New Beginning?? Long term resolution for unwanted house.

D3PO

strongback wrote: »

......

you keep going on about manufacturing a default. Like this is a silver bullet for those pissed off with being in negative equity like its an easy solution.

Its not. Unless you are insolvent you cannot be come bankrupt, so by definition you cant manufacture an insolvent position from a solvent one without taking major pain with as many cons as there are pros.

If your insolvent, your insolvent become an insolvency tourist if you must that's fine, but don't for one minute think that somebody solvent can easily manufacture an insolvent position without lots of personal sacrifice's.

If you were solvent but were trying to manufacture insolvency that would likely involve giving up a job, upping sticks and moving country, losing all your assets (savings, cars, pension fund, furniture etc) hitting the reset button 18 months later and then moving back and trying to start again.

That's moving back with no job and no assets potentially having conditions imposed on you (unlikely it seems but its possible) and then starting again. Scrubbing years of

Great you have no neg equity but you have nothing else either. It might be less onerous than Irish bankruptcy but don't think for one second that its an easy way out because it isn't.

I really cant see the allure of this unless you are genuinely insolvent, wasting 2 years of your life and restarting from scratch like when you were 18 years old, with no prospect of owning a home for the forseeable future (if ever again) knowing that you have no pension outside of the old age pension to look forward to and whatever you manage to put into a private fund once you get back to a position to do so seems folly.

People are short sighted thinking of the now and not how this king of manufactured position will impact them in 10 , 20 or 30 years time. This is the same shortsighted thinking that got them in the financial situation they find themselves in now.

You would think they would learn....

mrmitty

jmayo wrote: »

You still have this cr** about cute hoor bankers.
The cute hoor bankers are gone, usually with nice pensions and lump sums.
The owners were decimated.
All that is left is the taxpayer holding the bill and you want to add even more to it.
Yeah really smart. :rolleyes:

But you jsut carry on with the typical cr** about "the bankers" and screwing them when it is yourself and every other taxpayer you are screwing..

Like I've stated, the banks are in the buisness of making loans, if there was no risk there would be no need to charge interest other than to hedge for inflation and for profit. The need for risk management would be unnecessary.
Banks should not be treated any differently than you or I. The rules should be the same regardless and as such they should suffer the losses too.
It is irrevelant who owns them but since you brought the subject up, I'd like to paraphrase a famous quote, "we tend to get the government we deserve"

D3PO

The Spider wrote: »

Now truthfully tell me if you were told that new government policy meant that your debt was halved would you be happy?

Nobody could say there weren't. If they did they would be lying. That doesn't mean its the right thing though and couldn't be done without impacting those who didn't have debt or didn't cause this problem.

Why should they pay extra so I or anybody else can get what amounts to a bag of money for nothing ?

jmayo

The Spider wrote: »

Well not really, I haven't advocated doing anything illegal I've said do a deal with the banks, perfectly legal, as in take as much as they give you.

Well it might be seen as fraud where you are claiming insolvency when you are not ?
So you see nothing wrong with the likes of john o'donoghue wasting taxpayers money on junkets to racemeetings around Europe or getting a chauffeur to transfer him between terminals in Heathrow ?
Or roddy molloy flying his wife first class around the world thanks to Fás ?
They did nothing illegal.

And people wonder why crooked gombeen politicans are voted back into office time and again.
These politicans and public servants must be your heroes.

I also have to say I would not want to be your employer.

The Spider wrote: »

Nothing to do with civic pride, it annoys me when people think that individuals getting a deal on their debts is somehow going to mean everyone is hospital is going to end up on a trolley. We all know that's not what it's about, irish people are begrudgers and don't like the idea of someones debts being written off, they'd rather see them suffer forever.

Where in your little world does the money for the mortgage bailouts come from ?
You do know it has to come from somewhere and in the case of the Irish banks that is ultimately the taxpayers and that ultimately means there is less money to spend on other things.

Did you state somewhere you did a third level course in economics ?

