There's eviction,and then,there's EVICTION.

Calina

everdead.ie wrote: »

I thought that repossessions would have a fairly neutral affect on housing as effectively the same amount of people would be fighting for the same amount of homes as repossessed homes came onto the market however that hasn't been the case in the US.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-07/silicon-valley-cooks-to-housekeepers-facing-home-eviction.html



Maybe I'm missing something, anyone have any thoughts on this?

Perhaps the repossessed homes aren't suitable for renting?

You're missing something. Disruption to the rental market is caused as homes move between the sales and rental market, and additionally, those who've lost their homes join the rental market. There is a time lag issue which means rental supply is erratic with the corresponding impact on prices via supply and demand.

beauf

It puts more people out renting. and bank will try to make as much money as they can on the deal. So while there's a shortage of housing they'll take full advantage of it. There will be no fire sale.

AlekSmart

Banjoxed wrote: »

Nice in theory, but in practice, a lot of the sector is made up of folks like me. I'm waiting until the point my repayment mortgage balance is less than the value of the property I own. In the meantime, I charge a fair rent, don't screw around with my tenant, and ensure any issues are dealt with promptly. And I make up the shortfall between the rent received and the mortgage payment every month and pay my mortgage on time and fully declare everything for income tax.

Those of us who are accidental landlords are not all screwing our tenants, or the banks, or anyone else.

A very valid point Banjoxed.

However,it is one which gets precious little column inches or airtime in comparison to images of Baliff's casting poor downtrodden tenants and their belongings onto the cold hard pavement.

The perception,aided and abetted by a suspiciously inactive succession of Governments,is that Landlordism is ok when run on an ad-hoc basis.

Landlords are being turned over and shafted every day by a succession of Street Savvy tenants,many of whom have developed a sideline in Tutoring others in the niceties of "Protective" legislation and how to avail fully of it.

It usually focuses on developing the ability Not To Blink until the last moment,then simply take a hike to a pre-arranged Next Place.

The greater accomodation shortage issue,continues to suffer from our inability to accurately define the market....we remain blighted by decades of 3-Bed Semi D's with a garden being the Blue-Collar Norm...leading to a Capital City becoming residentially empty at it's core.....All those nightly empty City Centre Georgian Residences,or worse still those which have been stuffed full of non-national,non-complaining tenants stand in mute testimony to a lack of ANY understanding of how a CITY functions...?

beauf

That because a 3 bed semi has a lot more room than a 1 or 2 bed shoebox in the city centre.

If you want people to live long term in the city you have to give them better/bigger apartments.

AlekSmart

beauf wrote: »

It puts more people out renting. and bank will try to make as much money as they can on the deal. So while there's a shortage of housing they'll take full advantage of it. There will be no fire sale.

Quite possible....

My attention was drawn to this post on another forum,which raises some interesting issues....http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057185545

...although I'm unsure of where to begin ?

AlekSmart

beauf wrote: »

That because a 3 bed semi has a lot more room than a 1 or 2 bed shoebox in the city centre.

If you want people to live long term in the city you have to give them better/bigger apartments.

Agreed.

I find it particularly ironic,and not a little "Irish",that the developer who stands head & shoulders above the rest in this regard is none other than the regularlu demonized Mr Micheal Wallace TD.

It seems Mr Wallace,has an affinity for Italy,and bothered to look a little more closely at the setup there and elsewhere in Europe,which allowed literally billions of people to be born,raised and live complete fruitful lives in RENTED accomodation :eek:......How did the do it ?

Currently,all we appear to be doing is re-inventing the wheel and scratching our Ginger Celtic heads when the resultant octagon won't roll or steer smoothly.....:rolleyes:

beauf

I don't understand your point about Wallace.

Apartments and houses were in general bigger pre boom. You don't need to fly off and look at Italian football match Italian housing.

Black Swan

BarryBrack1 wrote: »

No probs..... delete me.... Only joined 2 say my piece. Can't figure out how 2 delete myself on your site. Thanks

MOD: Banned 1-week for failure to follow mod instructions, and continuing to discuss moderation in-thread.

realitykeeper

It is now six years since the recession started and still there have been very few evictions. People want to buy houses but the prices are being kept artificially high by the defaulters who are still occupying the properties they are not paying for. Why should young people who want to buy a new home have to borrow over the odds when houses are kept off the market in this way. This market manipulation also keeps rents high, so that keeps landlords happy at the expense of the poor tenants. It seems those who presently occupy houses while defaulting on their mortgages are the larger constituency which is why they are getting away with it. Perhaps it is time for evictions to start in earnest. A little heavy-handedness may be desirable. The gardai and a lawyer should accompany and assist the sheriffs and bailiffs. A good legal mind and a tazer & baton would be a great help - just in case there are any blackguards around trying to interfere.

beauf

Its a much bigger problem than evictions.

