Left Ireland for Australia, left keys in door

Peregrinus

At no point does Keggles say that he couldn’t pay. He paid until he left Ireland, and since he left Ireland for a very attractive offer in Australia, as you say he probably could have continued to pay.

But he chose to stop because, I think, he reckoned that the bank either couldn’t or wouldn’t pursue him in Australia, and that his loss would be limited to loss of the houses which, being in negative equity, had no immediate value, and only a limited contingent value. He reckoned that by continuing to service his loan, he was more likely to lose further money than to gain any.

He doesn’t ask for advice on the morality of borrowing money and then deciding not to pay it back when the transaction turns out to be disadvantageous (but that hasn’t stopped people from offering advice on that issue). He asks for advice on whether he is correct in thinking that there is no downside to his decision, beyond loss of his interest in the properties.

The answer, I think, is that as long as he remains settled in Australia, the bank can pursue him but, in so far as past practice is a guide, it’s probably not very likely that they will. There’s a risk, obviously, that if enough people do what he is doing, banks will change their practice in this regard, but that hasn’t happened so far.

What Keggles has done is not a crime, and does not expose him to arrest. He can safely revisit Ireland from time to time. If he keeps, or acquires, any assets in Ireland, they can be chased by the bank, but that's about it.

But the real crunch comes when Keggles dies, and the moral and legal dilemma that will arise then will be faced not by him but by his widow and/or children. Whichever of them acts as his executor or adminstrator will have a duty to use his estate to pay what he owes, before distributing it to relatives. It makes no difference, for this purpose, whether his estate is administered in Australia or in Ireland, and it make no difference whether the bank has made any efforts to collect the debt from him in Australia; it’s enough that he owes the money to the bank, and he already does that.

If his executors/administrators do not use his assets to repay the bank, that will put them in a much more serious position than Keggles himself is in, since failing to distribute the estate to those entitled is a serious infringement. And, in practice, to get away with this, Keggles’s legal per reps will have to swear and file in court false declarations about Keggles’;s assets and liablities, which is perjury, and also fraud. These are crimes - serious crimes - that will expose them to arrest and imprisonment. And these will be infringements in Australia, against Australian law (assuming Keggles’ estate is administered in Australia), so being in Australia will offer Keggles’ family no protection.

In short, if Keggles doesn’t resolve this during his own lifetime, the stakes are raised considerably for his widow and/or children; he’s exposing them to a much greater problem (and risk) than he is exposing himself. The only way Keggles can avoid this problem is by consuming his assets while still alive, and leaving no property or estate on his death. Which, of course, may give his widow and children and entirely different set of problems.

The Corinthian

Peregrinus wrote: »

The only way Keggles can avoid this problem is by consuming his assets while still alive, and leaving no property or estate on his death. Which, of course, may give his widow and children and entirely different set of problems.

Or signing them over, to his family while alive, so he has no assets in the end. In this scenario, however, there are tax implications that would have to be taken into account.

Peregrinus

The Corinthian wrote: »

Or signing them over, to his family while alive, so he has no assets in the end. In this scenario, however, there are tax implications that would have to be taken into account.

That won't help. If Keggles makes pre-death transfers for the purpose of defeating his creditors, his executors have the duty to try and have those transactions set aside. Since his executors will also be the beneficiaries of those transactions, or at least close relatives of the beneficiaries, that puts them in an impossible conflict of interest.

Bandara

Walter Mitty Syndrome

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83371223&postcount=1

He also saves money in Irish banks, has a property with his now deceased grandmother and is holidaying in Phuket

D3PO

Hammertime wrote: »

Walter Mitty Syndrome

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83371223&postcount=1

He also saves money in Irish banks, has a property with his now deceased grandmother and is holidaying in Phuket

Like I said earlier this thread doesnt add up. Nobody pays a mortgage for 12 years on a house and the house is then worth 25% of the outstanding mortgage.