The Spider wrote: »

Yes I know we own the banks, etc. etc. However this has nothing to do with that people are using it as something to hang their opinion on and as the reason why there shouldn't be writedowns, but as has been pointed out before when the banks got their bailout writedowns were factored in, how could they not be?

Were writedowns for all the residential mortgage debts that are in default or arrears (nevermind the ones linked to negative equity) factored in ?
And even if it was factored in, that money was not drawn down AFAIK which means if we don't have to use it then we shopuldn't add the extra expense.

The Spider wrote: »

It stands to reason that if the financial experts screwed up with their lending then it logically follows that they gave too much to people who couldn't afford it.

Nope all this stems from people who didn't buy and now don't want the people who did, to 'get away with it' while they waited around renting. A more valid argument is moral hazard as opposed to 'oh no our poor taxes!'

So making the taxpayer responsible for more debt will have no affect on current budget or more particularly the budget deficit and by extension taxes/cuts ?

The Spider wrote: »

But ultimately there has to be writedowns for the economy to function, if someone is paying off a loan, and ok they can cover it, but they can't do much else, that money is not going into the economy, it's essentially going to pay a debt that's already covered by the bailout.

Where do you get this sh**, you are continuing to allude to fact that all debts are covered by the bailout ?
Please point us to that gem.

Oh and did it ever cross your mind that if we don't use some of the money allocated through the bailout it means we have to repay less money to Troika, etc ?

The Spider wrote: »

Nah you lads just don't like the idea of someone being left off even if they can't afford it, newsflash it happens every day of the week between businesses and people with other loans.

Have you failed to notice that the businesses and their owners then carry that loss ?
You do know that we the taxpayers are now basically the owners of the Irish banks ?

Anyway I give up at this stage, life is too short to be arguing with some people.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Here we go LINK

Speaking about the devil, there is a related article in today's Independent. People who attempt to manufacture a way of getting a debt deal will be prosecuted.

People who deliberately don't pay mortgages will be prosecuted

Charlie Weston, Personal Finance Editor – 14 May 2013

PEOPLE who deliberately do not pay their mortgages in the hope of securing debt deals will be prosecuted, the head of the new insolvency service said.

So-called strategic defaulters face fines of up to €10,000 or could end up being jailed for five years, head of the Insolvency Service Lorcan O’Connor said.

Some estimates has put the numbers who are not paying their mortgages, even though they have the funds, as high as one of third of the numbers in arrears on residential and buy-to-let arrears.

There are almost 100,000 residential mortgages in arrears of three months or more and 28,400 investor mortgages where payments are not up to date.

Mr O’Connor said that if some of these people are choosing not to pay in the hope that they can avail of one of the new insolvency deals he will pursue them.

He told the Bloomberg news service: “There is anecdotal evidence that in some cases people have been either preferring certain creditors over others or adopting a strategic default.

“It’s incumbent on the service to ensure we are strict and protect the integrity of the 99pc of cases that are genuine.”

The insolvency service is due to get up and running next month when people will be able to apply for debt write-off deals. But these people will face a clampdown on their spending, if they are to get a deal.

jmayo

mrmitty wrote: »

Like I've stated, the banks are in the buisness of making loans, if there was no risk there would be no need to charge interest other than to hedge for inflation and for profit. The need for risk management would be unnecessary.
Banks should not be treated any differently than you or I. The rules should be the same regardless and as such they should suffer the losses too.
It is irrevelant who owns them but since you brought the subject up, I'd like to paraphrase a famous quote, "we tend to get the government we deserve"

Ehhh hello.

So you are going to punish "the banks" and make them suffer losses even though you realise you will in affect be punishing it's owners, which happens to be the taxpayers and probably even include yourself as a citizen even if not a taxpayer ?

Ever hear of that other famous quote "cutting off your nose to spite your face" ?

With your logic I can see how we got our governments.
I am outta here now.

strongback

D3PO wrote: »

you keep going on about manufacturing a default. Like this is a silver bullet for those pissed off with being in negative equity like its an easy solution.

