Government to pay mortgage arrears *Mod Note in Opening Post*

Uncle Ben

Are Catherine Byrnes figures right. 300 million written off by NAMA for 23 developer?
When this is going on well then what's sauce for the goose and all that.

Villa05

Irish times reporting that in bankruptcy cases last year 30% of applicants have retained ownership of there homes.

jay0109

Uncle Ben wrote: »

Exactly. There are no extremely high figures for strategic defaulters. Does Brendan consider them as those that don't engage, those that won't fill out MARP and SFA forms. Far too easy to state that 75% of mortgage arrears are by employed people. Far too easy to state that there are extremely high numbers of strategic defaulters, far tto easy to quote Politics.ie as your references.

Look at Seamus Coffeys analysis of a day in court in Cork and tell me there are not a lot of Strategic Defaulters out there!

hopgog

jay0109 wrote: »

Look at Seamus Coffeys analysis of a day in court in Cork and tell me there are not a lot of Strategic Defaulters out there!

Only 1/4 of those where ppr and don't have any detailed case info on those even

jay0109

hopgog wrote: »

Only 1/4 of those where ppr and don't have any detailed case info on those even

Not true as I've said before. 1/4 were PPR, 1/4 were BTL and the rest were given as vacant or just left blank.

Anyways...Coffey, Brendan Burgess and Karl Deeter have spent a few days down the courts the past while and have a report coming out in the next day or so on what they saw. Around 300 cases.
I think it's going to tell a very interesting story...some people might have their eyes opened for the first time about how little (if anything at all) a lot of folk are paying towards their mortgages in the past 5 years or so

hopgog

jay0109 wrote: »

Not true as I've said before. 1/4 were PPR, 1/4 were BTL and the rest were given as vacant or just left blank.

So from the sparseness of that report you can only say that 1/4 where ppr like I said.

jay0109

hopgog wrote: »

So from the sparseness of that report you can only say that 1/4 where ppr like I said.

I can confidently say that a lot lot more than 1/4 were PPR. Or are you saying all the Vacants and Blanks were definitely BtL's?
But hey, if you want to pick holes on some real data finally appearing of whats happening in the courts, then fire ahead.

Villa05

gnf_ireland wrote:

The Group 2's that I am describing are not scrapping by though. These are the ones who are in trouble and need a level of support. However the support should be deemed to be short term and therefore makes sense to provide support than repossess.

Group 2 public sector pay cut of 15%
The paycut in real terms after tax would be closer to 8%, meanwhile increments remain and would be eating in to the 15% paycut. Add in the liklihood of having a tracker would suggest this group is not before the reposessions court unless they have a few btl's

Childcare costs maybe causing difficulties, but from experience people adapt and find alternative childcare, neighbours, friends relatives.

The repossessions are from groups 1 and 2. There is enough there to keep the courts busy for years if not decades unfortunately.

jay0109

Here's that article I mentioned yesterday from Burgess, Coffey and Deeter

Inside the property repossession courts, where only one in five borrowers turn up
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/inside-the-property-repossession-courts-where-only-one-in-five-borrowers-turn-up-1.2177202
One of the two who showed up in court who had a repossession order granted against him had arrears of €118,000 and had not made a payment since August 2010. His only defence was that the bank had not made him a written offer. The county registrar granted an order for repossession but put a stay on the order for eight months to give the borrower an opportunity to sort it out with the banks. The county registrar advised him: “Talking is not going to sort it out. Sending in forms is not going to sort it out. The only thing for you to do to avoid losing your home is to start making repayments.”.....
In one extraordinary case, the borrowers had made no repayment since 2009. They had not communicated with the lender but they showed up in court, and while the lender wanted to proceed with the possession order, the county registrar adjourned the case for four months to give them another chance.

