AIB in payout Bonanza for mortgage defaulters

OldNotWIse

donegal11 wrote: »

The majority of those are single people who are only on there to get rent supplement.

if the two of them a working I wonder what their salaries are? For all we know they could have been able to service there debt and are friends with the bank manager. I thought that the insolvency rules would have sorted this out and everyone would be treated equally.

In this country? Thats a fuucking fairytale. Still, at least those of us who continue to honour our debts can hold our heads high.

username123

OldNotWIse wrote: »

In this country? Thats a fuucking fairytale. Still, at least those of us who continue to honour our debts can hold our heads high.

Id rather have a low head and a low mortgage rather than them both high thanks

Zamboni

Zamboni wrote: »

I'll say it again...

I feel sorry for all the AIB customers who have suffered reduced income and struggled to keep their repayments up to date.
What incentive is there for them to continue repaying?

One of the incentives ( not the only ) for me and many others to pay their mortgage is that they will have a perfect credit rating and want to keep it like that because it means they are free to do want they like financially including getting another mortgage if they need to in the future ( provided they keep a good credit rating ). At my age I am unlikely to be changing careers, however some jobs in banking for example look for your credit history ( this was fraud prevention ) so an impaired credit rating can have a huge impact on you life. Access to a good credit rating is a good, effective, fair, way to keep people on the straight and narrow financially.

bbam

mikeym wrote: »

To all distressed AIB mortgage holders dont bother paying off your mortgage the tax payer will.

Joke of a country.


Just write off the debt and everything will be rosey in the garden.:mad:

A perfect example of a post stupidly ignoring can't pay from won't pay.

Chazz Michael Michaels

Hermy wrote: »

The way I see it when the crash happened the banks were immediately bailed out with taxpayers money which only served the banks.
I don't understand why it wasn't the banks customers (mortgage holders) who were bailed out which in turn would have bailed out the banks.
What good is it having solvent banks if all the banks customers are insolvent?
Of course my knowledge of finance and economics is limited so I'm sure there are plenty of problems with that solution too.

You have two ****ty options. Bank moral hazard or customer moral hazard. I'd probably plum for the bank one.

BoardsMember

What's the story when they sell the property. Presumably, if this is sold in 20 years or something, the bank will have some lien or something to the value of the write off amount. If not, it seems ridiculous. I know this is a very emotive subject, but if they are not even getting this element right then its a bit silly.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

BoardsMember wrote: »

What's the story when they sell the property. Presumably, if this is sold in 20 years or something, the bank will have some lien or something to the value of the write off amount. If not, it seems ridiculous. I know this is a very emotive subject, but if they are not even getting this element right then its a bit silly.

Think I head that on the end of a conservation on the topic today alright.

DeanAustin

bbam wrote: »

Many people here are refusing to acknowledge the difference between can't pay and won't pay.
I don't expect to see people who won't pay being helped out.
But those who can't pay and have no hope of overcoming their situation should be helped.

There are a bunch of people who will exploit this though. On paper it'll look like they can't pay but in reality the can pay. Have no doubt.

Retrovertigo

Thread title reads like a headline from the Daily Mail.

Where are all these other bonanza payouts then, OP?

bbam

DeanAustin wrote: »

There are a bunch of people who will exploit this though. On paper it'll look like they can't pay but in reality the can pay. Have no doubt.

I can't see how re average PAYE worker can hide what they can or can't afford. There is an underlying tone in this thread that this will e a free for all and allow the managers pals to get a free ride.
I'm happy to see this happen as the problem be sorted.
The bank will only write off debt where it is a better option than repossessing the house, this makes it better for the tax payer.
The guy running the agency was on the radio and made great sense of the whole thing.
I have no wish to punish or harass those in genuinely poor financial circumstances, whether they are there through their own stupidity, bad advice or bad luck - what's the difference.

I'd rather they got a dig out than we spent the money on halting sites for travellers who've never contributed to society.

on the river

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

You have two ****ty options. Bank moral hazard or customer moral hazard. I'd probably plum for the bank one.

What are tryin to suggest ? I dont understand your logic behind it.