Its not. Unless you are insolvent you cannot be come bankrupt, so by definition you cant manufacture an insolvent position from a solvent one without taking major pain with as many cons as there are pros.

If your insolvent, your insolvent become an insolvency tourist if you must that's fine, but don't for one minute think that somebody solvent can easily manufacture an insolvent position without lots of personal sacrifice's.

If you were solvent but were trying to manufacture insolvency that would likely involve giving up a job, upping sticks and moving country, losing all your assets (savings, cars, pension fund, furniture etc) hitting the reset button 18 months later and then moving back and trying to start again.

That's moving back with no job and no assets potentially having conditions imposed on you (unlikely it seems but its possible) and then starting again. Scrubbing years of

Great you have no neg equity but you have nothing else either. It might be less onerous than Irish bankruptcy but don't think for one second that its an easy way out because it isn't.

I really cant see the allure of this unless you are genuinely insolvent, wasting 2 years of your life and restarting from scratch like when you were 18 years old, with no prospect of owning a home for the forseeable future (if ever again) knowing that you have no pension outside of the old age pension to look forward to and whatever you manage to put into a private fund once you get back to a position to do so seems folly.

People are short sighted thinking of the now and not how this king of manufactured position will impact them in 10 , 20 or 30 years time. This is the same shortsighted thinking that got them in the financial situation they find themselves in now.

You would think they would learn....

Depending on the type of pension you hold it may not be effected by insolvency.

Believe it or not the primary residence is not considered in a UK insolvency case so some people are trying to keep their house in Ireland, more the developer types that is though.


Most people heading for insolvency will sell all their assets for cash before everything is frozen so that means cars, belongings, anything they own really.

Another believe it or not is that it is still possible to work in the South while living in the North going through a bankruptcy.

Job's are transient nowadays, unless its a state job, and nobody asks in an interview for a staff job whether you have been bankrupt before. In fact some business people believe that you aren't worth your salt if you haven't gone bankrupt at least one.

Renting and not having a big mortgage will be a relief for a lot of people. Buying a house outright without a mortgage is always an option down the road.

Anyway if a person is in a secure job for 5 years and keeping their nose clean I can't see why they wouldn't be lent money again. Look at Iceland.

D3PO

strongback wrote: »

Depending on the type of pension you hold it may not be effected by insolvency.

What pension is not effected by insolvency ??

Believe it or not the primary residence is not considered in a UK insolvency case so some people are trying to keep their house in Ireland, more the developer types that is though.

All your assets and financial interested must be listed as part of the proceeding. The residence will be used to pay your creditors there is no way around this without fraudulently siging it over to somebody else. Is that what your suggesting people do whilst manufacturing an insolvency position ?


Most people heading for insolvency will sell all their assets for cash before everything is frozen so that means cars, belongings, anything they own really.

That's fraud. Are you advocating people do this ?

Another believe it or not is that it is still possible to work in the South while living in the North going through a bankruptcy.

It is enjoy driving from Newry to Dublin daily in a clapped out 95 D piece of junk the courts let you keep, to earn a pittance as everything above what the court deems you need to live on is kept to pay your creditors

Job's are transient nowadays, unless its a state job, and nobody asks in an interview for a staff job whether you have been bankrupt before. In fact some business people believe that you aren't worth your salt if you haven't gone bankrupt at least one.

Renting and not having a big mortgage will be a relief for a lot of people. Buying a house outright without a mortgage is always an option down the road.

Anyway if a person is in a secure job for 5 years and keeping their nose clean I can't see why they wouldn't be lent money again. Look at Iceland.

Yeah they could but is it worth it ? They lose 5 years of potential capital payoffs on their mortgage to instead invest that money in rent so that's an initial cost, they are also likely to find borrowing harder and as a result are likely if they do have the ability to have a higher interest rate to face on any new mortgage, plus increased payments as their age will now dictate a shorter mortgage term if they are lucky enough to get one

God why don't we all do that sounds brilliant.

strongback

Daniel Yellow Airplane wrote: »

Here we go LINK

Speaking about the devil, there is a related article in today's Independent. People who attempt to manufacture a way of getting a debt deal will be prosecuted.

