New Beginning?? Long term resolution for unwanted house.

strongback

D3PO wrote: »

What a load of b0ll0x. I fit into category 2 in some ways in that I bought during the boom. But 1 I didnt get a 40 year mortgage and b im not crippled in debt because I wasn't stupid enough to over extend myself.


My attitude is that of the first quote. You make a decision you live by it tough luck if you were an idiot and over extended then boo hoo live with it.

Lot's of people bought between 2005-07 when it was normal to pay €500,000 for a 3 bed house in Dublin. I have lots of friends who bought in the height of the boom. Some will certainly be seeking insolvency, they aren't saying boo-hoo.........they are packing their bags.

JJJJNR

Congratulations on your new found love, could you both go to the uk and setup over there, would that be an option, bankruptcy is the only way out of this mess for you, don't be ashamed of it, its your life and you only have one, you did a very noble thing by buying out your ex, now you need to do the right thing and get on with your life.

Scortho

strongback wrote: »

Its been discussed before but the division in opinion is getting clearer, the two tiers (or more) moving further apart:

Family buys their house before the boom attitude: "Not my problem you can't pay your boom time mortgage, you took the risk"

Family buys in the boom years: "I'm crippled with debt with my 40 year mortgage I'll be paying back until I'm 70".


It's clear as day where people sit when they give their opinion on this issue and it's all based on their own personal level of debt.

The funny thing is the two imaginary quotes I've given could be from next door neighbours the first aged 45 an the other one aged 35.


Buying your house in the 1980's or 90's meant you hit the jackpot. The value of your property rose experientially and at the same time your wages doubled and quadrupled.

To then turn around and patronise younger people and lecture on the responsibilities of debt is, shall I say, a little hard to take. If you were born in the 1960's you were handed the golden goose.


The kid's of the 70's and 80's do have an option...........more will be taking it.

A home is a home. It's a place to live. The value of it shouldn't matter. If you buy a home, you don't buy with the intention of becomming a millionaire. You buy it with the intention of it being a place to live.

strongback

It's a home until it grabs you by the scruff of the neck and you end up in a bedsit in Cricklewood.

Bullseye1

Agreed. Best to sell the property and get what you can. Don't let the banks take the selling process out of your hands. If there is a balance that cannot be paid what can they do? They can force bankruptcy on you or you can take matters into your own hands and move to the UK and after 12 months do it yourself.

JJJJNR

I'd rather a bedsit in cricklewood for a year than a bedsit in rathgar for 5.

strongback

5.....I thought it was 8 years here......three plus the five years they count how many cornflakes you're having for breakfast.

Probably more like 17 months in Cricklewood.

JJJJNR

Damn 8 years now is it, hell you could rob what you owe from the bank you owe and still be out before that.. and have no bills at all and come out to a lump sum of dole payments at the end...

FKING great country.

gaius c

JJJJNR wrote: »

Congratulations on your new found love, could you both go to the uk and setup over there, would that be an option, bankruptcy is the only way out of this mess for you, don't be ashamed of it, its your life and you only have one, you did a very noble thing by buying out your ex, now you need to do the right thing and get on with your life.

Trouble is that he isn't actually bankrupt and can afford the repayments.

jmayo

Beardyman wrote: »

I won't waste my time commenting on this reply as this person has no idea of the acutal difficulty of the situation and is merely speculating without the facts.

But you still want to waste their money on the situation. :rolleyes:

strongback wrote: »

Spoken like a man with a small mortgage or none at all. This line is a bit patronising to anyone who bought their first modest starter house during the height of the boom and is carrying around a €500,000 mortgage and a job hanging by a thread. If people keep talking like this Ben Dunne's army will start to march.

And you know what it even more patronising is being told that you have to cough up because some people overpaid for their "modest starter house" that just happened to cost 500,000 plus.

I bet you wouldn't be on here offering to spilt the proceeds if, as you expected, your house had gone up in price and you were moving onto the next rung on the proeprty ladder ?

If you were dumb enough to vastly overpay for your "modest starter house" at the height of the boom, don't expect the rest of us are now dumb enough to compensate you for it.

The fooking sense of entitlement in this country is now reaching nauseating levels.

Oh and dream on about ben dunne's army.
It will march until people begin to cop on they are the ones paying for it.