Not bad- 1 borrower who has paid nothing in 6 years and still in the house, and the Courts gave them another chance of 4 more months!!!
But he was probably too terrified to deal with the banks if you listen to some on here and in the media....hope you all enjoy paying more taxes to keep these people in their 'homes'

Villa05

jay0109 wrote:

Not bad....1 borrower who has paid nothing in 6 years and still in the house. But he was probably too terrified to deal with the banks if you listen to some on here and in the media....hope you all enjoy paying more taxes to keep these people in their 'homes'

A young adult staying in there parents house without making a payment for 6 years would be thrown out to teach them a little about how the world works

Humanity indeed

zagmund

This "ah, give them some time to sort it out" thing is wearing very, very thin at this stage.

z

The_Conductor

zagmund wrote: »

This "ah, give them some time to sort it out" thing is wearing very, very thin at this stage.

z

It suited politicians to boot it down the road- in the vain hope that when eventually the birds came home to roost, it would be a different government- and thus someone else's problem (a SEP- as Douglas Adams termed it). Its not necessarily a uniquely Irish problem- people in general don't like to tackle issues like this- until the situations become utterly untenable (at which stage what was a minor issue may have morphed into a complete and utter nightmare).

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I think its the self entitlement culture. Wanting the big house in the nice area despite not being able to afford it, but entitled to it anyway.

gaius c

Uncle Ben wrote: »

Exactly. There are no extremely high figures for strategic defaulters. Does Brendan consider them as those that don't engage, those that won't fill out MARP and SFA forms. Far too easy to state that 75% of mortgage arrears are by employed people. Far too easy to state that there are extremely high numbers of strategic defaulters, far tto easy to quote Politics.ie as your references.

The absence of definite evidence does not prove the opposite either.

Or we could look at Seamus Coffey's account of how a court sitting goes.
http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/2015/04/cork-county-registrars-list-civil.html
It's fairly clear that a large number of people are making no effort to engage.

gaius c

Uncle Ben wrote: »

Are Catherine Byrnes figures right. 300 million written off by NAMA for 23 developer?
When this is going on well then what's sauce for the goose and all that.

Ah so we finally have it. You're trying the Harry Crosbie defence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ-sAQOolfc

“The money we’re going to pay back is what they [NAMA] paid; that’s the only money” said Harry and Brendan confirmed that might be 40c in the euro on the basis that NAMA has, on average, applied a 58% discount to loans acquired. Harry didn’t know what NAMA had paid for his loans but agreed with the gist of that. “We’re going to pay back what they [NAMA] paid; that’s what’s going to happen in the real world” said Harry. When probed further by Brendan as to what happens to the difference between the value of the loan at the original bank and what NAMA paid – the difference being commonly referred to as the “haircut” – Harry said “that’s gone..and it’s not coming back”.

MortgageBroker

Uncle Ben wrote: »

Exactly. There are no extremely high figures for strategic defaulters. Does Brendan consider them as those that don't engage, those that won't fill out MARP and SFA forms. Far too easy to state that 75% of mortgage arrears are by employed people. Far too easy to state that there are extremely high numbers of strategic defaulters, far tto easy to quote Politics.ie as your references.

The 75% figure is taken from a paper which was the SSISI Barrington Lecture by Yvonne McCarthy of the Central Bank, I think it was called 'mortgage arrears, what lies beneath'? She came up with the 75% (I thought it was 80% myself) figure from their dataset as being those in arrears but with no job loss.

Villa05

jay0109 wrote: »

Here's that article I mentioned yesterday from Burgess, Coffey and Deeter


Not bad- 1 borrower who has paid nothing in 6 years and still in the house, and the Courts gave them another chance of 4 more months!!!
But he was probably too terrified to deal with the banks if you listen to some on here and in the media....hope you all enjoy paying more taxes to keep these people in their 'homes'

Interesting comment from Karl Deeter (one of the authors of the article) in the comments section

karldeeter
@richardbarrett Far from it, I have personally helped people with mortgage problems for many years, the people in my firm, and me personally were doing it long before it became a big news topic. My daily working profession is as a regulated advisor who helps people with all manner of financial problems, much of your comment is emotive, we tried to make this empirical.