He has to talk big but how is he going to police it? How does he know what somebody has under their mattress?

The other point is most people aren't going to look for his 8 year insolvency when it can be done in 17 months in the UK.

D3PO

strongback wrote: »

He has to talk big but how is he going to police it? How does he know what somebody has under their mattress?

.

Oh don't think that there wont be a heap of tip offs. Id shop my neighbours in a heartbeat if for all intense and purpose they were stealing from me.

There would be a nice financial reward for it too no doubt.

Ray Palmer

strongback wrote: »

He has to talk big but how is he going to police it? How does he know what somebody has under their mattress?

The other point is most people aren't going to look for his 8 year insolvency when it can be done in 17 months in the UK.

Yeah the families of 4-5 people are going to easily up sticks and do that. Or is this another indication where joined up thinking doesn't match with what you are saying?

I'd shop people for it along with dole cheats no difference.

strongback

D3PO wrote: »

God why don't we all do that sounds brilliant.

This is what I have been told:

Not all pensions are frozen or touched. It depends on the type of pension as to whether it can be seized. I would have to research this for myself but I have no reason not to believe this.

UK Insolvency is not concerned with the primary residency. Granted the debt most people from Ireland will be trying to escape is the mortgage on their primary residence. In the UK they go bankrupt owing a few thousand so the house is left out of it.


People going bankrupt have been known to commit fraud and quite frequently. It's hard to come after a big roll of cash hidden in an old shoe. I've been fairly badly stung myself for more than 6 months wages by a company that went bankrupt.


You could get the train from Newry to Dublin or buy a cheap Northern yoke. Who really cares what they drive for 17 months when they are escaping hundreds of thousands of euro of debt.


The only law being broken in what I have said above is the selling of assets knowing you are insolvent which is a fairly serious offence and rightly so.

D3PO

strongback wrote: »

This is what I have been told:

Not all pensions are frozen or touched. It depends on the type of pension as to whether it can be seized. I would have to research this for myself but I have no reason not to believe this.

Whoever told you this is wrong. This is absolutely not the case.

UK Insolvency is not concerned with the primary residency. Granted the debt most people from Ireland will be trying to escape is the mortgage on their primary residence. In the UK they go bankrupt owing a few thousand so the house is left out of it.

primary residence doesn't matter. Assets matter in a bankruptcy hearing of which you must disclose all of. Not just UK assess all of them. The house, bank accounts and ever other asset will be liquidated to pay creditors.

People going bankrupt have been known to commit fraud and quite frequently. It's hard to come after a big roll of cash hidden in an old shoe. I've been fairly badly stung myself for more than 6 months wages by a company that went bankrupt.

Not if vigilant neighbors shop you, which will happen in a lot of cases.

You could get the train from Newry to Dublin or buy a cheap Northern yoke. Who really cares what they drive for 17 months when they are escaping hundreds of thousands of euro of debt.

4 - 5 hours of commuting a day for 18 months. Im sure people will be delighted by the prospect.

The only law being broken in what I have said above is the selling of assets knowing you are insolvent which is a fairly serious offence and rightly so.

Exactly and if people do it I hope they get caught and screwed for maximum effect.

.

strongback

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Yeah the families of 4-5 people are going to easily up sticks and do that. Or is this another indication where joined up thinking doesn't match with what you are saying?

I'd shop people for it along with dole cheats no difference.

I'd kindly ask you not to get personal in your responses. I do not want to go down this road as I have already earned a red card and a yellow card in this thread answering back your personally orientated comments.


If people are desperate they will move to the UK. People stepped onto coffin ships.

The Spider

Not all neighbours would grass their neighbours up, believe it or not, they may even be friends.

Some people aren't even curtain twitchers watching what others may or may not be doing.

I know plenty of people working and on the dole, I've no itention of telling anyone. I've paid people cash because I know they're signing on, it's cheaper.