John Mason

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Yes and I do accept that - however as I say there are many factors (not all of them sensible) to consider. Beyond that I've never considered living in Wexford and working in Dublin to be a particularly good idea. You have to consider quality of life. Furthermore a modest income in 2006/2007 for a couple could easily be over €100K a year - suddenly spending another 100K over 25 years doesn't seem (at the time) to be such a big deal.

All this said the solution is not writing down that debt but neither is repossession and forcing people hang on to properties they don't need. Make the debt portable and manageable.

In 2007, i bought a 3 bedroom house, for under 200k in Dublin City Centre.

Just because some people lost the run of themselves, and spent 500k+ on a house, does not mean i have should have to pay half their mortgage.

People need to learn to take responsibility for their actions and stop blaming other people.

"oh, the bank held a gun to my head and said, that if i didnt sign the mortgage documents for 600,000k, they were going to shoot me and my whole family - i had no choice in the matter. I only wanted 150k"

PAH !!!

Grandpa Hassan

John Mason wrote: »

In 2007, i bought a 3 bedroom house, for under 200k in Dublin City Centre.

Just because some people lost the run of themselves, and spent 500k+ on a house, does not mean i have should have to pay half their mortgage.

People need to learn to take responsibility for their actions and stop blaming other people.

"oh, the bank held a gun to my head and said, that if i didnt sign the mortgage documents for 600,000k, they were going to shoot me and my whole family - i had no choice in the matter. I only wanted 150k"

PAH !!!

^^This

EUR500k is not a starter home. 500k is what people spent if they wanted to skip the starter home, as the starter homes they could afford were likely in an area that they felt to be beneath them

And they expect to be able to just walk away, while I continue paying

mrmitty

I find it interesting that posters here want to 'tar and feather' the op and insist that he pay this debt in full.
It's true that he took on this debt and it's true that he should suffer as a result but the banks also entered into a business arrangement, should they not suffer at all for their bad decisions?
Seems to me that both parties should suffer equally, no?

D3PO

mrmitty wrote: »

I find it interesting that posters here want to 'tar and feather' the op and insist that he pay this debt in full.
It's true that he took on this debt and it's true that he should suffer as a result but the banks also entered into a business arrangement, should they not suffer at all for their bad decisions?
Seems to me that both parties should suffer equally, no?

No. I've said it before I will say it again. We don't do non recourse mortgages in this country (if you don't know what that is google it). You borrow the money your responsible.

strongback

jmayo wrote: »

But you still want to waste their money on the situation. :rolleyes:



And you know what it even more patronising is being told that you have to cough up because some people overpaid for their "modest starter house" that just happened to cost 500,000 plus.

I bet you wouldn't be on here offering to spilt the proceeds if, as you expected, your house had gone up in price and you were moving onto the next rung on the proeprty ladder ?

If you were dumb enough to vastly overpay for your "modest starter house" at the height of the boom, don't expect the rest of us are now dumb enough to compensate you for it.

The fooking sense of entitlement in this country is now reaching nauseating levels.

Oh and dream on about ben dunne's army.
It will march until people begin to cop on they are the ones paying for it.

Nobody is looking to the government or the bank for a solution, that day has passed. People will seek insolvency, so the banks will take the hit, seems fair as they weren't irresponsible in their lending.

You can't stop anyone going insolvent, its written into EU law. If people go to the UK the banks take the hit. 16-17 months later they come home and start again with no conditions.


You guys born in the 1960's had it all, so your pontificating falls on deaf ears.

strongback

John Mason wrote: »

In 2007, i bought a 3 bedroom house, for under 200k in Dublin City Centre.

Just because some people lost the run of themselves, and spent 500k+ on a house, does not mean i have should have to pay half their mortgage.

People need to learn to take responsibility for their actions and stop blaming other people.

"oh, the bank held a gun to my head and said, that if i didnt sign the mortgage documents for 600,000k, they were going to shoot me and my whole family - i had no choice in the matter. I only wanted 150k"

PAH !!!

Was a bullet proof vest included when you bought that city centre house for €200K.

In 2007 the only places that cheap in the proper city centre were in very economically deprived areas, eg Summerhill.

D3PO

strongback wrote: »

You can't stop anyone going insolvent, its written into EU law. If people go to the UK the banks take the hit. 16-17 months later they come home and start again with no conditions.


You guys born in the 1960's had it all, so your pontificating falls on deaf ears.

Yeah its that easy. Up sticks to the UK. Leave your job (if you have one) or if not figure out how you can afford to live in the UK for 18 months.