The people who are losing tend to have a few things in common, zero payments for several years, not communicating with the bank and not showing up to court. There may be reasons for these things which we can't know, but it's far from an accusation of 'chancer',

Villa05

jay0109 wrote: »

Here's that article I mentioned yesterday from Burgess, Coffey and Deeter


Not bad- 1 borrower who has paid nothing in 6 years and still in the house, and the Courts gave them another chance of 4 more months!!!
But he was probably too terrified to deal with the banks if you listen to some on here and in the media....hope you all enjoy paying more taxes to keep these people in their 'homes'

Coffey debating this on prime time tonight with David Hall. For once Hall had someone to challenge him on his propaganda, Seamus Coffey wiped the floor with him and showed him up for the spoofer he is

bluesteel

Villa05 wrote: »

Coffey debating this on prime time tonight with David Hall. For once Hall had someone to challenge him on his propaganda, Seamus Coffey wiped the floor with him and showed him up for the spoofer he is

The brass neck on Hall was unbelievable.

Scandalous cheek to claim the article was vilification. The guy needs to get a dictionary, very dishonest characterisation - he made an absolute fool of himself reading it out.

He tried to villify an honest academic presenting facts - and got his ass handed to him. Not used to being confronted. Good thing Miriam wasn't running the show

Geuze

The great thing about the truth is that it eventually always comes out.

Cushie Butterfield

''The new Labour proposals, which are being driven by a number of party backbenchers, are being targeted at couples living in urban areas who cannot meet the deposit rules in order to obtain a mortgage.

The measures will mean the minister directs local authorities to provide cash grants to applicants struggling to get onto the property market in cities such as Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway. A similar scheme, which previously saw first-time buyers being given grants of up to £IR3,000, was scrapped in 2002.''



''The issue of mortgages dominated both the Labour and Fine Gael party meetings this week.

Mr Noonan has been urged by his own colleagues to force councils to buy distressed properties at 20% below market price.

The local authorities could then rent these properties back to the occupant, so they remain in their homes.''

Full artilce here: http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/statefunded-grants-for-firsttime-buyers-under-labour-plans-31149577.html

Needless to say these are only proposals - just as the link to the proposals in the OP - nothing has been decided yet, nor have there been any official operational rules, guideline or control measures announced so there's no need for panic & outrage, but if the proposals come to fruition they may help the average 'Joe Soap' citizen which is what all proposals that have been made up to this are attempting to do.

hopgog

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

''The new Labour proposals, which are being driven by a number of party backbenchers, are being targeted at couples living in urban areas who cannot meet the deposit rules in order to obtain a mortgage.

The measures will mean the minister directs local authorities to provide cash grants to applicants struggling to get onto the property market in cities such as Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway. A similar scheme, which previously saw first-time buyers being given grants of up to £IR3,000, was scrapped in 2002.''



''The issue of mortgages dominated both the Labour and Fine Gael party meetings this week.

Mr Noonan has been urged by his own colleagues to force councils to buy distressed properties at 20% below market price.

The local authorities could then rent these properties back to the occupant, so they remain in their homes.''

Full artilce here independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/statefunded-grants-for-firsttime-buyers-under-labour-plans-31149577.html

Needless to say these are only proposals - just as the link to the proposals in the OP - nothing has been decided yet, nor have there been any official operational rules, guideline or control measures announced so there's no need for panic & outrage, but if the proposals come to fruition they may help the average 'Joe Soap' citizen which is what all proposals that have been made up to this are attempting to do.

Well there you go,

Renter gets free tax payer money via rent allowance/council house/money for deposit
Boom time buyer gets free tax payer money via arrears payoff/convert mortgage to council house
SVR time buyer gets free tax payer money via arrears payoff

In socialist Ireland everyone gets free money

Villa05

[quote=irish independent Noonan has been urged by his own colleagues to force councils to buy distressed properties at 20% below market price.[/quote]

Seems a reasonable solution, would be looking for a deeper discount though.