Farmer Pudsey

realitykeeper wrote: »

It is now six years since the recession started and still there have been very few evictions. People want to buy houses but the prices are being kept artificially high by the defaulters who are still occupying the properties they are not paying for. Why should young people who want to buy a new home have to borrow over the odds when houses are kept off the market in this way. This market manipulation also keeps rents high, so that keeps landlords happy at the expense of the poor tenants. It seems those who presently occupy houses while defaulting on their mortgages are the larger constituency which is why they are getting away with it. Perhaps it is time for evictions to start in earnest. A little heavy-handedness may be desirable. The gardai and a lawyer should accompany and assist the sheriffs and bailiffs. A good legal mind and a tazer & baton would be a great help - just in case there are any blackguards around trying to interfere.

The case you are making has been dealt with on this thread and on the thread below please read all and contribute then with any new theory.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057175872

Arthur Beesley

AlekSmart wrote: »

Agreed.

I find it particularly ironic,and not a little "Irish",that the developer who stands head & shoulders above the rest in this regard is none other than the regularlu demonized Mr Micheal Wallace TD.

It seems Mr Wallace,has an affinity for Italy,and bothered to look a little more closely at the setup there and elsewhere in Europe,which allowed literally billions of people to be born,raised and live complete fruitful lives in RENTED accomodation :eek:......How did the do it ?

Currently,all we appear to be doing is re-inventing the wheel and scratching our Ginger Celtic heads when the resultant octagon won't roll or steer smoothly.....:rolleyes:

beauf wrote: »

I don't understand your point about Wallace.

Apartments and houses were in general bigger pre boom. You don't need to fly off and look at Italian football match Italian housing.

Helps that he wasn't paying his taxes I guess.

Farmer Pudsey

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Helps that he wasn't paying his taxes I guess.

This was an issue at the end of the boom to try to keep his company going. Was he wrong yes but many business's did it those that survived are now employing and paying people and taxes. when thing's go wrong with a business you will try to keep it afloat, if his company had survived he would have paid his taex and penelty's. Believe it or not there are many company's with unpaid tax bills that the revenue are lenient with due to there inability to pay. If revenue demand the tax the company will fold and more will join the unemployed. In some cases to my understanding Revenue have set aside tax liability's as long as present taxes are up to date and hope to collect or partially collect down the line.

Glib one liners are not much of a contribution

AlekSmart

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Helps that he wasn't paying his taxes I guess.

Farmer Pudsey answers this point quite well I think.

I would most certainly not be a Mick Wallace supporter per se,nor would I row in behind many of his more off-the- shoulder numbers,however I firmly believe Mr Wallace is far more in-tune with the survival issue which bedevil the "Contributing Classes" than most other Oireachtas Members.

Whilst the likes of Deputies Daly and Flanagan have long colourful careers on the fringes of Irish Political activism,Wallace has been far more hands-on in physical labour terms,something I hold,is invaluable when it comes to UNDERSTANDING how ordinary people think.

I can remember,over the years which his Civil Engineering company worked for Dublin City Council,how Wallace himself was always to be found on his sites doing the Job himself,rather than supervising from a laptop,which currently appears to be the norm for Civil Works projects,with unsurprising results (Viz.Dun Leary Rathdown CC and the Bird Avenue,Clonskeagh "works" ).

So yea,given that the newly pervasive Revenue felt it worthwhile to "settle" their affairs with Wallaces Company,and that he paid his dues eventually,I'd still give him an oul preference vote,long before I'd risk any mark against Phil Hogan or his likes.

Robert McGrath

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

This was an issue at the end of the boom to try to keep his company going. Was he wrong yes but many business's did it those that survived are now employing and paying people and taxes. when thing's go wrong with a business you will try to keep it afloat, if his company had survived he would have paid his taex and penelty's. Believe it or not there are many company's with unpaid tax bills that the revenue are lenient with due to there inability to pay. If revenue demand the tax the company will fold and more will join the unemployed. In some cases to my understanding Revenue have set aside tax liability's as long as present taxes are up to date and hope to collect or partially collect down the line.