Struggle through and come back to nothing, no job, no RA as you wont have been renting for 6 months, no credit rating.

If that's what you or anybody else wants then by all means go do it, its anybodies free will to do so. Doesn't change the fact that I still think they are the scum of the earth

Scortho

strongback wrote: »

Nobody is looking to the government or the bank for a solution, that day has passed. People will seek insolvency, so the banks will take the hit, seems fair as they weren't irresponsible in their lending.

You can't stop anyone going insolvent, its written into EU law. If people go to the UK the banks take the hit. 16-17 months later they come home and start again with no conditions.


You guys born in the 1960's had it all, so your pontificating falls on deaf ears.

They have to be insolvent. No prospect of paying there debts.
Bankruptcy isn't for someone who no longer wants the house because its worth less than they owe or are fed up with the banks not giving a write down.
It's for people who have no prospect of repaying.

And I was born in 92

strongback

D3PO wrote: »

Yeah its that easy. Up sticks to the UK. Leave your job (if you have one) or if not figure out how you can afford to live in the UK for 18 months.

Struggle through and come back to nothing, no job, no RA as you wont have been renting for 6 months, no credit rating.

If that's what you or anybody else wants then by all means go do it, its anybodies free will to do so. Doesn't change the fact that I still think they are the scum of the earth

The insolvency process doesn't mean people can't work. There is no rule a person can't work. Anyway there is more work in the UK than here.

A lot of people heading for insolvency won't have the things bolded you describe.

Anyone who goes bankrupt is scum? Many many of the most entrepreneurial people in our society have gone bankrupt at some stage, its a learning process, they protect themselves better next time.


It must be great for a person to have all their ducks in a row and be just coasting smoothly into retirement.

strongback

Scortho wrote: »

They have to be insolvent. No prospect of paying there debts.
Bankruptcy isn't for someone who no longer wants the house because its worth less than they owe or are fed up with the banks not giving a write down.
It's for people who have no prospect of repaying.

And I was born in 92

A lot of people couldn't pay their mortgage if they lost their job. Could happen to anyone such is the uncertainty that abounds.


Well done on being born in 1992 you dodged a serious bullet. Your age groups problem will be getting a job and staying in work. Youth unemployment is officially 25-30% in some of the urban centres the last time I checked.

Scortho

strongback wrote: »

The insolvency process doesn't mean people can't work. There is no rule a person can't work. Anyway there is more work in the UK than here.

A lot of people heading for insolvency won't have the things bolded you describe.

Anyone who goes bankrupt is scum? Many many of the most entrepreneurial people in our society have gone bankrupt at some stage, its a learning process, they protect themselves better next time.


It must be great for a person to have all their ducks in a row and be just coasting smoothly into retirement.

It's more beneficial if you don't work for the period in the uk as the official receiver can put a charge in place to take a portion of your income for 3 years.
If the only income you have coming in us the uks dole, then that won't happen.

Scortho

strongback wrote: »

The insolvency process doesn't mean people can't work. There is no rule a person can't work. Anyway there is more work in the UK than here.

A lot of people heading for insolvency won't have the things bolded you describe.

Anyone who goes bankrupt is scum? Many many of the most entrepreneurial people in our society have gone bankrupt at some stage, its a learning process, they protect themselves better next time.


It must be great for a person to have all their ducks in a row and be just coasting smoothly into retirement.

It's more beneficial if you don't work for the period in the uk as the official receiver can put a charge in place to take a portion of your income for 3 years.
If the only income you have coming in us the uks dole, then that won't happen.

D3PO

strongback wrote: »

A lot of people couldn't pay their mortgage if they lost their job. Could happen to anyone such is the uncertainty that abounds.


.

A lot could still pay their mortgage if they lost there job if they were responsible when borrowing.

Is it my fault that they used all their rainy day money as a deposit ? No

Is it my fault they didn't take out payment protection insurance which would at least give them breathing space to sort something out ? No

Is it my fault they got a mortgage based on them and their partners salary rather than getting a more modest mortgage based on the higher earners salary and therefore mitigating the outcome should one of them lose their job ? No

I could go on and on. People are fast to list reasons as to why its not their fault, few are responsible enough to accept their in a mess of their own choosing.

strongback

Scortho wrote: »

It's more beneficial if you don't work for the period in the uk as the official receiver can put a charge in place to take a portion of your income for 3 years.
If the only income you have coming in us the uks dole, then that won't happen.

