you could loose your home if you don't keep up payments on it

Andy From Sligo

everlast75 wrote: »

OP - you lost me at "be like..."

its a good job i didnt say "do be like" ....

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

FizzleSticks wrote: »

With renting you could be turfed out of your home for reasons other than being in arrears.

Such as? I'd like to know, so I can destroy your theory

The law is very much in favour of tenants. Even if you stopped paying rent, it's still difficult to get an eviction.

whatismyname

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

so the mortgage adverts be like "You may loose your house if you dont keep up repayments on it" - do you think its the right way to go these days, to make people/family homeless if they dont/cant keep up mortgage repayments or do you think there is a more amicable/ sensible better thing mortgage companies can do if people cannot keep up their payments than turf people out? - thank god in my personal circumstances I am a renting our house, I'd hate to be saddled with a Mortgage these days and the uncertainty whether i could afford to keep up re-payments for 25 years or so!

Well my first issue would be with their poor spelling of 'lose' in the mortgage adverts :P

JupiterKid

Speedwell wrote: »

I'd rather rent modestly for 25 years and save enough to pay for my home outright or mostly so.

In fact I have actually done this! I'm in no hurry to buy a home at the moment though; in our current situation (I work from home, so I could theoretically work anywhere with a good enough Internet connection, and my husband is looking for work in his field; we don't have kids) it doesn't make sense to be locked down. It was nice to not have to sell a home before I immigrated to be with my husband here, too.

I wonder how long it would have taken me to pay off a mortgage equivalent to my savings, and how it would compare to the amount of time it actually took me to save the money.

That's what a lot of people do in Continental European countries - rent whilst bringing up a family inthe city and then buy - with cash -a small place in the country after the kids have flown the nest. Very common in Germany and France, for instance.

endacl

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

so the mortgage adverts be like "You may loose your house if you dont keep up repayments on it"

You can loose it all you like. It's not going anywhere. It's a house. Houses are noted for their extraordinary ability to remain in situ. Even if you stop paying.

Andy From Sligo

imagine loosing your house "I know I left it here somewhere, pretty sure of it!" - it be like loosing your car keys. what is it with people loosing car keys? - you'd swear they have legs or something

ahnowbrowncow

the evasion_kid wrote: »

I'd be sick as a homeowner getting turfed out by the banks while simultaneously bailing the bas!ards out...

They weren't bailed out so people who can't or don't want to pay their mortgage get a free house.

endacl

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

imagine loosing your house "I know I left it here somewhere, pretty sure of it!" - it be like loosing your car keys. what is it with people loosing car keys? - you'd swear they have legs or something

Whooooooosh....?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Its the self entitled attitude like that is what's wrong with this country. Peoples right to buy houses they can't afford and expect to keep them and pass the buck (or not, as the case may be) to the bank "it's not my fault! You gave the money".

You borrow it, you pay it back. You don't pay it back, you don't own it and out you go

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

the evasion_kid

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

They weren't bailed out so people who can't or don't want to pay their mortgage get a free house.

Yet they will probably being paying for that bail out the rest of their lives and their kids lives...if they can afford them

Ave Sodalis

You do have to wonder though, at what point in repayments should you get to say "now wait just a second"... when you have 50% paid? 70%? 90%?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

sup_dude wrote: »

You do have to wonder though, at what point in repayments should you get to say "now wait just a second"... when you have 50% paid? 70%? 90%?

100%, when you pay back the last cent of what you owe

deco nate

Tis funny all the people given out about those that can't pay their mortgage, saying blaa blaa blaa. Yet you are paying more money because of nama selling off property for pennys to the pound to overseas investors, and yet it's the miss sold mortgage that are being blamed here. Yea the same people that were told by the banks that it was within there means.... Ah sure **** it. Those that never learn....gonna happen sooner than later again. Crazy talk.

Nama.... Selling out stuff for pennys with disregard for any Irish people, all the while paying the developers a good bloody wage.

Del2005

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

so the mortgage adverts be like "You may loose your house if you dont keep up repayments on it" - do you think its the right way to go these days, to make people/family homeless if they dont/cant keep up mortgage repayments or do you think there is a more amicable/ sensible better thing mortgage companies can do if people cannot keep up their payments than turf people out? - thank god in my personal circumstances I am a renting our house, I'd hate to be saddled with a Mortgage these days and the uncertainty whether i could afford to keep up re-payments for 25 years or so!

When renting you can be homeless in 6 months if the LL wants to sell or move themselves or family in. Stop paying rent and you'll be out in about a year. Stop paying a mortgage and you've several years before the bank begins repossession proceedings and years again till you get turfed out and that's only if you completely ignore them any bit of contact or payment resets the clock.

end of the road

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

They weren't bailed out so people who can't or don't want to pay their mortgage get a free house.

yeah, they were bailed out because we were bullied into doing it. the banks lost all rights as far as i'm concerned when they were incompitent enough to need the tax payer to bail them out. if i had my way they would be paying back double what we gave them as punishment but we are where we are.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Its the self entitled attitude like that is what's wrong with this country. Peoples right to buy houses they can't afford and expect to keep them and pass the buck (or not, as the case may be) to the bank "it's not my fault! You gave the money".

