Eviction drama

beauf

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Cashflow is a huge issue for many small businesses, which you can classify many landlords as. It's equally a similar problem for others who are not getting paid on time by their customers. Unless you feel that anyone engaging in any firm of business should have a huge stash of cash behind them.

You'd have to have a certain amount of cash to operate.

A lot of small business'es are non longer offering credit and insist on cash up front because of these delays.

djimi

The Spider wrote: »

A mortgage holder owns their property and are paying back a loan to the bank. The bank doesn't own the house and can't kick the owner out if they don't pay their loan, they can go to court and get court orders etc.

Thats not entirely true though, is it? The bank owns the property until the mortgage has been paid.

drumswan

The Spider wrote: »

A mortgage holder owns their property and are paying back a loan to the bank. The bank doesn't own the house and can't kick the owner out if they don't pay their loan, they can go to court and get court orders etc.

What? The bank holds the deed to the house until the mortgage is paid off in full.

P. Breathnach

djimi wrote: »

Thats not entirely true though, is it? The bank owns the property until the mortgage has been paid.

That's not entirely true, though, is it? The bank does not own the property: it has a charge on the property. An owner has the right to decide who lives there (self, or tenants, or nobody); the bank cannot give somebody the keys and a licence to move in.

Scortho

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's not entirely true, though, is it? The bank does not own the property: it has a charge on the property.

And if you fail to keep up repayments they can take that property.

drumswan

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's not entirely true, though, is it? The bank does not own the property: it has a charge on the property.

Can you clarify the difference? Whats to stop everyone from stopping mortgage payments if they already own their house?

zl1whqvjs75cdy

I think in effect the house is security against the normally large loan you get for a house. So the bank does not own the property, you do but the house acts as collateral in the event that you don't pay back the money you owe.

The Spider

drumswan wrote: »

What? The bank holds the deed to the house until the mortgage is paid off in full.

A mortgage has what is known as Lien against it.

"In a typical lien, a debtor who owns property gives the lender the right to take the property if the debtor should default on the loan. Liens do not represent absolute ownership; the lien holder typically has no right to take possession of the property until default occurs."

So the bank can take repossession, but will have to go to court to do so.

beauf

jmayo wrote: »

...One rule for some I guess.
If only those defaulting on mortgages could be turfed out like tenants who don't pay.

If you could, would you get a mortgage, would anyone?

But turn the question around, how long and how much of a debt do you think should be allowed for a tenant?

Who pays for it?

P. Breathnach

drumswan wrote: »

Can you clarify the difference? Whats to stop everyone from stopping mortgage payments if they already own their house?

The fact that the lender has a charge on the property. That has a number of effects, the most important being:
- it prevents the owner selling the property without the permission of the party holding the charge (usually that means making an arrangement to clear any loan outstanding);
- it allows the lender apply to the court for possession of the property if the borrower does not keep to whatever arrangements have been made for repayment of the loan;
- it makes it difficult (but not impossible) for the borrower to raise another loan secured on the property.

P. Breathnach

Scortho wrote: »

And if you fail to keep up repayments they can take that property.

Only after getting the requisite court order. In general, the courts are reluctant to give such an order if the borrower is making an honest and reasonable attempt to make repayments. Where they do give an order for possession, it is fairly usual to grant a stay of several months.

I suspect that if a person simply stopped making payments, it would take more than a year, perhaps much more, before the lender actually got possession of the property.

The_Conductor

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Only after getting the requisite court order. In general, the courts are reluctant to give such an order if the borrower is making an honest and reasonable attempt to make repayments. Where they do give an order for possession, it is fairly usual to grant a stay of several months.

I suspect that if a person simply stopped making payments, it would take more than a year, perhaps much more, before the lender actually got possession of the property.

Under the revised guidance to lenders, and the Personal Insolvency Act (which is taking registrations for the first time today)- this is likely to be greatly hastened. The era of it taking months or even years- should, if all goes according to plan, be behind us.

We need to get a normally functioning market in place, as quickly as possible- as the current quagmire is destroying the country and encouraging our brightest and best hopes for the future- to get the hell out of here.

lima

The_Conductor wrote: »

Under the revised guidance to lenders, and the Personal Insolvency Act (which is taking registrations for the first time today)- this is likely to be greatly hastened. The era of it taking months or even years- should, if all goes according to plan, be behind us.