If the current occupants are still unwilling to make a contribution towards the rent or want to move elsewhere, the house can be made available to others on the housing list

A bit of a win win solution

The_Conductor

hopgog wrote: »

In socialist Ireland everyone gets free money

Except the honorable people who have moved heaven and earth to pay their way in society.

The_Conductor

Villa05 wrote: »

Seems a reasonable solution, would be looking for a deeper discount though.

If the current occupants are still unwilling to make a contribution towards the rent or want to move elsewhere, the house can be made available to others on the housing list

A bit of a win win solution

Its a win-win- if...... the councils don't sell off the properties ever again. The homes enter the pool of available properties for letting to those incapable of accommodating themselves- ad infinitum. No selling off allowed. A lot of the current mess- is a result of councils divesting themselves of their housing stock- which meant when people couldn't afford accommodation- it got offloaded onto the private sector- who in turn got villified as scapegoats by the government, the tenants, the councils- and most everyone else.

By all means get the councils to buy the property- I'd echo the suggestion that a 20% deduction on current OMSPs is not sufficient- but then amend the Regulations which allow councils sell properties to tenants- we need a pool of social housing- and this is a one-off shot to get it.

The_Morrigan

The_Conductor wrote: »

Except the honorable people who have moved heaven and earth to pay their way in society.

Correct. I spent a year living on cereal and noodles paying my mortgage while out of work, savings are gone as it covered the gap for stuff like insurance and property tax and tv licence and bills and the rest of the mortgage that wasn't covered by the dole. The new job I have is just about covering the bills because i took a massive salary drop from my previous one so I can't put much into savings yet.

What the hell do I get for not allowing myself to be another statistic?

quadrifoglio verde

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Correct. I spent a year living on cereal and noodles paying my mortgage while out of work, savings are gone as it covered the gap for stuff like insurance and property tax and tv licence and bills and the rest of the mortgage that wasn't covered by the dole. The new job I have is just about covering the bills because i took a massive salary drop from my previous one so I can't put much into savings yet.

What the hell do I get for not allowing myself to be another statistic?

You get asked to pay someone else's....sure it's only fair like.

Frigga_92

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Correct. I spent a year living on cereal and noodles paying my mortgage while out of work, savings are gone as it covered the gap for stuff like insurance and property tax and tv licence and bills and the rest of the mortgage that wasn't covered by the dole. The new job I have is just about covering the bills because i took a massive salary drop from my previous one so I can't put much into savings yet.

What the hell do I get for not allowing myself to be another statistic?

You are an example of the type of people who have every right to be outraged by this nonsensical proposal, just as I mentioned earlier in this thread.
No savings left, pay cut etc but still kept paying to keep your roof over your head because that is the responsible honest thing to do and now this is slapped in your face.

Mr. teddywinkles

NewDirection wrote: »

People in arrears and in negative equity are the have-nots you talked about. They are the less fortunate.

While repossession makes sense in some cases, surely its worth investigating if there is an alternative than throwing families out on the street. Where do you think the families will go after repossession? Renting, with rent supplement from the state.

Can kicking could help in this instance. Inflation would close the negative equity gap, plus the mortgage payments would stay the same, even as rents went higher, helping the struggling family even more.

They would benefit as their loan would be restructured to interest only, and the government would be paying part of it.

I'd argue it should cost in the same region as the rent supplement scheme, so at worst the government break even (as the now evicted owner would be eligible for the rent supplement if he starts renting), at best they recoup some money back if the house is eventually sold.

So all people in arrears are irresponsible, and people not in arrears are the responsible ones - the world is not so black and white. Also if you had read the link in my post, point one refers to a cap on the size of houses. So if you buy a house bigger than your needs, you are not eligible for the scheme.

The point people are trying to make here is your helping an individual aquire an asset. No matter how hard pressed they are or how much negative equity is involved.

hopgog

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

The point people are trying to make here is your helping an individual aquire an asset. No matter how hard pressed they are or how much negative equity is involved.

But you can get a free asset in a council house if you don't work at all.