Glib one liners are not much of a contribution

I disagree.

Businesses that do not evade taxes go to the wall because they cannot compete with businesses that evade taxes. Tax evasion allows the perpetrator a lower cost base and therefore an unfair advantage. That's not fair.

AlekSmart

Robert McGrath wrote: »

I disagree.

Businesses that do not evade taxes go to the wall because they cannot compete with businesses that evade taxes. Tax evasion allows the perpetrator a lower cost base and therefore an unfair advantage. That's not fair.

It's for sure "Not Fair",but Farmer Pudsey,like it or not,outlines the reality of Commercial life.

The relationship between the Revenue authorities and Business is and laways has,been fraught,with even corporations of the highest repute having to deasl with payment and assessment "Issues" on a regular basis.

Oddly enough it's not a trait specific to Ireland,it's simply human nature..."Rendering unto Caesar all that is Caesar's" does not come naturally to anybody who is not actually Caesar.

Her Majesty's Customs and Revenue,the American IRS,Les Impot in France or whatever...there is a HUMAN resistance to Taxation.

Wallaces operation was,and afaik,still is,a hand's on operation,with it's principal playing a major role in day-to-day operations.
This is usually a common denominator in these Revenue vs xyz ltd cases.
The larger corporates have stand alone departments to stonewall and negotiate with the authorities,often ad nauseum until the actual payments have been well and profitably accounted for.
Companies such as Wallaces tend to use smaller Accountancy firms,perhaps Local,and as a result lose out on the often cosier "Professional" understandings which bloom between Revenue and the Larger Accounting Practices...;)

It's not particularly "fair" either,but for sure it's one of the reasonings behind Ireland Inc's push for Inward Foreign Investmnent...a smooth and efficient Tax régime....to echo the reported words of a former Financial Regulator..."Whatever ye think yerself,Willie " :rolleyes:

beauf

I think you're making a distinction where none exists. They are all doing the same thing at the end of the day.

AlekSmart

beauf wrote: »

I think you're making a distinction where none exists. They are all doing the same thing at the end of the day.

Agreed,we are indeed....or we would if we had the opportunity ?

beauf

No not everyone does.

But there no distinction between two companies doing the same thing.

AlekSmart

beauf wrote: »

No not everyone does.

But there no distinction between two companies doing the same thing.

I'm not really making a distinction as such,kinda more in tune with Wallace's reasoning that's all.
Given a randon selection of commercially "successful" members of the Oirechtas,I'd still suggest Wallace would emerge at the top of the most compliant list (After a Long Period of Investigation)

After all the caterwaling about the Bankers and Politicians has died down,the remaining fact is that as we were/are a democracy,we supported these elements (often VERY decidedly) and are,to great degree,compliant in their decisions.

As for Wallace,he's no better or worse than the majority,but I'd have nore respect for his POV than the vast majority of stuff ploughed through on Oireachtas TV.

Farmer Pudsey

Robert McGrath wrote: »

I disagree.

Businesses that do not evade taxes go to the wall because they cannot compete with businesses that evade taxes. Tax evasion allows the perpetrator a lower cost base and therefore an unfair advantage. That's not fair.

Not really, if having to pay penalty's on late payment it is costly borrowing. If you owned a company, you choice was pay revenue and go bust, pay your staff wages and pay for materials and try to trade your way out of a difficult position which would you do.

Mr Wallace's issue was that like ten thousands of other's he did not foresee the seriousness of the downturn. He did not understand that property/houses were going to drop for 5-6 years and by 50%. This failure to understand the issue by developers and business people made the issue worse. If they had dropped prices by 20-30% in 2008 I often wonder would some have traded there way out of the issue and would some issues of the crash being avoided.

Arthur Beesley

There was a lot more to the Wallace story than just not paying VAT.

He also failed to pay pension contributions for his staff, as well as a questionable asset transfer of a personally owned vineyard to his brother.

Not to mention the large increase in salary paid to himself and his son in 2008, around the time of the tax evasion.

AlekSmart

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

There was a lot more to the Wallace story than just not paying VAT.

He also failed to pay pension contributions for his staff, as well as a questionable asset transfer of a personally owned vineyard to his brother.

Not to mention the large increase in salary paid to himself and his son in 2008, around the time of the tax evasion.

All fairly well covered to date ..Yes ?