We need to get a normally functioning market in place, as quickly as possible- as the current quagmire is destroying the country and encouraging our brightest and best hopes for the future- to get the hell out of here.

I will certainly be looking forward to Repossessed houses coming on to the market soon. Been waiting for ages now (I have no interest in SCD as I am from North Dublin)

lima

The Spider wrote: »

Here is the difference in a nutshell, a tenant pays for a service, if they don't pay for the service then they can't expect to use it. Much in the same way if I stay in a hotel, I have to pay to stay there, when I don't pay I'm turfed out.

A mortgage holder owns their property and are paying back a loan to the bank. The bank doesn't own the house and can't kick the owner out if they don't pay their loan, they can go to court and get court orders etc.

A mortgage holder has more than likely put down a hefty deposit and paid off a chunk of their loan, depending on how long they've had their house.

Renter doesn't pay rent = gerrrout
Lodger doesn't pay for a night in a hotel = gerrout
Mortgage holder doesn't pay mortgage = gerrout

I don't see the difference in any of the above

The_Conductor

lima wrote: »

I will certainly be looking forward to Repossessed houses coming on to the market soon. Been waiting for ages now (I have no interest in SCD as I am from North Dublin)

Its more probably West Dublin and commuter counties- than SCD

beauf

You must carry around 10k in your pocket exactly the same as €10 if you treat all money the same regardless of the amount.

Ray Palmer

lima wrote: »

Renter doesn't pay rent = gerrrout
Lodger doesn't pay for a night in a hotel = gerrout
Mortgage holder doesn't pay mortgage = gerrout

I don't see the difference in any of the above

Because
1 Renters can't be kicked out easily
2 A customer in a hotel can be kicked out very easily
3 Mortgage holder can't be kicked out easily either

So the difference would be pretty obvious. Where you call home is important legally which seems sensible.

How long now have you been waiting for repossessions? Were you one of the people saying you would buy once the bubble burst?

lima

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Because
1 Renters can't be kicked out easily
2 A customer in a hotel can be kicked out very easily
3 Mortgage holder can't be kicked out easily either

So the difference would be pretty obvious. Where you call home is important legally which seems sensible.

How long now have you been waiting for repossessions? Were you one of the people saying you would buy once the bubble burst?

I emigrated 2004-2011 but thankfully I got a decent job offer so I returned. Watched the boom from afar but never wanted to buy in Ireland as was never sure that I would come home.

Based on that, I pretty much have no emotional connection with anyone else here apart from family/friends so I can't buy into the sob stories of people being 'put onto the street' for not paying their mortgages. From my view, there are people not paying their ways and are living for free who should be removed from their properties and their houses put up for sale by the banks, simple as. I just can't buy into the sense of entitlement Irish people have with feeling they are entitled to remain in their homes even though they are not paying for them, especially when they play the kids/suicide card. Maybe it's the same in some other countries but that still doesn't make it right

djimi

lima wrote: »

I emigrated 2004-2011 but thankfully I got a decent job offer so I returned. Watched the boom from afar but never wanted to buy in Ireland as was never sure that I would come home.

Based on that, I pretty much have no emotional connection with anyone else here apart from family/friends so I can't buy into the sob stories of people being 'put onto the street' for not paying their mortgages. From my view, there are people not paying their ways and are living for free who should be removed from their properties and their houses put up for sale by the banks, simple as. I just can't buy into the sense of entitlement Irish people have with feeling they are entitled to remain in their homes even though they are not paying for them, especially when they play the kids/suicide card. Maybe it's the same in some other countries but that still doesn't make it right

I find it very hard to get on board with your point of view when it is very obvious from reading your posts that your primary motivation for feeling this way is because you want to buy a cheap house. I wonder if you would display such a lack of empathy if the shoe was on the other foot and if, after buying your house, you suddenly found yourself in a situation where you could not afford to pay the mortgage repayments?