That is if your are earning more money than you need to live. If a persons earns a regular salary that covers their needs there won't be an issue.

The UK Insolvency Service can impose conditions on your insolvency that have to be adhered to for 3 years. In reality, though, some developers owing 100's of millions have come through UK insolvency with no conditions what so ever. If they won the Lotto tomorrow they would keep every penny of the winnings.

John Mason

strongback wrote: »

Was a bullet proof vest included when you bought that city centre house for €200K.

In 2007 the only places that cheap in the proper city centre were in very economically deprived areas, eg Summerhill.

i bought in Dublin 11 which is dublin city, no buget proof vest required.

Ray Palmer

strongback wrote: »

Nobody is looking to the government or the bank for a solution, that day has passed. People will seek insolvency, so the banks will take the hit, seems fair as they weren't irresponsible in their lending.

You can't stop anyone going insolvent, its written into EU law. If people go to the UK the banks take the hit. 16-17 months later they come home and start again with no conditions.


You guys born in the 1960's had it all, so your pontificating falls on deaf ears.

You can stop somebody going insolvent if they aren't insolvent. You need to match the criteria.
So you see irresponsible lending is the problem not irresponsible borrowing?

If it all comes to pass where it is easy to drop your mortgage if you want the people who will pay will be those taking out mortgages. The rates and charges will have to take on this liability so the people borrowing have to pay.

As time goes on a combination of having a tracker and having paid more money may actually mean it was a good idea to buy even at the peak. Still wondering about the tipping point with regard to tracker and cheaper prices.

It is crazy to think the banks take the hit and nobody else suffers it can't happen in a vacuum.

Ray Palmer

John Mason wrote: »

i bought in Dublin 11 which is dublin city, no buget proof vest required.

No it isn't. Areas inside the canals is Dublin City. You live in the suburbs

whippet

looking through the OP's post history .. makes this a classic case of 'Won't Pay' rather than 'can't pay'

In the recent past he is talking about holidays in the west coast of the US, Changing car and a trailer for towing a fishing boat.

Unfortunately it is the people like this who will make it more difficult for those in genuine trouble get help.

whippet

looking through the OP's post history .. makes this a classic case of 'Won't Pay' rather than 'can't pay'

In the recent past he is talking about holidays in the west coast of the US, Changing car and a trailer for towing a fishing boat.

Unfortunately it is the people like this who will make it more difficult for those in genuine trouble get help.

strongback

D3PO wrote: »

A lot could still pay their mortgage if they lost there job if they were responsible when borrowing.

Is it my fault that they used all their rainy day money as a deposit ? No

Is it my fault they didn't take out payment protection insurance which would at least give them breathing space to sort something out ? No

Is it my fault they got a mortgage based on them and their partners salary rather than getting a more modest mortgage based on the higher earners salary and therefore mitigating the outcome should one of them lose their job ? No

I could go on and on. People are fast to list reasons as to why its not their fault, few are responsible enough to accept their in a mess of their own choosing.

People can survive on their saving for a while which half the country was doing. After 12 months most peoples savings will be exhausted.

Younger people also didn't amass the amount of saving the people born in the 1960's did when their wages doubled and tripled while their mortgage repayments remained a pittance by comparison.

Nobody is looking for an excuse as I said earlier that day is long over. The banks have been given their big stick back and have written to many people telling them their only option now is to sell their home. The bank is publicly saying there will be no write downs so the person sells their house and carries the negative equity with them. The banks are taking no pain and I remind people that they have already received billions of our tax money.

D3PO

strongback wrote: »

People can survive on their saving for a while which half the country was doing. After 12 months most peoples savings will be exhausted.

True but if people didn't buy based on both their and their partners salaries, took out mortgage payment protection, had savings and then redundancy on top they would be in a much better position to ride things out whilst they looked for new employment. The fact remains too many people prefer to mop and moan then do whatever it takes. The number of those in financial distress that would turn their nose up at a job wasing dishes or working in a mcdonalds in incredible.

Younger people also didn't amass the amount of saving the people born in the 1960's did when their wages doubled and tripled while their mortgage repayments remained a pittance by comparison.

True however this is part of the issue. It is one of many symptoms of irresponsible borrowing.