In Oz since Feb yet says hasnt paid his mortgage in 13 months but also says he paid until he moved to Oz hmmmm. Bye bye troll pack your bags. Caught out rotton.

desertcircus

While debts like this may not have historically been pursued, that's most likely due to the high cost of chasing individual defaulters through different countries compared to the amount they were likely to get. Given the nature of the current recession and the closing off of the EU as a "safe" destination, added to the stringent entry rules for the US, it's increasingly likely that a bank can find a specific defaulted in Canada or Australia. That means that instead of engaging lawyers across half the globe to chase down a few dozen debts of maybe 10k each, a bank can hire one solicitor in Toronto and another in Canberra to speak to immigration and track down hundreds or thousands of debts up to six figures. Past behaviour isn't a great guide, as the costs of pursuit have dropped heavily while the benefits have gone up in a similar fashion.

Gosub

D3PO wrote: »

Like I said earlier this thread doesnt add up. Nobody pays a mortgage for 12 years on a house and the house is then worth 25% of the outstanding mortgage.

In Oz since Feb yet says hasnt paid his mortgage in 13 months but also says he paid until he moved to Oz hmmmm. Bye bye troll pack your bags. Caught out rotton.

Well... the story could go like this: OP has a house and buys a second one for and with his Granny. Sadly Granny dies and OP inherits the mortgage, which was always going to happen and sure property always goes up in value (Granny was over 80 at the time of mortgage). OP doesn't like the way things went with the death of the Celtic Tiger and decides he no longer wants to play the game he entered of his own free will. So, he leaves the field, and stops paying his way. His two houses are now rented (generating said Irish savings) and the mortgage payments have long since stopped. Now he's happy for his fellow Irishmen to pick up his tab in taxes for a couple of generations.

OP is now a landlord with no bills to pay, Happy days, holidays around the world.

If this is indeed the scenario, it paints a picture of the OP that I would never like to see in a mirror. He is a complete ***** (insert stuff that would get a ban)

I hope he is tracked down and brought to book.:mad:

LittleBook

Hammertime wrote: »

Walter Mitty Syndrome

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83371223&postcount=1

He also saves money in Irish banks, has a property with his now deceased grandmother and is holidaying in Phuket

Plus, there seems to be a lot of people with "Keg" and "Mc" in their username who have dumped two houses in Ireland to move abroad and just LOVE talking about it ...

http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?query=&forum=38&user=567733&date_from=&date_to=

OP reported, will leave this with the Mods.

Jogathon

Rent out the house, pay the rent directly into the mortgage account. It will cost you nothing from you income in Australia but the banks will be happy with a regular cash income. I can't understand why you didn't do that?

carpejugulum

Jogathon wrote: »

Rent out the house, pay the rent directly into the mortgage account. It will cost you nothing from you income in Australia but the banks will be happy with a regular cash income. I can't understand why you didn't do that?

The story is obviously fabricated.

RATM

Peregrinus wrote: »

The answer, I think, is that as long as he remains settled in Australia, the bank can pursue him but, in so far as past practice is a guide, it’s probably not very likely that they will. There’s a risk, obviously, that if enough people do what he is doing, banks will change their practice in this regard, but that hasn’t happened so far.

It is certainly true to say that in the past the banks haven't chased these things abroad. But I think it is also true to say that the banks have never, ever had the amount of strategic defaulters like Kegges that they do now. The way the 'game' is played right now is not the way it might have been played in the past.

We don't know exact figures but in the BTL market 1 in every 3 mortgages is in arrears. It is hard to even judge from that but my guess is that we are looking at tens of thousands of 'can pay, won't pay' people.

Even lets say there are 10,000 strategic defaulters and they are all €100,000 in negative equity. That is €10 billion quid which is a big big hole on a banks balance sheet. Then you add into the mix company law whereby directors of companies can (and are) struck off for not achieving shareholders the best possible profits. Now in the past shareholders may not have kicked up a fuss at an AGM about 100 grand here and 100 grand there. But they will kick up a fuss about €10 billion because if that €10 billion is not on the banks balance sheet in the correct column then that means the shareholders themselves are out of pocket collectively to the tune of €10 billion in revenue, which has a direct knock on effect on the size of the dividend they will receive per share that they own.