Oh and a side note it's an hour and 10 minutes each way to Newry, very doable.

Ray Palmer

strongback wrote: »

I'd kindly ask you not to get personal in your responses. I do not want to go down this road as I have already earned a red card and a yellow card in this thread answering back your personally orientated comments.


If people are desperate they will move to the UK. People stepped onto coffin ships.

That was your behaviour not mine.

As has been done before the banks will dispute residency and void the bankruptcy declaration of the UK. It isn't as easy as you are making out

Ray Palmer

The Spider wrote: »

Not all neighbours would grass their neighbours up, believe it or not, they may even be friends.

Some people aren't even curtain twitchers watching what others may or may not be doing.

I know plenty of people working and on the dole, I've no itention of telling anyone. I've paid people cash because I know they're signing on, it's cheaper.

Oh and a side note it's an hour and 10 minutes each way to Newry, very doable.

So you are advocating illegal behaviour. 70% of those shopped in the social welfare are by close family.

Luckily a larger part of the population rightly see this as a civic duty.

Court declarations can be overturned and criminal cases can be brought for fraud. If they did it to people for Ansbacker accounts they can do it again years later for false claims of insolvency.

The Spider

Ray Palmer wrote: »

So you are advocating illegal behaviour. 70% of those shopped in the social welfare are by close family.

Luckily a larger part of the population rightly see this as a civic duty.

Court declarations can be overturned and criminal cases can be brought for fraud. If they did it to people for Ansbacker accounts they can do it again years later for false claims of insolvency.

70% of what though, how many cases out of people working on the dole have actually been grassed up on?

Don't think it's that many to be honest, loads of people are on the dole and have the odd nixer here and there.

I honestly don't think a larger part of the population see it as a civic duty, you may be deluded....may be!

D3PO

The Spider wrote: »

Not all neighbours would grass their neighbours up, believe it or not, they may even be friends.

Some people aren't even curtain twitchers watching what others may or may not be doing.

I know plenty of people working and on the dole, I've no itention of telling anyone. I've paid people cash because I know they're signing on, it's cheaper.

Oh and a side note it's an hour and 10 minutes each way to Newry, very doable.

Friends don't screw their friends over. A neighbour committing fraud either dole or insolvency isn't a friend.

Good to know your happy to support people screwing the system though, makes it understandable why you believe in unjustifiable write downs. Your true colours really showing now though.

Hope you use that money you saved on cash in hand jobs to fix your moral compass as it seems a bit faulty to me.

The Spider

D3PO wrote: »

Friends don't screw their friends over. A neighbour committing fraud either dole or insolvency isn't a friend.

Good to know your happy to support people screwing the system though, makes it understandable why you believe in unjustifiable write downs. Your true colours really showing now though.

Hope you use that money you saved on cash in hand jobs to fix your moral compass as it seems a bit faulty to me.

How moral of you, so you'd go and grass up a friend if you heard he was on social welfare but the chance to make a bit of cash arose and he took it?

You'd seriously grass him up, friends don't need friends like you!

Oh and I think the line in bols above is missing a comma, I had to read it twice :eek:

Ray Palmer

The Spider wrote: »

70% of what though, how many cases out of people working on the dole have actually been grassed up on?

Don't think it's that many to be honest, loads of people are on the dole and have the odd nixer here and there.

I honestly don't think a larger part of the population see it as a civic duty, you may be deluded....may be!

There is about 200 every week who are shopped. 70% of those caught are shopped by family. It is quite funny reading them as they come in as they shop them for everything in one go, like social welfare is the police. The other people who report them tend to be close friends. It is quite secure so people never know who did it. No uncommon to see to family members shop each other on the same day.

Just to be clear you are advocating illegal behaviour.

I would think the vast majority of people think dole cheats should be reported. I know if you are in poorer social economic circles you won't be inclined to or aware outside of that circle that others have no problem doing it.

um7y1h83ge06nx

The way this thread is panning out posters will be advocating everything - manufacturing synthetic drugs, money laundering. :rolleyes:

The fact of the matter is that in order for the OP to get out of all this he needs to basically engage in fraud, making himself appear insolvent when he's not preferably by converting his assets first to cash and hiding said cash. That's full-on fraud.