You borrow it, you pay it back. You don't pay it back, you don't own it and out you go

wrong, the banks were thick and gave out mortgages to all and sundry so it is more their fault as they should know better) . the current situation is unique so your self righteousness doesn't apply and is invalid because of the unique situation. it would apply in an ideal world where banks would be responsible for their actions.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

100%, when the banks pay back the last cent of what theyowe

fixed that for you.

Andy From Sligo

anyone have a little bit of a smidgen against the banks dishing out the money like candy in the tiger times? - or do you lay blame totally with people who took out the mortgage/loan without knowing for 100% they could pay it back? - the ball was in the banks court, they were the ones dishing it out and they were also the ones who could hsave refused it if they really wanted to, the banks must have been brainy enough to know that even though the country was doing well and that everyone who went to them for a mortgage or loan who was in a job might not have been in a job should a crash happen , in fact more knowledgeable than the person going for the mortgage / loan .... yet they still dished out the money like that

deco nate

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

anyone have a little bit of a smidgen against the banks dishing out the money like candy in the tiger times? - or do you lay blame totally with people who took out the mortgage/loan without knowing for 100% they could pay it back? - the ball was in the banks court, they were the ones dishing it out and they were also the ones who could hsave refused it if they really wanted to, the banks must have been brainy enough to know that even though the country was doing well and that everyone who went to them for a mortgage or loan who was in a job might not have been in a job should a crash happen , in fact more knowledgeable than the person going for the mortgage / loan .... yet they still dished out the money like that

See my post above

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Don't fix my posts. Take a little bit of responsibility for your own messes. When the majority of people can get a mortgage and buy a house without having it repossessed, the problem seems to lie with a select few who thinks they're entitled to a free house they don't have to pay for. The majority of people aren't being hounded by banks, or weren't forced to take a mortgage that was beyond their means. Sure, some people did. But that's not anyone else's fault.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

end of the road wrote: »

yeah, they were bailed out because we were bullied into doing it. the banks lost all rights as far as i'm concerned when they were incompitent enough to need the tax payer to bail them out. if i had my way they would be paying back double what we gave them as punishment but we are where we are.



wrong, the banks were thick and gave out mortgages to all and sundry so it is more their fault as they should know better) . the current situation is unique so your self righteousness doesn't apply and is invalid because of the unique situation. it would apply in an ideal world where banks would be responsible for their actions.



fixed that for you.

Simple question time.

Did you borrow money?
Did you buy a house with borrowed money?
Did you agree to pay it back?
Have you paid it back in full?
If not, how is this someone else's fault?

HensVassal

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

so the mortgage adverts be like "You may loose your house if you dont keep up repayments on it" - do you think its the right way to go these days, to make people/family homeless if they dont/cant keep up mortgage repayments or do you think there is a more amicable/ sensible better thing mortgage companies can do if people cannot keep up their payments than turf people out? - thank god in my personal circumstances I am a renting our house, I'd hate to be saddled with a Mortgage these days and the uncertainty whether i could afford to keep up re-payments for 25 years or so!

LOSE

FFS

JHC

deco nate

end of the road wrote: »

yeah, they were bailed out because we were bullied into doing it. the banks lost all rights as far as i'm concerned when they were incompitent enough to need the tax payer to bail them out. if i had my way they would be paying back double what we gave them as punishment but we are where we are.



wrong, the banks were thick and gave out mortgages to all and sundry so it is more their fault as they should know better) . the current situation is unique so your self righteousness doesn't apply and is invalid because of the unique situation. it would apply in an ideal world where banks would be responsible for their actions.



fixed that for you.

Yep, yet some people think that those now are are at fault? Why. A bank has to be held responsible for its lendings. If they do it willy nilly, then they have to bear the Brunt of the cost. Yet nama was set up to sell off assetsassets, and they sold them off for pennys. But the banks won't pay the difference. It's us that will. And that price will cost us more in the long run with the payoffs to the developers. But hey, it's easier to blame those that were misoled mortgages

the evasion_kid

deco nate wrote: »

Yep, yet some people think that those now are are at fault? Why. A bank has to be held responsible for its lendings. If they do it willy nilly, then they have to bear the Brunt of the cost. Yet nama was set up to sell off assetsassets, and they sold them off for pennys. But the banks won't pay the difference. It's us that will. And that price will cost us more in the long run with the payoffs to the developers. But hey, it's easier to blame those that were misoled mortgages