Ultimately a mortgage in arrears is between the lender and their customer. I think its right and fair that someone in arrears be given time to sort themselves out, and its up to the lender to set their tolerance level when it comes to how long to allow someone remain in arrears before they move to take decisive action. I know that with state owned banks its only natural that the tax payer is going to want to see mortgages that are in arrears get sorted quickly as the longer they remain in that state that more money they cost us all, but a balance has to be found.

Just to be clear, Im not suggesting that people should be allowed to remain in a property indefinitely when they are not paying their mortgage, nor am I trying to defend those who cant/wont pay their mortgages. I just get the impression that you feel that it should be a case of pay or get out, much like it is when renting, which is not something that I can support.

gaius c

Mr.Mackey wrote: »

I have never claimed rent allowance, when I approached the Community Welfare Officer back when I lost my job, I was screamed out of the office and told I wasn't entitled to anything, I think they say this to everyone.

Mr.Mackey wrote: »

Hi,

We're currently 3 months behind with our rent over various months not together. The landlord came to the house shouting and screaming tonight, I completely agree with him and do wish we could pay.

Do you find that everybody in life screams at you a lot?
You're not exaggerating for effect by any chance?

jmayo

beauf wrote: »

If you could, would you get a mortgage, would anyone?

But turn the question around, how long and how much of a debt do you think should be allowed for a tenant?

Who pays for it?

Why oh why do people assume that because one states one thing that they are automatically pro or anti something else ?

Just because I firmly believe mortgage holders (including landlords) should not be allowed stay in property they are not repaying loans on and where they continue to get the benefit of that proeprty, do you seem to assume I am pro tenants staying in property they are not paying for ?

If someone misses a couple of months rent then they should be fair game to be turfed out.
And depending on history missing one month may suffice.
As others have said the tenant is getting a service and if they are not paying for it then it ends.
The process of eviction should not be siomething that takes months or even years.
Similarly if the tenants are misbehaving (i.e. anti social, etc).
And on the other side a landlord should not have the right to just turf people out who have been paying their rent and behaving.
Oh and a third party should keep the tenants deposits and none of this very Irish sh**e of landlords finding any excuse under the sun to not pay or drag out repayment over many months.

The Irish rental market needs to be hugley overhauled for the benefit of all.
There are too many cowboy non professional landlords and on the other side there are too many tenants that don't deserve a pigsty.
I would even subscribe to some form of register where both tenants and landlords could see what they are getting.

Back to mortgage holders ...
Yes I know a mortgage holder is different, but in Ireland it seems they are considered by some to be above the normal rules of lending and deserve to keep their asset (and yes it is an asset as well as maybe a home) no matter how much they owe or how little they are engaging with the people who granted them the mortgage.
Just because your property has an outstanding loan greater than it's current value does not mean you no longer should have to repay your loan.
Just because you have lost your job or your other half has left does not mean your loan has gone away.
Some Irish people aactually appear to think that because their property investment (even if it is your home for your family of ten for eternity it is still an investment) has turned pear shaped they get to walk and basically somebody else gets stuck with their debts.
Sorry that aint how it works around here and the rest of us sane people are not willing to pony up for your debts.

If you buy something (be it asset, service, etc) and refuse to or cannot pay for it, then tough sh** you lose it.
I don't see how it is hard to understand that concept.

Ray Palmer

gaius c wrote: »

Do you find that everybody in life screams at you a lot?
You're not exaggerating for effect by any chance?

I find it incredible to believe somebody in HSE/DSP would scream at anybody. There would be uproar from the other people working there is the most basic element.

beauf

jmayo wrote: »

...Just because I firmly believe mortgage holders (including landlords) should not be allowed stay in property they are not repaying loans on and where they continue to get the benefit of that proeprty, do you seem to assume I am pro tenants staying in property they are not paying for ?...

This

jmayo wrote: »

...One rule for some I guess.
If only those defaulting on mortgages could be turfed out like tenants who don't pay.

I took that to mean, that you can turf out tenants quicker than you can someone with a mortgage.

However this comment suggests you think it takes a long time to evict tenants also.

jmayo wrote: »

...If someone misses a couple of months rent then they should be fair game to be turfed out.
And depending on history missing one month may suffice.
As others have said the tenant is getting a service and if they are not paying for it then it ends.
The process of eviction should not be siomething that takes months or even years....