Nobody is looking for an excuse as I said earlier that day is long over. The banks have been given their big stick back and have written to many people telling them their only option now is to sell their home. The bank is publicly saying there will be no write downs so the person sells their house and carries the negative equity with them. The banks are taking no pain and I remind people that they have already received billions of our tax money.


Again I revert to previous comment. We don't do non recourse loans. Whilst the banks were in part responsible for this mess the facts remain the same. People knew the loans were non recourse, they knew they were wholly responsible to ensure the loan was repaid.

I think the banks are a joke, but there is no point in people beating the banks have received millions of our tax money drum. We couldn't let them go to the wall unfortunately. As much as people would like to say we should have, we couldn't do so, it would have crippled us as a country.

Yes we have shelled lots of cash into them as we did with AIB back in the 80's also (which many people forget about) but encouraging those that can pay and won't like the OP is not a sign of rebellion its a sign of lunacy that will cost us as the taxpayer more than it already is.

.

strongback

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You can stop somebody going insolvent if they aren't insolvent. You need to match the criteria.
So you see irresponsible lending is the problem not irresponsible borrowing?

Has to be 50/50 in my view. The banks gorged more than the people.

If it all comes to pass where it is easy to drop your mortgage if you want the people who will pay will be those taking out mortgages. The rates and charges will have to take on this liability so the people borrowing have to pay.

As time goes on a combination of having a tracker and having paid more money may actually mean it was a good idea to buy even at the peak. Still wondering about the tipping point with regard to tracker and cheaper prices.

It is crazy to think the banks take the hit and nobody else suffers it can't happen in a vacuum.

The banks have already received huge bailouts to cover their bad loans. That's why the government is getting on their case now for not dealing with the bad mortgages. The government and banks were happy up to now to try and ride things out but now the rhetoric has changed.

..........

D3PO

It doesn't have to be 50/50 again for the third time they didn't offer non recourse mortgages. Your loan your responsibility to repay.

They are no more responsible than Diagio would be for 50% of your car repair costs or legal costs if you crashed whilst over the limit. Personal responsibility....

Ray Palmer

strongback wrote: »

People can survive on their saving for a while which half the country was doing. After 12 months most peoples savings will be exhausted.

Younger people also didn't amass the amount of saving the people born in the 1960's did when their wages doubled and tripled while their mortgage repayments remained a pittance by comparison.

Nobody is looking for an excuse as I said earlier that day is long over. The banks have been given their big stick back and have written to many people telling them their only option now is to sell their home. The bank is publicly saying there will be no write downs so the person sells their house and carries the negative equity with them. The banks are taking no pain and I remind people that they have already received billions of our tax money.

Wonder why people born in the 1960s bother you?!

You do realise the banks have to shell out a fair bit of money in order to get these proceedings right? It isn't free to do. Just because the banks received money what has that got to do with people honouring the legal documents they signed? You do understand that the money they received was to stop them failing too.

If the banks failed all saving would have been wiped out but the mortgages would have remained. 60k in the bank and a 240k mortgage bank crashes you lose 60k but still have 240k mortgage. The money was not for the banks to reduce and write off mortgages. It was to save the people with money in the bank.

It seems you are mixing some things together but unaware of why are what they are about.

Grandpa Hassan

whippet wrote: »

looking through the OP's post history .. makes this a classic case of 'Won't Pay' rather than 'can't pay'

In the recent past he is talking about holidays in the west coast of the US, Changing car and a trailer for towing a fishing boat.

Unfortunately it is the people like this who will make it more difficult for those in genuine trouble get help.

Exactly. The OP title says it all.

'Resolution for unwanted house'. Not 'resolution as I am screwed and cant pay my mortgage'

jmayo

I have asked this already, but just to draw attention I am going to ask all those espousing the banks fault, the banks owe us, the banks need to take some of the blame, etc...

WHO ARE THE BANKS ?

1. Are they the executives ?
2. Are they the employees ?
3. Are they the directors ?
4. Are they the bondholders and other creditors like ECB ?
Or
5. Are they the owners/shareholders ?

BTW we the Irish taxpayers fit in the latter category when we are discussing the Irish banks.
Oh and the latter category is the one that suffers the losses when ever more money has to be found to pay off errant debtors.

Ray Palmer

strongback wrote: »

Has to be 50/50 in my view. The banks gorged more than the people.

Not in Ireland, lots of people were. Did you see what tradesmen were charging?