And when I speak of shareholders I'm not talking about John and Mary down the road with a few token bank shares in their portfolio and then going to the banks AGM kicking up a fuss and shouting that strategic defaulters should be pursued to the ends of the earth- that just isn't going to happen.

When I say shareholders I mean vulture capitalists like Wilbur Ross who now owns 15% of Bank of Ireland and sits on the board of directors. Wilbur Ross specialises in buying failed banks and getting their balance sheets in order before selling for a profit. This guy comes from the 'screw you' school of capitalism and if his track record on dealing with bankrupt companies is anything to go by he will be demanding that defaulted mortgages are pursued to the ends of the earth.

A vulture capitalist like Ross will not be leaving €10 billion sitting on the table, it is just not in the nature of someone like him so I'd fully expect that the banks will be pursuing defaulters on foreign soil, especially since the sheer number of them makes it well worth their while to do so. It might take till their death to catch up with them but they won't be pressing stop on the interest clock either.

skyfall2012

Haven't read all replies: but just in case it wasn't mentioned, the bank's are doing debt forgiveness deals as disgussed here on the George Lee business show, but they are trying to keep it quiet.
http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradiowebpage.html#type=radio&rii=9%3a20168244%3a172%3a09-03-2013%3a&type=share

and since that show the govt. have insisted banks deal with the buy to let mortgage defaulters.

The Corinthian

skyfall2012 wrote: »

Haven't read all replies: but just in case it wasn't mentioned, the bank's are doing debt forgiveness deals as disgussed here on the George Lee business show, but they are trying to keep it quiet.

I doubt if the OP would have been offered one as it was clear that he actually could pay his mortgage.

It's been pointed out that while the bank may chase the OP for the debt, on balance this is unlikely and that he'll 'get away' with it. However, there is a price to pay, which the OP may or may not be aware of.

To begin with credit ratings are shared by banks internationally, and eventually (once there's a judgement against him and his credit rating is updated and passed on) this may effect his ability to get loans, credit cards or even a mortgage in Australia.

Secondly, there is no statute of limitations on debt (unless you are a bankrupt). If there is a judgement against him, it will still be there in five, ten, twenty or a hundred years and follow him to the grave (more correctly his estate). This may be fine for now, that he's living abroad, but it does mean that if he ever returns to live in Ireland, it'll resurface.

So I may rethink any aspirations twoards one day retiring back in the aul sod, or coming back for work if we get out of recession and Australia enters one, if I were him. He's burnt that bridge.

skyfall2012

Mortgage distress being discussed on Pat Kenny today, if anyone interested.

jmayo

skyfall2012 wrote: »

Mortgage distress being discussed on Pat Kenny today, if anyone interested.

Please tell me the old financial advisor friend of the Pat Kenny show, fill yer boots burgess, was not one of the contributors ?

skyfall2012

jmayo wrote: »

Please tell me the old financial advisor friend of the Pat Kenny show, fill yer boots burgess, was not one of the contributors ?

Contributors were from http://www.flac.ie/ and http://www.newbeginning.ie/

RATM

jmayo wrote: »

Please tell me the old financial advisor friend of the Pat Kenny show, fill yer boots burgess, was not one of the contributors ?

I can't believe RTE actually employ that guy. Thats the same guy who banned ALL talk of the property crash on his website, probably becuase he is knee deep in it and was in the Denial phase of a crash. What an idiot.

skyfall2012

RATM wrote: »

I can't believe RTE actually employ that guy. Thats the same guy who banned ALL talk of the property crash on his website, probably becuase he is knee deep in it and was in the Denial phase of a crash. What an idiot.

I have been off the Pat Kenny radar for years, who are ye talking about?

jmayo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2q7bBVAo74

carpejugulum

jmayo wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2q7bBVAo74

Some people have incredibly brass necks.

RATM

That's a blast from the past jmayo, but a good one. Always good to remind ourselves of the shills who propped up the great Irish property scam and who are still doing their best to do so

Zambia

The truth after an 8 page thread is no one has provided any vehicle by which an Irish bank can bring action in Australia against someone in Australia.