I'm assuming that if there are grounds to prosecute Wallace then Revenue will do just that ?

OR,like Séan Fitzpatrick,could it be that stuff being "questionable" does not actually equate with it being Illegal in this State ?

beauf

Kinda comparing two completely very things, to make a two wrongs = a right.

Arthur Beesley

AlekSmart wrote: »

All fairly well covered to date ..Yes ?

I'm assuming that if there are grounds to prosecute Wallace then Revenue will do just that ?

OR,like Séan Fitzpatrick,could it be that stuff being "questionable" does not actually equate with it being Illegal in this State ?

Was he prosecuted for the VAT fraud? No. Do you deny this took place?

He has been prosecuted over the Pension contributions issue.

Paying himself and his son salary increases while the company is going down the pan is clearly unethical, regardless of legality.

I guess you draw the line at what is legal as opposed to what is ethical.

I expect a higher standard.

AlekSmart

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Was he prosecuted for the VAT fraud? No. Do you deny this took place?

He has been prosecuted over the Pension contributions issue.

Paying himself and his son salary increases while the company is going down the pan is clearly unethical, regardless of legality.

I guess you draw the line at what is legal as opposed to what is ethical.

I expect a higher standard.

All well n good.

But in Irish Political terms,the electorate's expectations have tended to be somewhat easier for political chancers to fulfill,and would still be happily fulfilling today,were it not for the Paddy Neary/Séan Quinn co-production.

I'll go out on a limb,and suggest that were he to stand again for his seat today,Mick Wallace would be re-elected .

(NB: Im not in MW's constituency,nor on his Christmas Card list)

beauf

AlekSmart wrote: »

...I would most certainly not be a Mick Wallace supporter per se,nor would I row in behind many of his more off-the- shoulder numbers....

..and yet you've managed to turn a thread about evictions into one about how hes a grand fella by doing exactly that.

AlekSmart

beauf wrote: »

..and yet you've managed to turn a thread about evictions into one about how hes a grand fella by doing exactly that.

Ah now c'mon...not single handedly....although perhaps I could branch out into PR ..???

(Not sure MW is a great fella,but he's in some excellent company,thats for sure ?

Farmer Pudsey

beauf wrote: »

..and yet you've managed to turn a thread about evictions into one about how hes a grand fella by doing exactly that.

No but there tends to be a holier than thou attitude by some. In any business there may be questionable decisions. Some may be unethical but not illegal. There is avoidance and evasion and a thin line between. Nobody has answered the question should business people fold the first time they are in negative equity and having a choice to make in who to pay or not to pay. Then there is an issue with what do you do to protect yourself if the ship is sinking.

There was the very questionable practice of banks asking for personnel guarantees by banks rather than proper due diligence and checking of loans. This is raising it head again. I know a business person that wants to rent a premise and the landlord wants a PG for the lease. Now I beg you what is the point of limited companies and what part do banks and others not understand about it.

It is very easy for politician and others to be holier than thou who have never to make that choice. It is ver easy when other pick up the tab for your mistake like Sligo Co Co and numerous state bodies that take court action in the knowledge that they will not have to pay the bill.

Yes this thread is about an issue with rents going up in Dublin at higher than rates of inflation. Some consider the reason that foreclosing on maybe 60K houses of which maybe 20-25K are in Dublin will solve an issue with housing in Dublin. Foreclosures may be a part of the solution however the largest issue is that we need about 20-35K houses build in Dublin/year for the next few years. However unless the regulatory costs are reduced building costs seem to be above property prices as Micheal Noonan hinted. This bears grim reading for anyone who thinks that housing costs or rents may get cheaper in Dublin in the short term.

beauf

The issue wasn't about developers, or business practices, but raising one as being different, when they aren't.

Its got nothing to do with the issue at hand. The simply fact is there is a shortage of certain types of property in certain area's. Its a problem the govt has allowed to happen by poor regulation, and poor planning, and poor oversight. Most of these things are just paper exercises, but in reality are meaningless.

Evictions won't fix that.

Frank Lee Midere

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

No but there tends to be a holier than thou attitude by some. In any business there may be questionable decisions. Some may be unethical but not illegal. There is avoidance and evasion and a thin line between. Nobody has answered the question should business people fold the first time they are in negative equity and having a choice to make in who to pay or not to pay. Then there is an issue with what do you do to protect yourself if the ship is sinking.