Do you mean

A. Banks take full responsability for their actions.

B. Customer takes hit and asset lost.

C. None of the above . you are still working it out.

DeanAustin

bbam wrote: »

I can't see how re average PAYE worker can hide what they can or can't afford. There is an underlying tone in this thread that this will e a free for all and allow the managers pals to get a free ride.
I'm happy to see this happen as the problem be sorted.
The bank will only write off debt where it is a better option than repossessing the house, this makes it better for the tax payer.
The guy running the agency was on the radio and made great sense of the whole thing.
I have no wish to punish or harass those in genuinely poor financial circumstances, whether they are there through their own stupidity, bad advice or bad luck - what's the difference.

I'd rather they got a dig out than we spent the money on halting sites for travellers who've never contributed to society.

Agreed the average PAYE worker won't be able to hide it. But there are people out there who do a lot of their work cash in hand or who have hidden money away unknown to the taxman.

Where you have a system like this, it will be exploited. Might not be a free for all but there will be f**kers who see an opportunity and take advantage.

Chazz Michael Michaels

on the river wrote: »

What are tryin to suggest ? I dont understand your logic behind it.

Do you mean

A. Banks take full responsability for their actions.

B. Customer takes hit and asset lost.

C. None of the above . you are still working it out.

Bail the banks out. You run the risk that they will do it all again, safe in the knowledge that they will be bailed out.

Bail the people out. The risk is that even prudent people will take more risk next time, safe in the, etc.

Look up moral hazard.

on the river

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Bail the banks out. You run the risk that they will do it all again, safe in the knowledge that they will be bailed out.

Bail the people out. The risk is that even prudent people will take more risk next time, safe in the, etc.

Look up moral hazard.

Is there any "Third way" of approuching this ?

Chazz Michael Michaels

on the river wrote: »

Is there any "Third way" of approuching this ?

Doing nothing. Or both.

bbam

DeanAustin wrote: »

Agreed the average PAYE worker won't be able to hide it. But there are people out there who do a lot of their work cash in hand or who have hidden money away unknown to the taxman.

Where you have a system like this, it will be exploited. Might not be a free for all but there will be f**kers who see an opportunity and take advantage.

But we can't condemn everyone because the odd cute hoor might slip through. I'd be sure the bank will only do this if there is no option and they are sure it's in their best interest. I'd say if they weren't sure they'd let it be and move on to clearer cases.

Irish people in general are on with the cash economy and see it as getting one up on the tax man, who is just the taxpayers representative. Funny we should get a moral issue with cash payments now !!

Let it be, let's get it done and move on !

bbam

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Bail the banks out. You run the risk that they will do it all again, safe in the knowledge that they will be bailed out.

Bail the people out. The risk is that even prudent people will take more risk next time, safe in the, etc.

Look up moral hazard.

Who wants to live in a society where were afraid to help someone for fear they might make another mistake.

The worst decision is no decision and sitting on your hands is no good.

Chazz Michael Michaels

bbam wrote: »

Who wants to live in a society where were afraid to help someone for fear they might make another mistake.

The worst decision is no decision and sitting on your hands is no good.

You don't understand what it means.

bbam

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

You don't understand what it means.

Why do you say that.

I could equally say you don't understNd the problem if keeping a huge tract of society plunged in debt they can never serve. Just because they'd e let off the hook.

So apart from.
Pity of those meeting their payments, jealousy and envy, where is the
Problem?

The taxpayer will foot the bill??
Really, so tax might increase? But if we force these family's into a spiral of social welfare that will need to be funded from tax too, we pay either way. So why not choose the way that might see families helped out and out back into society to contribute rather than draw out resources.

Chazz Michael Michaels

bbam wrote: »

Why do you say that.

I could equally say you don't understNd the problem if keeping a huge tract of society plunged in debt they can never serve. Just because they'd e let off the hook.

So apart from.
Pity of those meeting their payments, jealousy and envy, where is the
Problem?

The taxpayer will foot the bill??
Really, so tax might increase? But if we force these family's into a spiral of social welfare that will need to be funded from tax too, we pay either way. So why not choose the way that might see families helped out and out back into society to contribute rather than draw out resources.

I'm not going off road with you.

johnb25

hmmm wrote: »

People who have made sacrifices to pay their mortgage, or anyone who rents, should feel sick at this news. This isn't about economics, this is about fairness and the type of society we want. Do we want a society where certain groups get "bailed out" by other groups, so that the former can continue to enjoy the lifestyles they think they should have but can't afford?

This sort of behaviour means that we will have a second property bubble, and it will be even worse than the first.