A google search provides no company that offers debt recovery to a foreign debtor in Australia.

Various sites like pomsinoz or britishexpats have no examples of UK based companies recovering UK debt by legal means through Australian courts. The UK was the provider of most emigrants to Australia till recently.

That said the majority of Irish buggering of to Oz are not on Permanent Visas they are Working Holiday Visas or 457 Sponsored.

All this can change but as it stands I do not see a way absconders can be brought to book. All this can change and the OPs scenario has indeed left them open to some action in the future. If the debt was a few thousand chances are no one would bother but a few hundred thousand might be worth the hassle.

skyfall2012

I feel these people who have been caught in this mess which the banks created, should get off just like the bankers did, why should they bare the brunt of this mess and bankers get off scott free and get bonuses.

I was listening to the Joe Duffy show(aired on 12 April) and 'the' Ben Dunne was on and told people that the could travel abroad he suggested Newry or England, declare themselves bankrupt and return after 15 months debt free.

So go to the courts in Oz declare yourself bankrupt and in 15 months, you should be debt free, if it works.

How do people think this economy is going to get back on its feet, but only when people are no longer shackled to debt and the young educated people who have travelled abroad come home and put their skills and education to work in this country.

Zamboni

skyfall2012 wrote: »

I feel these people who have been caught in this mess which the banks created, should get off just like the bankers did, why should they bare the brunt of this mess and bankers get off scott free and get bonuses.

How do people think this economy is going to get back on its feet, but only when people are no longer shackled to debt and the young educated people who have travelled abroad come home and put their skills and education to work in this country.

If we unshackle them from the debt, the debt doesn't disappear.
It gets passed on to the next generation of tax payer.
Insidious.
You sound like Michael Noonan/Enda Kenny proclaiming a "bank deal".
Head in sand, kicking the can.

skyfall2012

Zamboni wrote: »

If we unshackle them from the debt, the debt doesn't disappear.
It gets passed on to the next generation of tax payer.
Insidious.
You sound like Michael Noonan/Enda Kenny proclaiming a "bank deal".
Head in sand, kicking the can.

Thanks but I didn't buy a house during the boom, because only one year of Economics lectures told me and George Lee that this was a bubble and it will burst they always do, well over 4% percent growth annually (unsustainable growth), over dependent on one industry, no ceiling put on the price of houses. The writing was on the wall.

So here we are burdened by debt, the taxpayer is already paying and so is the next generation going to pay and that is only to bail out banks who are still living it up, while the people who believed what they were telling them are now shackled to debt, so if these people were no longer burdened with debt they would have disposable income to spend in the economy and it would grow. So how is that having my head in the sand. You don't see the are protecting the top of the pyramid and letting the rest of us rot.

Zamboni

skyfall2012 wrote: »

Thanks but I didn't buy a house during the boom, because only one year of Economics lectures told me and George Lee that this was a bubble and it will burst they always do, well over 4% percent growth annually (unsustainable growth), over dependent on one industry, no ceiling put on the price of houses. The writing was on the wall.

So here we are burdened by debt, the taxpayer is already paying and so is the next generation going to pay and that is only to bail out banks who are still living it up, while the people who believed what they were telling them are now shackled to debt, so if these people were no longer burdened with debt they would have disposable income to spend in the economy and it would grow. So how is that having my head in the sand. You don't see the are protecting the top of the pyramid and letting the rest of us rot.

Hyperbole about some vague evil entity called "the banks" is futile and obscures the personal responsibility aspect of the bubble.
If individuals who were in positions of power broke laws, then let them be prosecuted accordingly. It won't be resolved by personal debt forgiveness.

The Corinthian

skyfall2012 wrote: »

So here we are burdened by debt, the taxpayer is already paying and so is the next generation going to pay and that is only to bail out banks who are still living it up, while the people who believed what they were telling them are now shackled to debt, so if these people were no longer burdened with debt they would have disposable income to spend in the economy and it would grow.