There was the very questionable practice of banks asking for personnel guarantees by banks rather than proper due diligence and checking of loans. This is raising it head again. I know a business person that wants to rent a premise and the landlord wants a PG for the lease. Now I beg you what is the point of limited companies and what part do banks and others not understand about it.

It is very easy for politician and others to be holier than thou who have never to make that choice. It is ver easy when other pick up the tab for your mistake like Sligo Co Co and numerous state bodies that take court action in the knowledge that they will not have to pay the bill.

Yes this thread is about an issue with rents going up in Dublin at higher than rates of inflation. Some consider the reason that foreclosing on maybe 60K houses of which maybe 20-25K are in Dublin will solve an issue with housing in Dublin. Foreclosures may be a part of the solution however the largest issue is that we need about 20-35K houses build in Dublin/year for the next few years. However unless the regulatory costs are reduced building costs seem to be above property prices as Micheal Noonan hinted. This bears grim reading for anyone who thinks that housing costs or rents may get cheaper in Dublin in the short term.

The whole 25k a year need for housing is rubbish. It assumes boom time conditions. The last CSO report shows that 90k left the country mid 2012/2013. New stats out soon.

To out this housing need in perspective the claims are that half the housing will be needed outside Dublin. Does anybody think that the rest of the country needs 25k houses a year. 35k a year assumes a population increase of about 80,000 a year. Nonsense.

Frank Lee Midere

beauf wrote: »

The issue wasn't about developers, or business practices, but raising one as being different, when they aren't.

Its got nothing to do with the issue at hand. The simply fact is there is a shortage of certain types of property in certain area's. Its a problem the govt has allowed to happen by poor regulation, and poor planning, and poor oversight. Most of these things are just paper exercises, but in reality are meaningless.

Evictions won't fix that.

Evictions will reduce prices. Because supply will exceed demand.

Farmer Pudsey

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

The whole 25k a year need for housing is rubbish. It assumes boom time conditions. The last CSO report shows that 90k left the country mid 2012/2013. New stats out soon.

To out this housing need in perspective the claims are that half the housing will be needed outside Dublin. Does anybody think that the rest of the country needs 25k houses a year. 35k a year assumes a population increase of about 80,000 a year. Nonsense.

Pre 2002 it was estimated that we need about 35-40K houses a year. Yes we overbuild in Leitrim and on the outer edges of Dublin and of other cities and major townes. However most of this excess has been used up. It is 6 years since any major house building has taken place. IMO Dublin will not get any major housing building for 12-18 months at least this means that there will be a back log. As the economy climbs (although you might disagree) the need for housing will increase. Cork, Galway and Limerick are silghtly on the edge how far off are major towns. We see how fast the change is in Dublin can the rest of the country be far behind.

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Evictions will reduce prices. Because supply will exceed demand.

For about 6-18 months where to then . In reality there is about 40-60K houses in a chance of being repossessed, as I have already asked is 25K of them in Dublin, reality says that this is about one years supply where to then.

wetdarknight2

AlekSmart wrote: »

It's for sure "Not Fair",but Farmer Pudsey,like it or not,outlines the reality of Commercial life.

The relationship between the Revenue authorities and Business is and laways has,been fraught,with even corporations of the highest repute having to deasl with payment and assessment "Issues" on a regular basis.

Oddly enough it's not a trait specific to Ireland,it's simply human nature..."Rendering unto Caesar all that is Caesar's" does not come naturally to anybody who is not actually Caesar.

Her Majesty's Customs and Revenue,the American IRS,Les Impot in France or whatever...there is a HUMAN resistance to Taxation.

Wallaces operation was,and afaik,still is,a hand's on operation,with it's principal playing a major role in day-to-day operations.
This is usually a common denominator in these Revenue vs xyz ltd cases.
The larger corporates have stand alone departments to stonewall and negotiate with the authorities,often ad nauseum until the actual payments have been well and profitably accounted for.
Companies such as Wallaces tend to use smaller Accountancy firms,perhaps Local,and as a result lose out on the often cosier "Professional" understandings which bloom between Revenue and the Larger Accounting Practices...;)

It's not particularly "fair" either,but for sure it's one of the reasonings behind Ireland Inc's push for Inward Foreign Investmnent...a smooth and efficient Tax régime....to echo the reported words of a former Financial Regulator..."Whatever ye think yerself,Willie " :rolleyes:

Good point....and to echo the reported words of a former Taoiseach, "thanks a million big fella!"

wetdarknight2

AlekSmart wrote: »

It's for sure "Not Fair",but Farmer Pudsey,like it or not,outlines the reality of Commercial life.