What do you know of the lifestyle of this family, or what they went through to get to this point?
I am now in a one-income household, and paying USC, property tax etc. None of that was there when we took out our mortgage, so the goalposts have moved for a lot of people. I know what it is like to be under pressure, but I don't begrudge them the possibility to retain their home.
If I ever get to the same point as this family, I won't be offering up our home to anyone either.
I am not with AIB so wouldn't have the prospect of a similar deal, and I don't know anything about this family either.

on the river

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

I'm not going off road with you.

So do you mean you are endorsing the banks policy of hounding

mortage holders for payment even though they cant survive.

"going off road" ya the banks really did that with reckless lending and

no respect for the tax payer. It seems the banks can do whather they like in this

current system and leave all their destruction for some one else to clean up

jmayo

KyussBishop wrote: »

There is no public money being granted to them, they had part of their debt written off - the money for that debt would never have existed, because their mortgage was unsustainable.

Bullsh**.
You are using semantics and twisting language to suit your argument.

The taxpayer is on the hook for the money that AIB loses and trying to claim otherwise because someone doesn't hand over a cheque for 150k to this family is completly disengenous.

This family has materially benefitted to the tune of 150k.
They have continued "ownership" and use of their asset.
They will benefit from it's sale down the road if it increases in value (check out fianna failer and new beggings cheif david hall's comments on this).

AIB have to take that hit and who funds AIB, who recapitalises it, but the taxpayers.
Next thing you will be telling us the taxpayers are going to make money out of this.
Oh wait shure won't this family now be able to spend and kick start the economy.

20Cent wrote: »

The banks bondholders hedge funds etc all have already been bailed out. Large companies have had tens of millions written off and no one cares. But when some citizen in deep trouble gets a write off everyone looses their minds!

Bailouts for all.
Yeahhh :rolleyes:
Why do you assume that someone who is anti mortgage bailout are pro bank, pro developer, pro larghe company bailouts ?

bbam wrote: »

Who wants to live in a society where were afraid to help someone for fear they might make another mistake.

...

I want to live in a society where my family and I aren't paying for every other ar**holes cock ups, greed, laziness and ineptness.

bbam

jmayo wrote: »

Bullsh**.
You are using semantics and twisting language to suit your argument.

The taxpayer is on the hook for the money that AIB loses and trying to claim otherwise because someone doesn't hand over a cheque for 150k to this family is completly disengenous.

This family has materially benefitted to the tune of 150k.
They have continued "ownership" and use of their asset.
They will benefit from it's sale down the road if it increases in value (check out fianna failer and new beggings cheif david hall's comments on this).

AIB have to take that hit and who funds AIB, who recapitalises it, but the taxpayers.
Next thing you will be telling us the taxpayers are going to make money out of this.
Oh wait shure won't this family now be able to spend and kick start the economy.



Bailouts for all.
Yeahhh :rolleyes:
Why do you assume that someone who is anti mortgage bailout are pro bank, pro developer, pro larghe company bailouts ?



I want to live in a society where my family and I aren't paying for every other ar**holes cock ups, greed, laziness and ineptness.

Well you'd better up sticks and leave.
Your tax goes to find huge sW bills and many on that are as you've described. And thankfully irrespective of the narrow minds out there mortgage right downs are happening.
You mightn't like it, but apart from bitching online and banging the keyboards you're just a passenger on this ride.

pache

I want to live in a society where my family and I aren't paying for every other ar**holes cock ups, greed, laziness and ineptness.[/QUOTE]


When you find that society you might let us all in on that hidden jem..!!!

KyussBishop

jmayo wrote: »

Bullsh**.
You are using semantics and twisting language to suit your argument.

The taxpayer is on the hook for the money that AIB loses and trying to claim otherwise because someone doesn't hand over a cheque for 150k to this family is completly disengenous.

Eh, no use the English language correctly: Nobody is giving anyone money.

Debts being written down is unavoidable, and there's a good chance many countries won't be fully repaying the banking debt either, once it all blows up, since national (as well as private) debt is likely to be partially defaulted upon:

Much of the Western world will require defaults, a savings tax and higher inflation to clear the way for recovery as debt levels reach a 200-year high, according to a new report by the International Monetary Fund.

The IMF working paper said debt burdens in developed nations have become extreme by any historical measure and will require a wave of haircuts, either negotiated 1930s-style write-offs or the standard mix of measures used by the IMF in its “toolkit” for emerging market blow-ups.