Not sure where you are showing a 50/50 balance. You aren't say a 50% write off you are saying an entire write off of all debt for the person with the bank taking the entire hit.

It really doesn't matter what you think that is not the legal position here as you have been told repeatedly. The fact is it isn't even common in the world to write off debt in the manner you are saying. Wonder if you have some monetary tipping point where it no longer is the persons responsibility to pay it back. Is it only houses?

Rather than just repeat yourself and then people repeat the responses back at you how about writing the criteria and how you think it should work?

Your arguments are incoherent as you don't seem to acknowledge what is in place or understand what has already happened. Money from the government had nothing to do with debt write off so what is the point mentioning it as a reason for write offs?

strongback

D3PO wrote: »

.

Every bank loan was scrutinized and a minimum recovery value put on the debt. The bailouts covered the short fall. If the banks sells the houses for half their peak value they will walk away scot free. I know a former mortgage broker who off loaded all his properties a couple of years ago by selling them for the banks minimum recovery value, he walked away from substantial debt on multiple properties. He also knew the system.

Don't get me started on NAMA, while making a profit they have lost and destroyed billions of euros of property.


I'm not trying to encourage the OP to go bankrupt, in the thread I initially responded to what I felt is older peoples need to tell off a younger generation about irresponsibility when all they did was buy a bog standard house.

There is a medium between the views but at the moment peoples thoughts on this are significantly influenced by the level of debt they carry. As always in Ireland its a me fein attitude which means we miss out on many things we could achieve if we worked collectively. Going bankrupt is just another me fein decision but why not think of yourself first? its just the way we are.

jmayo

mrmitty wrote: »

I find it interesting that posters here want to 'tar and feather' the op and insist that he pay this debt in full.
It's true that he took on this debt and it's true that he should suffer as a result but the banks also entered into a business arrangement, should they not suffer at all for their bad decisions?
Seems to me that both parties should suffer equally, no?

Ehh who are the banks ?
Please answer that.

If you don't know and are having trouble here is a hint.

The Irish indigenous banks are the Irish taxpayers who own them and have guaranteed them.
Thus the banks are us.

strongback wrote: »

Nobody is looking to the government or the bank for a solution, that day has passed. People will seek insolvency, so the banks will take the hit, seems fair as they weren't irresponsible in their lending.

So you are going to declare bankruptcy because you are in negative equity and don't fancy repaying your debts.
Don't you think that normal bankruptcy rules apply like the one about your capability to repay your debts ?

strongback wrote: »

You can't stop anyone going insolvent, its written into EU law. If people go to the UK the banks take the hit. 16-17 months later they come home and start again with no conditions.

Do you seriously think that someone who has gone bankrupt, due to their property debts, can a couple of years later can go down to a financial institution and get another mortgage ?
It aint going to happen.

strongback wrote: »

You guys born in the 1960's had it all, so your pontificating falls on deaf ears.

Those born in the 60s got to experience Ireland in the 70s and 80s, where there weren't third level courses for every Tom, Dick and Mary, where to get off this island to go find a job meant saving for a very expensive plane ride (only from Dublin or Shannon mind) or taking a bus/boat and even then you might end up in Britain where being Irish meant you could be viewed as a terrorist, where you got to grow up in a society where contraception was illegal and then only available through doctors prescription, where divorce was something you saw in foriegn TV programs on one of the few channels you had on the TV, where the church ruled and abuse allegations were at most whispers that dare not be brought out into the light, where for most of their childhood and youth there was some news item every night detailing the latest attrocity happening a few miles up the road.

So please try and look up a bit of history before you start your sh**e about being lucky being born in the 60s.

Ray Palmer

strongback wrote: »

Every bank loan was scrutinized and a minimum recovery value put on the debt. The bailouts covered the short fall. If the banks sells the houses for half their peak value they will walk away scot free.

That isn't true, the money was not to write of mortgages but bad investment funds. They may have been property based funds but few were connected to Ireland. If you start with that faulty belief I can see where you end up but it is simply not what happened or how it applies. They lost the money elsewhere you are suggesting they lose more. How does that make economical sense.

strongback

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Not in Ireland, lots of people were. Did you see what tradesmen were charging?

Not sure where you are showing a 50/50 balance. You aren't say a 50% write off you are saying an entire write off of all debt for the person with the bank taking the entire hit.