The relationship between the Revenue authorities and Business is and laways has,been fraught,with even corporations of the highest repute having to deasl with payment and assessment "Issues" on a regular basis.

Oddly enough it's not a trait specific to Ireland,it's simply human nature..."Rendering unto Caesar all that is Caesar's" does not come naturally to anybody who is not actually Caesar.

Her Majesty's Customs and Revenue,the American IRS,Les Impot in France or whatever...there is a HUMAN resistance to Taxation.

Wallaces operation was,and afaik,still is,a hand's on operation,with it's principal playing a major role in day-to-day operations.
This is usually a common denominator in these Revenue vs xyz ltd cases.
The larger corporates have stand alone departments to stonewall and negotiate with the authorities,often ad nauseum until the actual payments have been well and profitably accounted for.
Companies such as Wallaces tend to use smaller Accountancy firms,perhaps Local,and as a result lose out on the often cosier "Professional" understandings which bloom between Revenue and the Larger Accounting Practices...;)

It's not particularly "fair" either,but for sure it's one of the reasonings behind Ireland Inc's push for Inward Foreign Investmnent...a smooth and efficient Tax régime....to echo the reported words of a former Financial Regulator..."Whatever ye think yerself,Willie " :rolleyes:

Good poin, and to echo the reported words of a former Taoiseach, "thanks a million big fella!"

AlekSmart wrote: »

I'll go out on a limb,and suggest that were he to stand again for his seat today,Mick Wallace would be re-elected .

you are probably right I would guess.

Regarding evictions, its time the banks realised they were to at least partially to blame for the banking crises / over 50% drop in house prices over such a long period, and time they took some blame -and the individual bankers who made the wrong decisions some pain, instead of the borrowers and evicted all the pain.

beauf

I think the banks know......they just don't care. Its irrelevant to them.

chopper6

wetdarknight2 wrote: »

Regarding evictions, its time the banks realised they were to at least partially to blame for the banking crises / over 50% drop in house prices over such a long period, and time they took some blame -and the individual bankers who made the wrong decisions some pain, instead of the borrowers and evicted all the pain.

The borrowers were the ones who bought the houses....nobody else's fault.

Farmer Pudsey

chopper6 wrote: »

The borrowers were the ones who bought the houses....nobody else's fault.

Bullsh!t during the heyday of the boom a lot od osdinary people were cheerlead along. They were given 120% loans at 5-6 times wages. We went from 80% mortgages over 20 years to 120% interest only over 40 years in a matter of about 6-8 years:eek:. It takes two to tango one is left with the baby is the old saying. I am just glad that my childern were not of that age.

It is very easy to say it was there fault, we could say the same about Priory park and about the houses build with dodgy stone. We have the Courts leave two invidusls off with a slap on the wrist because of a banking regulator. Is this not the same thing. We had our Great Leader telling the nay sayers to go away and commit suscide.

To compound all this we did not have a proper Bankrupty setup and even still it is nowhere near the same forgivness as the British one. Hence those that can afford it are still crossing the water to afford same. An Irish solution to an Iriosh problem

chopper6

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Bullsh!t during the heyday of the boom a lot od osdinary people were cheerlead along. They were given 120% loans at 5-6 times wages. We went from 80% mortgages over 20 years to 120% interest only over 40 years in a matter of about 6-8 years:eek:. It takes two to tango one is left with the baby is the old saying. I am just glad that my childern were not of that age.

It is very easy to say it was there fault, we could say the same about Priory park and about the houses build with dodgy stone. We have the Courts leave two invidusls off with a slap on the wrist because of a banking regulator. Is this not the same thing. We had our Great Leader telling the nay sayers to go away and commit suscide.

To compound all this we did not have a proper Bankrupty setup and even still it is nowhere near the same forgivness as the British one. Hence those that can afford it are still crossing the water to afford same. An Irish solution to an Iriosh problem

Noboty put a gun to anybody's head and forced them to take out massive mortages,particularly on "investment properties".

Sure the banks facilitated this madness but it was the financially illiterate mugs trying to make money on property and hoping to "flip" or acheive 10% rental yields who are really at fault.

beauf

chopper6 wrote: »

The borrowers were the ones who bought the houses....nobody else's fault.