Yet the debt doesn't disappear, even if you choose to 'unshackle' those with those mortgages. That debt would instead be transferred to all taxpayers in the form of increased taxation, meaning everyone would have even less disposable income to spend in the economy. There's no real way around this, I'm afraid.

On top of this, you're presuming that those who got mortgages are somehow all blameless victims. In reality, many were irresponsible, over-stretching themselves to a point where they could just about pay during a boom, let alone a recession. Forgive those debts and the only lesson that we will learn for the future is that recklessness pays off; if it works out we keep our gains, if not someone will cover our losses.

So how is that having my head in the sand. You don't see the are protecting the top of the pyramid and letting the rest of us rot.

So should we not seek to right this wrong instead of encouraging two wrongs as a means of balancing the scales?

skyfall2012

Zamboni wrote: »

Hyperbole about some vague evil entity called "the banks" is futile and obscures the personal responsibility aspect of the bubble.
If individuals who were in positions of power broke laws, then let them be prosecuted accordingly. It won't be resolved by personal debt forgiveness.

The personal responsibility aspect of the bubble should lay at the foot of the government and the banks and nowhere else. The ordinary people with no real understanding of how the markets work, did what their financial advisers told them to do, the economy was booming, Bertie told the nay sayers to commit suicide.

These people had good jobs and were being well paid, so they invested in property, they should not have been let, this outcome had being foretold in any half decent economics lecture. The banks and the government understood the markets, they knew this was not going to last. But I don't see any of them paying for what happened.

When the banks are not being regulated by the government which they should have been this is not a new concept, they will run riot and they did and their friends in the government bailed them out, are we on the ground are looking at people in massive debt and wanting to see them suffer and I tell you that is not the answer.

jmayo

skyfall2012 wrote: »

I feel these people who have been caught in this mess which the banks created, should get off just like the bankers did, why should they bare the brunt of this mess and bankers get off scott free and get bonuses.

I was listening to the Joe Duffy show(aired on 12 April) and 'the' Ben Dunne was on and told people that the could travel abroad he suggested Newry or England, declare themselves bankrupt and return after 15 months debt free.

So go to the courts in Oz declare yourself bankrupt and in 15 months, you should be debt free, if it works.

How do people think this economy is going to get back on its feet, but only when people are no longer shackled to debt and the young educated people who have travelled abroad come home and put their skills and education to work in this country.

Ehh in what universe will all these dumped debts magically disappear ?
Do you have a bank account, do you pay taxes ?
Because if you do have either of the above then you will end up paying for some of the debts you advise other people to dump.

skyfall2012 wrote: »

Thanks but I didn't buy a house during the boom, because only one year of Economics lectures told me and George Lee that this was a bubble and it will burst they always do, well over 4% percent growth annually (unsustainable growth), over dependent on one industry, no ceiling put on the price of houses. The writing was on the wall.

So here we are burdened by debt, the taxpayer is already paying and so is the next generation going to pay and that is only to bail out banks who are still living it up, while the people who believed what they were telling them are now shackled to debt, so if these people were no longer burdened with debt they would have disposable income to spend in the economy and it would grow. So how is that having my head in the sand. You don't see the are protecting the top of the pyramid and letting the rest of us rot.

Sorry, and I don't care if I get infracted for this, I can't beleive someone with supposedly one year of economics lectures is proposing the above argument.
If so, I dispair of our education system.
Where do you think the debts of those you advise to pi** off to Oz, UK, etc are going to go ?

How do you think letting some off with THEIR debts, whilst shackling the rest of us to them is going to help the economy.

skyfall2012

I am a strong believer in history repeating itself, so I am not so sure if lessons will be learnt. But I am living in the moment and I see a lot of people suffering people who didn't overstretch themselves, but based on their earning potential at that time bought a family home and since one or both have lost their jobs.

The people are sick and the government is watching and doing nothing, we need to start again. If the debt was sucked in with the banks debt which we are already paying, we would have a mentally healthier population that might be able to get up and rebuild, but as things stand we are getting sicker and sicker and nothing is changing.