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

jay0109

About 315 houses repossessed in Ireland last year!

bjork

jay0109 wrote: »

About 315 houses repossessed in Ireland last year!

From people or from developers?

Are there 315 families on the streets?

porsche959

on_my_oe wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/taxpayers-to-bail-out-those-in-mortgage-arrears-plan-31135507.html

The government is going to pay the mortgage arrears to ensure families remain in their homes; banks will restructure the mortgage and they'll receive a 'top up' payment using taxpayers money.

Every time I think Ireland can't find a new way to screw over the decent and hardworking, I'm surprised and disappointed. I lived in an apartment where the landlord didn't pay the mortgage for over five years, pocketing the rent money. We then lost our security deposit in the repossession process.
We now own and pay a higher variable rate because of those on tracker mortgages and we don't benefit from any mortgage interest rebates. We struggle hard to pay our mortgage, so why the <beep> should I now pay someone else's too?

If you can't restructure your mortgage and its unsustainable, you lose your home and you rent.

They are now in the business of effectively buying votes. Seriously, Charlie Haughey was nothing on this shower.

bluemartin

unbelievable small number, so we talking tiny amounts.

porsche959

jay0109 wrote: »

About 315 houses repossessed in Ireland last year!

Not really a huge number, and some cases were presumably by consent. From the media sob stories, you'd think it was in the thousands.

bjork

Gorse hill
The other couple with the tent and the properties

only 313 others

bluemartin

porsche959 wrote: »

Not really a huge number, and some cases were presumably by consent. From the media sob stories, you'd think it was in the thousands.

Considering 30,000 are in serious arrears, its a minuscule amount.

jay0109

porsche959 wrote: »

Not really a huge number, and some cases were presumably by consent. From the media sob stories, you'd think it was in the thousands.

There was another 400+ handed back voluntarily.
A joke really considering this is 1 of the largest housing price collapses in recorded history

riclad

Would it not make more sense to extend the mortgage on some houses by 15 years and reduce the monthly payment by 40 per cent .
IN some cases if a house has lost half its value ,
the client cant afford the full mortgage the bank would be financially better off to take 500 per month than evict someone for not paying 850 per month.
eg house in cavan now worth 150k,
mortgage is 300k.
IN cases where its obvious the client is genuine ,ie cannot afford to pay 850,
could afford to pay 500 per month .
Theres probably 100 s of people out there right now whose mortgage is paid for by dept of social welfare .
ITS hard to have sympathy for a couple who are living in a gigantic mansion ,
fighting the bank,
who also have a house in the uk .

AS I Expected the banks will take people to court now,
as rising houses prices mean they ,ll get most of their money back
when the sell the house,s they repossessed .

Cuddlesworth

jay0109 wrote: »

There was another 400+ handed back voluntarily.
A joke really considering this is 1 of the largest housing price collapses in recorded history

At a guess, considering the spike at the start of the year I would say there have been more court cases lodged in the first 4 months of this year then in the last 5 years. Price rises in the urban centres have meant that banks can clear houses with minimal loss and they are moving on it hard.

NIMAN

More can kicking.

Is Ireland the only country that this would happen in? Is it a bit like 'The Field', except with houses?

I am 100% sure other countries are more pragmatic when it comes to mortgage arrears. I bet in most other places, if you can't afford your mortgage, you'd have been out quite a few years ago.

bluemartin

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

At a guess, considering the spike at the start of the year I would say there have been more court cases lodged in the first 4 months of this year then in the last 5 years. Price rises in the urban centres have meant that banks can clear houses with minimal loss and they are moving on it hard.

yes maybe in the larger urban areas however, in smaller town and villages throughout the country houses prices still very static and most probably only worth half what people paid for them.

RecordStraight

riclad wrote: »

Would it not make more sense to extend the mortgage on some houses by 15 years and reduce the monthly payment by 40 per cent .

So people would have 45, 50 year mortgages? Why reduce the payment by 40%? Can we reduce everyone's rent by 40% too while we are at it?

Why not?