So if it takes a long time for both, how is one treated differently to the other?

Potatoeman

beauf wrote: »

This



I took that to mean, that you can turf out tenants quicker than you can someone with a mortgage.

However this comment suggests you think it takes a long time to evict tenants also.



So if it takes a long time for both, how is one treated differently to the other?

Dont mortgage holders get two years of nonpayment before eviction and even partial payment can extend this? Renters dont get anywhere near that.

I think a large part of the mentality behind this is that many have friends or family leasing property and would not want them dealing with nonpaying tennants. Where the bank are a faceless organisation.

D3PO

beauf wrote: »

So if it takes a long time for both, how is one treated differently to the other?

Are you really asking that question ? :eek::eek:

If a toerag non paying tenant doesn't pay and digs their heels in they may cause a LL to default, wreck his credit rating, cause them unreal levels of financial stress and put them in a position where there family home might be put in jepordy.

The tenant has no stress they will just move somewhere else, they get away with things scott free essentially.

And the chances of ever getting that money after finally securing an eviction are non existant.

If somebody defaults on their mortgage they will eventually be repossessed and still bear the debt and penalties accrued after the property is sold. Granted a deal may be done in that regard but to try and compare the two situations and say they are the same is a joke.

If you pay for a service you pay for it otherwise you shouldn't get it.

Nobody says people should be allowed stay in their houses and not pay their mortgage but this belief that some people have that this is the case that just because they accept the mechanisms for either should be different is completely wrong.

D3PO

Potatoeman wrote: »

Dont mortgage holders get two years of nonpayment before eviction and even partial payment can extend this? Renters dont get anywhere near that.

Tell me of any tenant you know that has failed to pay their rent been evicted and then paid back all they owed.

I cant

Tell me of any homeowner who has been repossessed that has had to keep the balance owed and pay it back.

I can for this.

So why are you comparing apples with oranges ?

jmayo

beauf wrote: »

This

I took that to mean, that you can turf out tenants quicker than you can someone with a mortgage.

However this comment suggests you think it takes a long time to evict tenants also.

So if it takes a long time for both, how is one treated differently to the other?

Yes it can take overly long to turf out problem or non paying tenants, more so if landlord does not follow strict guidelines.

But I don't think you will find tenants in a property after 3 or more years of non payment.
It might take a year or more, but nothing like as long as some mortgage holders have currently being sitting in properties they are not paying for.

Look at the timeline involved in some of the forced removals of mortgage defaulters that have made the headlines of late.

You ask "how is one treated differently to the other"

One is treated differently in terms of media and public sentiment.
A tenant that wont or cant pay is seen as a problem.
In fact one pro bailout pro welching on one's debts poster see them as a possible problem for landlords who might have their credit history damaged.
Yet AFAIk the same poster has advised people not to bother repaying their debts to banks, some of which we the taxpayers own.

Mortgage holders who wont or cant pay are seen as victims of bad banks, bad bankers, misleading brokers and self seeking politicans.
You have people championing their fight to remain in "their homes".
It appears that only mortgage hodlers have homes.

To me they are bopth the same, they are people who are not paying their way and are expecting others to do so.


Now do you get it ????

Potatoeman

D3PO wrote: »

Tell me of any tenant you know that has failed to pay their rent been evicted and then paid back all they owed.

I cant

Tell me of any homeowner who has been repossessed that has had to keep the balance owed and pay it back.

I can for this.

So why are you comparing apples with oranges ?

The arguement that many make is that the home is sacred and people should not be evicted but only mortgage holders.

I dont believe either should get to stay if they dont pay.

beauf

D3PO wrote: »

Are you really asking that question ? :eek::eek:

I...

Its jmayo point, I'm just playing devils advocate.

beauf

jmayo wrote: »

Look at the timeline involved in some of the forced removals of mortgage defaulters that have made the headlines of late.

Thats largely the banks sitting on problems. But its go nothing to do with the principle at issue here.

Your treating a long term loan, exactly like a short term one, ignoring any consideration of the vastly different sums and time-scales involved. That makes no sense.