It really doesn't matter what you think that is not the legal position here as you have been told repeatedly. The fact is it isn't even common in the world to write off debt in the manner you are saying. Wonder if you have some monetary tipping point where it no longer is the persons responsibility to pay it back. Is it only houses?

Rather than just repeat yourself and then people repeat the responses back at you how about writing the criteria and how you think it should work?

Your arguments are incoherent as you don't seem to acknowledge what is in place or understand what has already happened. Money from the government had nothing to do with debt write off so what is the point mentioning it as a reason for write offs?

The 50/50 I wrote of relates to the value of the house. Most houses are in the order of being worth 50% of their peak value at least as an average. The bank sells the house and recovers 50% of the mortgage through the sale and the remaining 50% is written off.

I know this idea absolutely infuriates anybody who has a small mortgage or none at all.

The other option is to take it out of the banks hands and just go bankrupt which still amounts to the same 50/50 arrangement for the bank. If the banks take the lead it saves some pain for the individual but as they don't seem to be able to act then bankruptcy is the only sensible option.

Also money from the government has everything to do with the debt. It's why Noonan has started talking tough with the banks and the repossessions proceedings are ramping up.

There is nothing incoherent about linking the fact that the goverment gave the banks a bailout to cover bad loans. The loans have been scrutinized over and over again and the banks can take the hit of nonpayment. The governments insolvency legislation allows for people not paying back their mortgages.

Some people still seem very naive about how this country is run.

The Spider

Op, been in a similar situation myself, missus bought a place, so I went and bought our house on my own, granted moved a bit outside Dublin and commute.

Tell your missus to apply for the mortgage, and don't volunteer any info about getting married, nobody's business but your own, see what she can get on one salary, buy what you can afford (important).

When you get married you both had assets each in your names, so they don't suddenly become shared, that way the family home won't be taken over if the apartment goes belly up.

Then start thinking about going for the debt writedown they're going to be given out, just play it up with the banks when the time is right.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/financial-services/debt-writedowns-on-agenda-in-central-bank-deal-with-lenders-1.1386655

strongback

Ray Palmer wrote: »

That isn't true, the money was not to write of mortgages but bad investment funds. They may have been property based funds but few were connected to Ireland. If you start with that faulty belief I can see where you end up but it is simply not what happened or how it applies. They lost the money elsewhere you are suggesting they lose more. How does that make economical sense.

I'm sorry but you are incorrect. The bailout money covered mortgage shortfalls as well. I don't have time now to dig out some info.

A minimum recovery value was placed on all loans.


You keep trying to derail my argument with spurious comments. I chose to debate politely.

GalwayMagpie

Beardyman wrote: »

I've sent them a couple if mails but if I want to meet anyone there's a minimum charge of €150. I understand they must be inundated with queries but if you've already sent on all of your financial details they must be able to state whether or not they can do anything for you before you start handing over money. I was just wondering if anyone actually had any experience of dealing with them?

So you don't wish to pay your debts, and your new wife certainly does not wish to be burdened by your various financial misdemeanors.

So you figure you will pawn it off on the taxpayer?

While you are at it, why not ask if they will give you a free holiday house by the beach in Spain.

D3PO

strongback wrote: »

The 50/50 I wrote of relates to the value of the house. Most houses are in the order of being worth 50% of their peak value at least as an average. The bank sells the house and recovers 50% of the mortgage through the sale and the remaining 50% is written off.

Sorry but that is a 100% write off.

I know this idea absolutely infuriates anybody who has a small mortgage or none at all.

The other option is to take it out of the banks hands and just go bankrupt which still amounts to the same 50/50 arrangement for the bank. If the banks take the lead it saves some pain for the individual but as they don't seem to be able to act then bankruptcy is the only sensible option.

Not correct. You go bankrupt all your assets will be taken and divided amongst your creditors, so all savings, your car etc. will be taken. As the bank will be your main or only creditor then they will get at least some of the difference back. So its not the same arrangement.

Also money from the government has everything to do with the debt. It's why Noonan has started talking tough with the banks and the repossessions proceedings are ramping up.

There is nothing incoherent about linking the fact that the goverment gave the banks a bailout to cover bad loans. The loans have been scrutinized over and over again and the banks can take the hit of nonpayment. The governments insolvency legislation allows for people not paying back their mortgages.

The government game a bailout to keep the banks solvent not to write off bad debts.

Some people still seem very naive about how this country is run.

Sorry but your the naive one here if you think that the banks will roll over whilst hundreds and thousands of people have their debts written off.