They shouldn't have been given the credit to buy them by the banks.

The banks shouldn't have been given the credit they were given either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Regulator

beauf

...the banks facilitated this madness...who are really at fault.

Fixed that for you.

chopper6

beauf wrote: »

They shouldn't have been given the credit to buy them by the banks.

They didnt have to take the credit the banks offered them.

I dont understand why people are looking for debt forgiveness now that thier little flutter didnt work out too well for them...had house prices continued to increase(as people seemed to think they would,forever) nobody would be calling for brakes to be put on the whole sorry show.

Cant have it both ways i'm afraid.

beauf

Should the banks should have been offering the credit. Was it in...

professionally in the best interests of its
consumers and the integrity of the market;

acts with due skill, care and diligence in the best interests of its
consumers;

The only issue I have is your comment that it was no one else fault. Which isn't correct. The banks and the regulator (and govt) had a large to play in fuelling this.

When did we start discussing debt forgiveness? Or buy to let? I thought this thread was about the housing shortage, and would evictions fix the problem?

Farmer Pudsey

chopper6 wrote: »

Noboty put a gun to anybody's head and forced them to take out massive mortages,particularly on "investment properties".

Sure the banks facilitated this madness but it was the financially illiterate mugs trying to make money on property and hoping to "flip" or acheive 10% rental yields who are really at fault.

There is a lot more thst just investment properties in scope. At this stage there are loads of ex investment properties for sale. Most are slow to sell except in Dublin. If you look at the amount of investment properties for sale in daft.ie. THe bigger lots have been sold wholesale by NAMA at about a 70% discount I believe. The so called Doctors and dentists book, what is the bet a deal will be done with these by the new owner of the mortgage book.

gaius c

realitykeeper wrote: »

It is now six years since the recession started and still there have been very few evictions. People want to buy houses but the prices are being kept artificially high by the defaulters who are still occupying the properties they are not paying for. Why should young people who want to buy a new home have to borrow over the odds when houses are kept off the market in this way. This market manipulation also keeps rents high, so that keeps landlords happy at the expense of the poor tenants. It seems those who presently occupy houses while defaulting on their mortgages are the larger constituency which is why they are getting away with it. Perhaps it is time for evictions to start in earnest. A little heavy-handedness may be desirable. The gardai and a lawyer should accompany and assist the sheriffs and bailiffs. A good legal mind and a tazer & baton would be a great help - just in case there are any blackguards around trying to interfere.

I doubt that very much.
2 million dwellings in the country.
About half a million are mortgage free.
A bit less than that rent.
A bit under 300k are vacant.

That leaves 725k. And a little under 100k of those are in arrears.

Renters actually comfortably outnumber residential mortgages in arrears.

Farmer Pudsey

gaius c wrote: »

I doubt that very much.
2 million dwellings in the country.
About half a million are mortgage free.
A bit less than that rent.
A bit under 300k are vacant.

That leaves 725k. And a little under 100k of those are in arrears.

Renters actually comfortably outnumber residential mortgages in arrears.

135 K in arraers of which 60K are longer than 12 months. 45K are less than 3 months so loads of house oweners are falling behind in payments for a few months(these may be only partially non payments) and seem to get back on track again. So the real isse is about 60K houses I wonder what percentage are in the area's of dublin where prices are increasing.

Is the reason that banks are not foreclosing is that most non payers are in area's where the value of the houses is only 30%-40% of the loan.

gaius c

Are you counting all arrears? I'm only counting residential mortgage arrears (although I suspect a good number of those are really BTL on the sly).

beauf

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

...Is the reason that banks are not foreclosing is that most non payers are in area's where the value of the houses is only 30%-40% of the loan.

Why would that make a difference? In Ireland the borrower has to make up any shortfall.

Farmer Pudsey

beauf wrote: »

Why would that make a difference? In Ireland the borrower has to make up any shortfall.

If they can. If you are not paying your full amount it may well be you are a cannot pay as opposed to won't pay. You cannot get blood from a turnip. If a bank repossesses then the ex owner has to find rented accomdation which leaves less income to chase. On top of this it may become unviable to work as social welfare and rent allowance may leave a better lifstyle. SW is minimum income standard so no money for bank to chase.

Better to do a deal give a 30-40% debt forgivness on a house worth less than that and leave this person pay off what may be a viable loan.

beauf

I think the banks have their eye on any other properties and deposits the defaulters have.