And who pays for all this?

RecordStraight

bluemartin wrote: »

Do we know what percentage of people are doing this?

It's difficult to say how many people are strategically defaulting on the one hand, how many people are simply refusing to cut back on their lifestyles (a sense of entitlement?) on the other, and of course the people who could make payments if they cut back on things like private school fees or other luxuries.

But the graph I posted on the second page of the thread shows you how our rate of default is several times higher than GREECE, a total economic basket case even today.

Laura.R.G.N

Clever idea by someone on the pin.

The Irish Moral Hazard Organisation (IMHO)
Can't post links so here it is broken up...

www. irishmoralhazardorganisation. com

noniej

We enquired about a house over the weekend (that hadn't been completely finished) and were informed it had JUST been taken off the market - we thought it was odd but now all becomes clear.

Kermit.de.frog

I can see a lot of people getting very angry very quickly if this proposal sees the light of day.

noniej

Laura.R.G.N wrote: »

Clever idea by someone on the pin.

The Irish Moral Hazard Organisation (IMHO)
Can't post links so here it is broken up...

www. irishmoralhazardorganisation. com

That link needs to be shared by as many people as possible.

NIMAN

The thing about this proposal is that I honestly believe its something every political party would advocate, inc Sinn Fein, the AAA and all the Independents.

After all, all these folk are always blabbing on about how those in arrears are on the verge of being put out on the streets, being made homeless etc, and they so often say that the most vunerable should be helped. This scheme is 'helping the vunerable', so I expect to see the anti-everything mob actually congratulate the Government on this proposal and give it their full backing.

worded

https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/late-stage-arrears-in-europe2.png?w=1024&h=842

Can anyone post links to stopping your mortgage DD for all the banks. I think I fancy a holiday, everyone should.

what will that graph look like in a year or two time if this goes ahead ?

What a joke.

The_Conductor

Calina wrote: »

Location, location.

There seems to be this illusion that empty houses are within a reasonable vicinity of most of the available jobs.

This is not actually the case.

The 'location' of the empty properties is one thing. The other unfortunate thing- is the census enumerates any freestanding structure- as a property- it doesn't even have to have a roof, or to have had one in the preceding decades- it just has to be freestanding. Who really thinks there are a quarter of a million vacant habitable properties in the rural west of Ireland? I'm sorry- it totally beggars belief.

Lets see what transpires from the current proposal now that the cold light of day has had a chance to cast light on it- for politicians. The government may think that not tackling the mortgage mess is political suicide- well, voters are going to show them that lumping the taxpayer with another ill-thought-out scheme, and a shake of the magic money tree- is not going to cut it.

If a political party- Renue (or whatever the hell they're called) decided to run candidates opposing this scheme nationwide- they'd get elected by a landslide.

The electorate may be fickle- and may have short memories- but this hair brained scheme is just one bridge too far.........

NIMAN

We will have to wait and see which parties actually back it, if it does come to pass, cos I for one will definitely be asking eacvh and every one of them when they land on my doorstep looking for my vote.

aido79

Eugene Norman wrote: »

It's fairly easy. A good percentage of the arrears are landlords. Let's say half those properties are in Dublin which is having a rental crisis.
What's the excuse?

I doubt that most people in arrears are unemployed. Trackers were common in the boom and the repayments have dropped. Negative equity is not a reason to default.

There's obvious strategy here. Just look at the people combatting repossession - they are lawyered up.

I think in the case of a landlord where he/she is strategically not making mortgage repayments on a property that is not their principle residence this property should be repossessed.
Ordinary people who are not paying or are unable to make minimum repayments on their mortgages in their principle homes should have their mortgages restructured and if that doesn't solve their issues then they need to consider renting.
Kicking people who are struggling to pay their mortgages out of their homes in the current market is not really practical because of the high cost and limited availability of rental properties as these people still need to find a place to live.
Maybe for the next boom,if there is one, the government should consider limiting the number of developers involved in constructing homes and instead build homes that can be rented longterm from the government. For this to work though the stigma in Ireland attached to renting would need to be changed or eliminated as it is in a lot of European countries.
This would also help to stop a property bubble being created as there would be less people trying to buy a house and pushing prices up. The government would also have greater control over rents which could be matched more fairly to cost of living rather than a landlord charging over the odds because he can and because he needs to pay off a huge mortgage or mortgages.