D3PO

strongback wrote: »

I'm sorry but you are incorrect. The bailout money covered mortgage shortfalls as well. I don't have time now to dig out some info.

A minimum recovery value was placed on all loans.


You keep trying to derail my argument with spurious comments. I chose to debate politely.

not ALL loans only on loans that were at risk. They didn't check every loan. That was part of an exercise in terms of knowing how much money they needs to provide the banks to keep them liquid.

It wasn't done so that all those loans were written down to the minimum recovery value.

It was not given to cover mortgage shortfalls, although they government did expect some pragmatic action from the banks which would in cases of loans being so far underwater that they would never be serviced to do something about it. In some cases this has happened but understandably the banks have been slow to do so freely as you can be guaranteed that if they were strategic defaults would go through the roof.

strongback

D3PO wrote: »

Sorry but your the naive one here if you think that the banks will roll over whilst hundreds and thousands of people have their debts written off.

The bank still owns the house and it has a value of approximately 50% of the cost of the mortgage or more. I was talking about the banks hit not the individuals.

Of course all assets are frozen in bankruptcy, I never inferred they wouldn't be.

The pain is the bankruptcy process and the aftermath. The governments alternative of an 8 year insolvency process does exactly the same thing as jumping ship to the UK. My point was why put people through bankruptcy when the problem can be dealt with more sensibly. The cost to the bank is no different as they still buy all the negative equity when a person goes bankrupt.


How do you keep a bank solvent that is crippled by bad debt. You bail out the bad debt, the biggest loan book in these banks was mortgages by a country mile.


This debate is going backwards.

strongback

D3PO wrote: »

not ALL loans only on loans that were at risk. They didn't check every loan. That was part of an exercise in terms of knowing how much money they needs to provide the banks to keep them liquid.

They bailed out the bad loans and put a minimum recovery value on properties, they did this in conjunction with NAMA. NAMA then bought the properties at a fraction of their worth thus ensuring a profit when they made a sale, it was ass covering of the highest order. I was involved as an employee with many properties what went this way .

It wasn't done so that all those loans were written down to the minimum recovery value.


It was all about a minimum recovery value with the government bailout making up the shortfall with banks trying to trade their way out of it if possible.

It was not given to cover mortgage shortfalls, although they government did expect some pragmatic action from the banks which would in cases of loans being so far underwater that they would never be serviced to do something about it. In some cases this has happened but understandably the banks have been slow to do so freely as you can be guaranteed that if they were strategic defaults would go through the roof.


It was given specifically to cover bad debt in the property market.

The government has the bad debt covered but they don't want to make it too easy for people who are chancing their arm trying to get a debt write down.

Scortho

strongback wrote: »

The bank still owns the house and it has a value of approximately 50% of the cost of the mortgage or more. I was talking about the banks hit not the individuals.

Of course all assets are frozen in bankruptcy, I never inferred they wouldn't be.

The pain is the bankruptcy process and the aftermath. The governments alternative of an 8 year insolvency process does exactly the same thing as jumping ship to the UK. My point was why put people through bankruptcy when the problem can be dealt with more sensibly. The cost to the bank is no different as they still buy all the negative equity when a person goes bankrupt.


How do you keep a bank solvent that is crippled by bad debt. You bail out the bad debt, the biggest loan book in these banks was mortgages by a country mile.


This debate is going backwards.

Because bankruptcy is the sentence that must me served in return for reneging on bad debts.i don't care if they do a mass bankruptcy or individual bankruptcy.
If a person is insolvent they go bankrupt. Their Debts are wiped and allowed to start again, BUT with certain restrictions attached.
Joe goes bankrupt and gets a clean slate to start again with restrictions attached. Mary honours her debt. Why shouldn't some classification be distinguished between Mary and joe?
Under the system you proposed joe would get a clean slate without any restrictions. Thus massive calls for everyone for the same clean slate.

Bankruptcy is and should only be for a person who is insolvent. Insolvent isn't losing 90% of an investment. Insolvent us being unable to meet debts as they fall due.

D3PO

your getting confused. NAMA didn't take Joe soaps loans onto their books, they took developers loans onto their books. NAMA bought these loans off the bank.

This is a regular banking transaction, banks package loans, CFD's and other financial instruments all the time. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with bailouts.

With all due respect if you were an employee on some of these transactions you should understand the mechanisms involved.