“The size of the problem suggests that restructurings will be needed, for example, in the periphery of Europe, far beyond anything discussed in public to this point,” said the paper, by Harvard professors Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/10548104/IMF-paper-warns-of-savings-tax-and-mass-write-offs-as-Wests-debt-hits-200-year-high.html

jmayo wrote: »

This family has materially benefitted to the tune of 150k.

Bullshít. No they haven't, the house is not worth its original price. The developer of the house has benefited, to the tune of the difference between the sale price vs the actual value of the house.

jmayo wrote: »

AIB have to take that hit and who funds AIB, who recapitalises it, but the taxpayers.
Next thing you will be telling us the taxpayers are going to make money out of this.
Oh wait shure won't this family now be able to spend and kick start the economy.

The economic reality is, that private debt levels are unsustainable, so writedowns are going to be paid for no matter whether you think it's right or not - and even then, attempting to pay for all of it is also unsustainable, leading to national writedowns/defaults - that's going to be the next stage of the crisis, massive debt sustainability problems, coupled with massive selloffs of public assets, and a transition toward a rentier economy.

You're just denying reality if you think debts can be paid off - we're so far off the edge of debt sustainability, that we're like Wile E Coyote, off the edge of the cliff and just waiting to come crashing down.

Chazz Michael Michaels

on the river wrote: »

So do you mean you are endorsing the banks policy of hounding

mortage holders for payment even though they cant survive.

"going off road" ya the banks really did that with reckless lending and

no respect for the tax payer. It seems the banks can do whather they like in this

current system and leave all their destruction for some one else to clean up

I literally have no idea what you are referring to here. Its amusing.

sheeper

I wonder how long till AIB freeze deposits and use them to pay off the debt!!!!!! This is just the first one to be wrote off there are many more to come

MadsL

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

And if AIB repossess the home and don't manage to sell it for more than they expect to recoup from the written down mortgage, it'll cost the taxpayer even more.

I think the question really should be what is the long term future of these puppet banks. Just close them and take the hurt, Ireland will be better off in the long run.

Woodpecker1

Does this play into the hands of strategic defaulters.



I bought a house I could just about afford now. Where is my free payout? Should I stop paying?

It seems to me I should. I might get a free 100k of the bank.

Balmed Out

Woodpecker1 wrote: »

Does this play into the hands of strategic defaulters.



I bought a house I could just about afford now. Where is my free payout? Should I stop paying?

It seems to me I should. I might get a free 100k of the bank.

Definitely, start cutting back on your hours and racking up some credit card debt. In a years time after plenty of quality time with the family and no mortgage payments you should find the rest of us paying a sizable chunk off of your mortgage. You can then go back to working full time.

Chazz Michael Michaels

Balmed Out wrote: »

Definitely, start cutting back on your hours and racking up some credit card debt. In a years time after plenty of quality time with the family and no mortgage payments you should find the rest of us paying a sizable chunk off of your mortgage. You can then go back to working full time.

Balmedoutvision

At the risk of repeating my self a million time is it getting away with it if you lose you credit rating, probably never get another mortgage, have no accesses to any sort of credit, lose you tracker mortgage?

I am not saying that's what happened with the deal the couple got we don't know that's the problem, and thats why it has to be transparent. It also needs to happen faster and it needs to consistent across all financial institutions.

OldNotWIse

mariaalice wrote: »

At the risk of repeating my self a million time is it getting away with it if you lose you credit rating, probably never get another mortgage, have no accesses to any sort of credit, lose you tracker mortgage?

I am not saying that's what happened with the deal the couple got we don't know that's the problem, and thats why it has to be transparent. It also needs to happen faster and it needs to consistent across all financial institutions.

Yes.

Balmed Out

mariaalice wrote: »

At the risk of repeating my self a million time is it getting away with it if you lose you credit rating, probably never get another mortgage, have no accesses to any sort of credit, lose you tracker mortgage?

I am not saying that's what happened with the deal the couple got we don't know that's the problem, and thats why it has to be transparent. It also needs to happen faster and it needs to consistent across all financial institutions.

Yes it is getting away with it, how could you see it as anything else?? All those repercussions are temporary, may be completely irrelevant and may not actually happen.