The_Conductor

By some estimates there are as many taximen, ex-plumbers, ex-brickies and ex-electricians- who are all plying cash-in-hand trades, who are strategically not paying their mortgages, as their are landlords who are delinquint with their mortgages on the PPRs. Its really not that easy to differentiate between them.........

Cushie Butterfield

riclad wrote: »

Theres probably 100 s of people out there right now whose mortgage is paid for by dept of social welfare .

No-one is or was ever getting their mortgage paid by dept social welfare.

If you're referring to the Mortgage Interest Supplement Scheme, claimants never had their mortgages paid through that scheme. Anyone in fulltime employment (either partner) weren't eligible to apply. It was always subject to means testing (savings, investments, additional property, redundancy payments were all assessed as means, thereby reducing the final amount of supplement paid.

New applications haven't been accepted for the scheme since Jan 2014 & entire scheme is due to be scrapped within the next year or two for existing recipients, & up to that applicants had to have already entered an alternative payment arrangement with their banks for the previous 12 months before being eligible to even apply. Even after the 12 months DSP only looked at the interest portion of the mortgage repayments, & from that between €120 & €160 per month depending on marital/co-habitation status was automatically deducted (as well as assessable means) from the interest portion of the mortgage repayment amount. The net result was/is that the vast majority would be in receipt of less than they would if they were claiming rent supplement. A lot of people were refused MIS because during the application process it transpired that in the opinion of DSP (HSE at the time) they couldn't afford the mortgage to begin with.

So the entire notion that anyone out there right now has or ever had their mortgage paid for by DSP is a complete myth.

Uncle Ben

I can't really see the problem with someone on the housing list possibly getting up to €900 per month in rent allowance or someone trying to stay in their home and possibly getting €300 per month in assistance from DSP. Most likely the lesser of two evils.

ThunbergsAreGo

People gambled on their mortgage and lost, why shouldnt they take the consequences?

Uncle Ben

naughtb4 wrote: »

People gambled on their mortgage and lost, why shouldnt they take the consequences?

Do you really believe that people 'gambled' or is it just a nice cliché that sounds well. I don't like the idea that taxpayers provide reliefs for those that have their own private pensions or medical care however it's for the social good, perhaps it may just be for the social good to assist some families who are in mortgage distress rather than having up to an extra 100k on inadequate housing lists which also has to be provided by the same taxpayers. Someone will have to assist these people. It's just a matter of getting the best value.

ThunbergsAreGo

Uncle Ben wrote: »

Do you really believe that people 'gambled' or is it just a nice cliché that sounds well. I don't like the idea that taxpayers provide reliefs for those that have their own private pensions or medical care however it's for the social good, perhaps it may just be for the social good to assist some families who are in mortgage distress rather than having up to an extra 100k on inadequate housing lists which also has to be provided by the same taxpayers. Someone will have to assist these people. It's just a matter of getting the best value.

Ever decision you make is essentially a gamble, they took on debt assuming it could be paid off. From whatever circumstances that arose (outisde of their control in alot of cases), they cannot meet this replayment.

Housing is a very emotive subject "families out on the street etc." The people who will be helped out will be living in a better house paying less (or something) than someone renting at the moment who has access and the want to buy in some cases. As some have said on here, i dont think this will happen. It would be a very dangerous precedent.

Zamboni

Uncle Ben wrote: »

. Someone will have to assist these people. It's just a matter of getting the best value.

They can fend for themselves like everyone else.
If you cannot afford rent, move somewhere cheaper. Private tenants have been doing it for years. Moving areas, moving families to different schools.
Nobody has ever complained.

We can assist these people but not at the unquantifiable cost of moral hazard.