D3PO

The Spider wrote: »

How moral of you, so you'd go and grass up a friend if you heard he was on social welfare but the chance to make a bit of cash arose and he took it?

You'd seriously grass him up, friends don't need friends like you!

Oh and I think the line in bols above is missing a comma, I had to read it twice :eek:

yes its missing a comma. You knew exactly what I was saying.

Id grass up anybody who is scamming the system. No friend of mine would screw me over that way. Yes money they are stealing from he taxpayer includes you and me and everybody else.

valleyoftheunos

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

OP stay away from the likes of Newbeginings, they will do you no favours and happily take your money. If you want genuine advice about your fiance's legal position go see a solicitor.

+ a good experienced accountant.

strongback

D3PO wrote: »

.

If the pension is HMRC approved "in remains outside the bankrupts estate"

Look to Page 2 of this UK government guide at the bottom of the page for the rule on pensions in bankruptcy.

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/insolvency/docs/publication-pdfs/pension.pdf



I can also tell you for a cast iron fact that it is possible to keep a primary residence, even one in Ireland, following UK insolvency. Go to http://www.bis.gov.uk/insolvency for more details.

Ray Palmer

strongback wrote: »

I can also tell you for a cast iron fact that it is possible to keep a primary residence, even one in Ireland, following UK insolvency. Go to http://www.bis.gov.uk/insolvency for more details.

Care to point us to where exactly this vague statement is shown to be true.

I'd guess it is to do with inherited property that has been in families but curious what cast iron possibilities there are.

D3PO

strongback wrote: »

If the pension is HMRC approved "in remains outside the bankrupts estate"

Look to Page 2 of this UK government guide at the bottom of the page for the rule on pensions in bankruptcy.

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/insolvency/docs/publication-pdfs/pension.pdf



I can also tell you for a cast iron fact that it is possible to keep a primary residence, even one in Ireland, following UK insolvency. Go to http://www.bis.gov.uk/insolvency for more details.

In Irish pension will not be HMRC approved.

I'm not going to wade through that second link. You are however delusional if you think somebody can go bankrupt and keep their Irish home that is in arrears.

Ray Palmer

D3PO wrote: »

In Irish pension will not be HMRC approved.

I'm not going to wade through that second link. You are however delusional if you think somebody can go bankrupt and keep their Irish home that is in arrears.

In fairness it may well be. EU law being what it is along with agreements made in the Good Friday agreement could make it HMRC approved without being fully approved if that makes sense.

strongback

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Care to point us to where exactly this vague statement is shown to be true.

I'd guess it is to do with inherited property that has been in families but curious what cast iron possibilities there are.

What happens if no-one buys the
interest in the property?

It remains with the official receiver or trustee,
but only for a certain period (see below). It
does not return to you on your discharge
from bankruptcy. The value of the interest
may increase over time if the market value of
your home increases.

The benefit of any increase in value will go
to the official receiver or trustee to pay your
debts, even if the home is sold some time
after you have been discharged. You and
your family will have to move out if the home
has to be sold to pay your creditors.

9
If, on the third anniversary of your
bankruptcy, your home has not been sold,
your interest in the property will usually be
returned to you.

For this to happen the home has to be the
main residence of:

• you; or
• your spouse or former spouse; or
• your civil partner or former civil partner.

The exceptions to this are:
• if your trustee has applied for an order for sale of the house;
• if your trustee has applied for an order of possession for the house;
• if your trustee has applied for an order imposing a charge on the
house; or
• if you and the trustee agree that you will incur a specified liability in respect
of the interest in the property.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/pdfs/guidanceleafletspdf/home.pdf

D3PO

strongback wrote: »

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/pdfs/guidanceleafletspdf/home.pdf

gimme a break you think any bank / creditor wouldn't sell the asset in three years .... id call that seriously clutching at straws.