As for the second half of your post if a bank has not taken Irish taxpayer money then I have no interest in what they do with their debtors and I don't believe the state should be telling them what to do. For those that did take taxpayers money then any people benefiting from write downs should have the details, amounts etc publicized.

Any deal should be somewhat punitive (rather then a strict what will return more money to the taxpayer). People can hide money very easily and we may be creating a situation where avoiding repaying debts is very lucrative at the cost of the taxpayer and worse those who depend on the taxpayer - children, the elderly, the infirm etc.

BoardsMember

Knocking 140k off a mortgage is of considerably more value than losing your credit rating, which (if this has actually happened, which we dont know for sure) can only apply for maximum of 5 years.

OldNotWIse

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Yes.

Right, so how come every one is not doing so, if it is so easy and has no consequences, every one on boards is talking what they and other should do, as someone said earlier see what happens if you stop paying your mortgage even though you have the means to do so.

I am not jumping on the band wagon of lets all default on our mortgage and rake up credit card debt.

I do have some misgiven about write downs but I am a pragmatist.

Balmed Out

Balmed Out wrote: »

Yes it is getting away with it, how could you see it as anything else?? All those repercussions are temporary, may be completely irrelevant and may not actually happen.

As for the second half of your post if a bank has not taken Irish taxpayer money then I have no interest in what they do with their debtors and I don't believe the state should be telling them what to do. For those that did take taxpayers money then any people benefiting from write downs should have the details, amounts etc publicized.

Any deal should be somewhat punitive (rather then a strict what will return more money to the taxpayer). People can hide money very easily and we may be creating a situation where avoiding repaying debts is very lucrative at the cost of the taxpayer and worse those who depend on the taxpayer - children, the elderly, the infirm etc.

I some what agree with you, we do need transparency and this being Ireland a bad credit rating will probably haunt you for ever, it is going to cost the tax payer one way or the other if they lose the house it will cost in rent allowance or council housing, I would be afraid it might lead to the scenario you outlined that's way it needs to hurt a good bit so people wont be in a hurry to rush in to it. I am in favour of keeping people in their house if possible. I don't like the idea of people waiting for mass repossession's so they can get a bargain in D4.

Idbatterim

It's case by case and every keyboard warrior here against the idea just has their head in the sand.

Case by case, you think the outcomes will be consistent or fair? like the penalty points? :rolleyes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmayo View Post
This family has materially benefitted to the tune of 150k.
Bullshít. No they haven't, the house is not worth its original price. The developer of the house has benefited, to the tune of the difference between the sale price vs the actual value of the house.

KyussBishop are you for real, you are telling me that my mother isnt better off having 150,000 written off her mortgage?! (maybe not if there were onerous terms, but unless I hear to the contrary, this sounds like a win / win) At this moment in time it isnt worth what they paid for it, its a roof over their heads, who cares what its worth on paper, obviously their ability to repay what THEY committed to has now changed. but when it surpasses what it was purchased for a in a few years, will the taxpayer be quids in? no need to answer that one.

If you lose you credit rating, probably never get another mortgage, have no accesses to any sort of credit, lose you tracker mortgage?

@Mariaalice, do they lose their tracker? other than that, absolutely in my opinion, realistically they have by far the biggest purchase they will ever make taken care of. What do they need a credit rating for after that? racking up more debt on unnecessary ****? The only thing anyone / most people will HAVE to buy on credit that is an absolute necessity is a house, thats it...

Zamboni

mariaalice wrote: »

I some what agree with you, we do need transparency and this being Ireland a bad credit rating will probably haunt you for ever, it is going to cost the tax payer one way or the other if they lose the house it will cost in rent allowance or council housing, I would be afraid it might lead to the scenario you outlined that's way it needs to hurt a good bit so people wont be in a hurry to rush in to it. I am in favour of keeping people in their house if possible. I don't like the idea of people waiting for mass repossession's so they can get a bargain in D4.

And this bit in bold is why you are wrong.
It is not their home. It never was.
It is an asset which was purchased through a mortgage which is no longer sustainable.
That asset should be repossessed and sold in the same way your car would be if you were not making repayments and sold to the highest bidder.

OldNotWIse

mariaalice wrote: »

Right, so how come every one is not doing so, if it is so easy and has no consequences, every one on boards is talking what they and other should do, as someone said earlier see what happens if you stop paying your mortgage even though you have the means to do so.

