Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Vulture fund to sell currently tenanted homes in Dublin 15

Options
12345679»

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    newacc2015
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭newacc2015


    Graham wrote: »
    by questionable you mean completely legal?

    Correct. A foreign bank seizing assets from people using unregulated receivers to sell property for a fraction of their worth is entirely legal. Is it morally right?

    A Government using a CPO (a change in law might be needed) to buy those assets for the price the speculators brought them for can be entirely legal too. Is it morally right?

    Both are legal. Therefore under your logic, both can be justified.


  • Options
    #243
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    newacc2015 wrote: »
    A Government using a CPO (a change in law might be needed)

    That's a rather convoluted way of saying it's not legal.


  • Options
    #244
    Canadel
    Registered Users Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭Canadel


    Deleted User wrote: »
    So yes, theft.
    Yet it's ok when people's houses they've lived in their whole lives are subject to the exact same process to build a road?

    Honohan is saying it should be done in this case to save people and families who are suffering from a debilitating housing crisis.


  • Options
    #245
    Arian Dirty Tether
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Arian Dirty Tether


    Canadel wrote: »
    Yet it's ok when people's houses they've lived in their whole lives are subject to the exact same process to build a road?

    Honohan is saying it should be done in this case to save people and families who are suffering from a debilitating housing crisis.

    That's not what happens. They get market rate with their CPO.

    You are proposing CPOs under market rate.

    How do we differentiate in law between speculators and buyers? What of the properties that people bought that are now worth far less than they paid? Should they get CPOd at the rates that they paid for it?


  • Options
    #246
    newacc2015
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭newacc2015


    Graham wrote: »
    That's a rather convoluted way of saying it's not legal.

    Have you finally seen then hypocrisy your post? That is it acceptable for a foreign bank to seize assets from Irish Citizens people using unregulated receivers to sell property for a fraction of their worth which is entirely legal. Yet the Government buys the same assets for the same price and suddenly you draw the line on what is right and wrong.

    Do you not see anything morally wrong with a house valued at €90k being sold for €60k? Or is it just morally wrong for the Government to do the same thing?

    NAMA has the authority to make a CPO. NAMA might be able to acquire property regardless of the bank used for its developments. So there may not be a law change needed at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    It's hypocritical to expect all parties to act within the law now?

    Nonsense.


  • Options
    #248
    newacc2015
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭newacc2015


    Graham wrote: »
    It's hypocritical to expect all parties to act within the law now?

    Nonsense.

    So a €90k house sold for €60k is perfectly acceptable to you? If that case involved you. Would you feel the bank did nothing wrong if you got a letter demand the outstanding balance on your loan and you discovered the house was sold for €38k less than what you could have gotten. You didnt even know the bank sold the house and now the bank is now telling you have to pay that €38k shortfall. You dont see anything wrong with that?


  • Options
    #249
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    newacc2015 wrote: »
    So a €90k house sold for €60k is perfectly acceptable to you? If that case involved you. Would you feel the bank did nothing wrong if you got a letter demand the outstanding balance on your loan and you discovered the house was sold for €38k less than what you could have gotten. You didnt even know the bank sold the house and now the bank is now telling you have to pay that €38k shortfall. You dont see anything wrong with that?

    So following your logic we should start compulsory purchasing any houses that were purchased at the bottom of the market?


  • Options
    #250
    newacc2015
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭newacc2015


    Graham wrote: »
    So following your logic we should start compulsory purchasing any houses that were purchased at the bottom of the market?

    Dude, did you even read the post? Explain to me how it is morally right to sell a €90k house for €60k?


  • Options
    #251
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,339 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    newacc2015 wrote: »
    Dude, did you even read the post? Explain to me how it is morally right to sell a €90k house for €60k?

    I think you need to step back a little and think. Receiver sales are the exception, not the norm. Equally they arise solely in non owner occupier situations. Moreover, any attempt by the debtor to engage with the financial institution and/or receiver will improve the situation for the benefit of the debtor, either through further forebearance (ie time to sort things out) or improved negotiating position.

    Working with the institution/receiver will generally result in a better financial outcome for all concerned as the property can be sold by consent which will allow more marketing and likely a private treaty rather than an auction sale.

    Further, your repeating of Honohan's reference to unregulated receivers is also as ill informed as his statements. They are regulated by the law of property and the lending documents under which they are appointed. They are the agent of the debtor and have an obligation to act in the debtor's best interests. Where the debtor does not engage, it is hard for him to get the best deal.

    The other matter which should make you realise that Honohan's bloviating is fatuous; his own brother was the Central Bank governor and he himself was dealing with procedural matters on repossessions. He was ideally placed to effect actual change rather than the mutterings he seems to persist with.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    quadrifoglio verde
    Registered Users Posts: 3,670 ✭✭✭quadrifoglio verde


    A receivers job is to get the best price now, not 6 months ago, or 6 months later, but now so that the creditors can be paid
    This was one of the reasons behind the setting up of Nama, to have an orderly wind down of bad debts so that the banks didn't foresale the propertys at basement prices crashing property prices further


  • Options
    #253
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    Mod note

    We seem to have drifted significantly off the OP's topic. Can we get back there or start a new thread please


  • Options
    #254
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    Families facing the loss of their rented homes have told of their relief after their landlord conceded termination notices were invalid.
    Fourteen families in Tyrrelstown in Dublin who received notices by post from management company Twinlite had contacted the Private Residential Tenancies Board to challenge the validity of the notices.
    The letters gave the families dates by which they must move out of their homes because the ownership company intended to sell the properties.
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/reprieve-for-families-as-landlord-admits-evictions-invalid-34659479.html

    Anyone know why they were invalid?


  • Options
    #255
    Baby01032012
    Registered Users Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭Baby01032012


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    Anyone know why they were invalid?

    Something about intention to sell is not a valid reason to terminate. I guess they need to be further down the line before issuing notice. However I think the intention was to give families as much notice as possible far exceeding what was required.


  • Options
    #256
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Baby01032012 wrote: »
    Something about intention to sell is not a valid reason to terminate. I guess they need to be further down the line before issuing notice. However I think the intention was to give families as much notice as possible far exceeding what was required.

    It is not possible to give too much notice, once the notice is not contained in the lease itself. the invalidity is that there must be more than a vague intention to sell. Some marketing must have taken place.


Advertisement