Those vultures were circling....and they were hungry...Arccck arccck

end of the road

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Don't fix my posts. Take a little bit of responsibility for your own messes. When the majority of people can get a mortgage and buy a house without having it repossessed, the problem seems to lie with a select few who thinks they're entitled to a free house they don't have to pay for. The majority of people aren't being hounded by banks, or weren't forced to take a mortgage that was beyond their means. Sure, some people did. But that's not anyone else's fault.

your post was incorrect, so it needed correcting. the banks were fully responsible for giving out over inflated mortgages they knew damn well people really couldn't afford to pay back. the people were responsible for taking out mortgages they thought they could pay back. ergo, the banks are more responsible in this particular case. we are not dealing with a normal situation. i won't be taking responsibility for someone else. like i stated your self righteousness would apply in an ideal normal world where bailing out banks wouldn't happen, where banks would operate properly.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Simple question time.

Did you borrow money?
Did you buy a house with borrowed money?
Did you agree to pay it back?
Have you paid it back in full?
If not, how is this someone else's fault?

re-read the posts, re-read the threads that have come up in relation to banks and banking, the answers are all there.

Andy From Sligo

HensVassal wrote: »

LOSE

FFS

JHC

i think the situation is more import than the spelling .... as long as people get the gist of the post which it looks like they have what problem is it if incorrect spelling been used?

deco nate

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Don't fix my posts. Take a little bit of responsibility for your own messes. When the majority of people can get a mortgage and buy a house without having it repossessed, the problem seems to lie with a select few who thinks they're entitled to a free house they don't have to pay for. The majority of people aren't being hounded by banks, or weren't forced to take a mortgage that was beyond their means. Sure, some people did. But that's not anyone else's fault.

You do know that we are paying more thru nama than the default mortgages? Nama have sold off propertyfor the penny to the pound, to outsiders... Friends of friends (wink, wink) than the hole sum of those that are in arrears?! All the while paying the developers of defunct sites a handsome salary?!

Jack Killian

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

anyone have a little bit of a smidgen against the banks dishing out the money like candy in the tiger times? - or do you lay blame totally with people who took out the mortgage/loan without knowing for 100% they could pay it back? - the ball was in the banks court, they were the ones dishing it out and they were also the ones who could hsave refused it if they really wanted to, the banks must have been brainy enough to know that even though the country was doing well and that everyone who went to them for a mortgage or loan who was in a job might not have been in a job should a crash happen , in fact more knowledgeable than the person going for the mortgage / loan .... yet they still dished out the money like that

I went into a bank re a loan for part 1 of a two-stage renovation with a figure I could just about pay back in mind, and the bank offered me another 70% on top of it to do both stages together.

I said no.

So the "we all went mad" spin bugs the f**k out of me. I behaved responsibly - why didn't everyone ?

endacl

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

i think the situation is more import than the spelling .... as long as people get the gist of the post which it looks like they have what problem is it if incorrect spelling been used?

The gist being that if you take out a loan to pay for something but can't keep up the payments, then you don't get to keep the something you borrowed the principle for in the first place?

What's the problem with that?

Donald Trump

the evasion_kid wrote: »

I'd be sick as a homeowner getting turfed out by the banks while simultaneously bailing the bas!ards out...

And there's no connection between banks needing money in the form of a bailout and people owing them who don't/won't/"can't" pay them back?

The cases that amaze me are the repossession ones that make it to court and you hear that the owner stopped paying anything years before. Big house. repayments of a couple of grand a month in repayments and then they decide that they should live there for free and the renter working the 9-5 can bail out the bank instead.

Pinch Flat

As well as a national trait I alluded to above that suggests that paying a mortgage back in difficult times is not the mortgage holders responsibility, the notion that the banks made people buy houses is also a symptom of another one of our national traits - the lack of ability to take personal responsibility for ones situation.

Some people have obviously rationalised that a) the mortgage is not their problem in difficult times and b) that the bank are somehow culpible for making them take it out in the first place.

I don't think anyone is denying that property was seriously overinflated price wise in the so-called 'boom', and that the banks were lending money many multiples of people's income, hand over fist, and out of kilter with other countries, in order to buy the houses. So we blame a publican for serving us 8 pints if we are caught drink driving?

But a bit of cop on, realisation what was affordable given the individuals job situation (I.e. Contract or in a relatively volatile industry like construction), could of being exercised by individuals that thought they were going the struggle at sometime over the mortgages life if income was reduced or vanished.

My own bank would have let me borrow twice what I did, thrown in a few car loans for good measure as well as a few bob for kitchens, en-suites, holidays etc (sure why not? Everyone else was doing it) if I had of signed up to it - I took a responsible decision that given my own job situation (construction) and the security of my own wife's job (nurse), that taking out a loan that allowed the latter income to solely support the mortgage in bad times, which came to fruition in 2009, would able a responsible approach.