance, get your mortgage paid, and then move somewhere with cheaper rent?

earlyevening

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

It's relevant because repossessions (the very kind we're discussing) have happened here and the same thing would happen in Ireland if they were widespread i.e. homeless families. You hold a very myopic viewpoint if you don't mind me saying. Spain's collapse in their property sector has been very similar to our own. I think it'd be wise to learn from the mistakes of others so as not to make them ourselves. This kind of narrow-minded thinking got us here in the first place.

All around the country are even more ghost estates than there were previously because of evictions just sitting there falling into disrepair. The very same thing would happen in Ireland.

It is of no relevance if Spain's provisions allow for children to sleep on the streets after an eviction. Different country. Let them deal with it.

You will not find homeless children in this country. (and I don't count temporary B+B accommodation while awaiting allocation off the housing list as homeless. Having children gets high priority on public housing allocation).

Anyway, that's the end of my contribution. It seems from the poll that most people agree that those in default should be evicted. As was said it should only be after a whole series of attempts to restructure payments have failed. You realise there are people still in properties that haven't paid a mortgage payment since the crisis began in 2008. Madness.