I am not jumping on the band wagon of lets all default on our mortgage and rake up credit card debt.

I do have some misgiven about write downs but I am a pragmatist.

Of course. It's right and proper to use a statistical analysis of incidents of offence as a barometer of how right or wrong something is. I always use what other people do as my moral compass.

At least...thats how the judicial system in my head works....:o

Idbatterim

i mentioned parking a portion of the debt until circumstances change, cant remember if it was on this thread or not. Say in a few years things are on the up, they can now afford to repay the original amount, but the amount being writtten off has needlessly vanised costing us in this case, the tax payer a fortune as well as being totally morally corrupt. Note if the banks were profitable and not coming cap in hand to the taxpayer and taking the hits themselves on their profits, I wouldnt give a sh*t!

Zamboni

Zamboni wrote: »

And this bit in bold is why you are wrong.
It is not their home. It never was.
It is an asset which was purchased through a mortgage which is no longer sustainable.
That asset should be repossessed and sold in the same way your car would be if you were not making repayments and sold to the highest bidder.

That depends if you believe a family home is primarily an asset or if is primarily a family home does it not?

Any other property such as a buy to let or any property primarily bought as investment is an asset, the family home is not, that is why I am in favour of a legal ban on the family home being used as backing for a business loan.

I have noting against making money but in Ireland there are too many people wanting to make money our of property and property alone.

Zamboni

Idbatterim wrote: »

Note if the banks were profitable and not coming cap in hand to the taxpayer and taking the hits themselves on their profits, I wouldnt give a sh*t!

Exactly.
If this were a couple getting a deal like this from Ulster Bank or KBC then the very best of luck to them.
But this is AIB. This is our money.
€150,000 that could have been spent on hospitals/education.

Zamboni

mariaalice wrote: »

That depends if you believe a family home is primarily an asset or if is primarily a family home does it not?

Any other property such as a buy to let or any property primarily bought as investment is an asset, the family home is not, that is why I am in favour of a legal ban on the family home being used as backing for a business loan.

I have noting against making money but in Ireland there are too many people want to make money our of property and property alone.

That is emotive nonsensical language "the family home".
It is bricks and mortar that was not paid for.
Is a private tenants accommodation "the family home"?
They would not be afforded any deal in the case of non payment - they would be evicted without so much as a blip in the media.
Are mortgage holders deserving of more rights than tenants?

Balmed Out

mariaalice wrote: »

I am in favour of keeping people in their house if possible.

If you were renting out a property to a family who couldn't afford and stopped paying their mortgage. Would you allow them to stay on?

If not, why on earth should a bank ?

The banks responsibility is to ensure the recuperation of as much as possible of the states money. Without this being done very publicly and with some punitive measures there will be plenty of people willing to take advantage of the situation.

Zamboni

Zamboni wrote: »

That is emotive nonsensical language "the family home".
It is bricks and mortar that was not paid for.
Is a private tenants accommodation "the family home"?
They would not be afforded any deal in the case of non payment - they would be evicted without so much as a blip in the media.
Are mortgage holders deserving of more rights than tenants?

Slight off topic try going through a separation or divorce and see how family home is defined.

I am not saying there is no problem with the write down, however people have to live somewhere, the issue wont go away if the house is repossessed.

Balmed Out

mariaalice wrote: »

I am not saying there is no problem with the write down, however people have to live somewhere, the issue wont go away if the house is repossessed.

People rent houses all the time, all over Ireland. Crazy story but true.

Balmed Out

Balmed Out wrote: »

If you were renting out a property to a family who couldn't afford and stopped paying their mortgage. Would you allow them to stay on?

If not, why on earth should a bank ?

The banks responsibility is to ensure the recuperation of as much as possible of the states money. Without this being done very publicly and with some punitive measures there will be plenty of people willing to take advantage of the situation.

Of course I would not let them stay in the house for noting, however we might come to some arrangement such as a rent allowance or reduced rent. The banks are not getting noting from the couple, you are not compearing like with like anyway.

OldNotWIse

mariaalice wrote: »

Of course I would not let them stay in the house for noting, however we might come to some arrangement such as a rent allowance or reduced rent. The banks are not getting noting from the couple, you are not compearing like with like anyway.

So its ok if we get into rent arrears of 30k and then come to some arrangement whereby we just pay whatever rent we can afford?

Can I be your tenant?