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

Erm, the security is kinda the whole point of a mortgage. It is a loan secured against property. No security, no mortgage.

The J Stands for Jay

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

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!

So you feel more secure in your 12 month lease where you will be evicted if you do not keep up the owner's mortgage repayments, or if they decide to sell up, or move in, or jack up the rent to a level you can't afford?

valoren

On the idea that the banks didn't suffer;

The banks were punished for reckless lending. We forget that sometimes.
Their share prices were devastated. Shareholders were wiped out. Losses were enormous.

In any ordinary economic situation, those reckless lenders would have gone the way of Northern Rock.
They wouldn't exist anymore. The only reason they exist now is because of they went cap in hand to the government with the doomsday message of a systemic crash if they didn't get issued a blanket guarantee. This very nearly bankrupted the country. They played chicken with the government. The government blinked first.

crusha101

While I wholeheartedly sympathise with those facing repossession, I have never understood the mindset of some people who believe they have a right to live in a house they do not own and cannot pay for. In Ireland we suffer from a "blame game" mindset unlike anywhere I have been before and we have a passion for living beyond our means:

"cant keep up with the HP payments on my new car - bloody FG ruining the country and taking money out of my pocket!"

"If it wasn't for those water charges and household tax id be able to keep up with mortgage repayments."

HensVassal

bubblypop wrote: »

There's plenty of houses to rent.
There is no right to own your own house, many thousands of people rent a home for their whole life.

An acquaintance went to view an apartment in Dublin. There were 70 others waiting outside to view it. Young couples. Hadn't a chance.

stevedublin

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

....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, ...

So if you stop paying your rent you get to stay in your house?

Cork2015!

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!

Sure if that's the case shouldn't everyone get a mortgage (Including those who know they can't afford it), and just not pay and say oh well, lets sort it out somehow but I will still keep the house?!?!?!?!??

end of the road

endacl wrote: »

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?

in an ideal world where banks are responsible and operate responsibly, nothing. in a world where banks can bankrupt the country, get bailed out by the tax payer and have generations of tax payers paying for their mistakes, then the normal rules don't apply to those particular banks. any bank who wasn't bailed out by the tax payer can continue business as usual. if the house needs to be taken then the state should take it if it belongs to a bank who was bailed out by the tax payer as compensation for incompitentsy

Graham

end of the road wrote: »

if the house needs to be taken then the state should take it if it belongs to a bank who was bailed out by the tax payer as compensation for incompitentsy

Given the taxpayers own much of the banks you're suggesting we fleece that's probably not the smartest move economically speaking.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

in an ideal world where banks are responsible and operate responsibly, nothing. in a world where banks can bankrupt the country, get bailed out by the tax payer and have generations of tax payers paying for their mistakes, then the normal rules don't apply to those particular banks. any bank who wasn't bailed out by the tax payer can continue business as usual. if the house needs to be taken then the state should take it if it belongs to a bank who was bailed out by the tax payer as compensation for incompitentsy

If people paid their debts maybe the banks wouldn't have needed to be bailed out

Jack Killian

Graham wrote: »

Given the taxpayers own much of the banks you're suggesting we fleece that's probably not the smartest move economically speaking.

Who's suggesting "fleecing" them ?

If they'd been sent to the wall then they'd have no jobs.

Legislate to force them to pass on the proper interest rates as a thank you to us.

Graham

Jack Killian wrote: »

Who's suggesting "fleecing" them ?

If they'd been sent to the wall then they'd have no jobs.

Legislate to force them to pass on the proper interest rates as a thank you to us.

Imposing interest rated on banks is only likely to put off additional entrants to the banking market reducing future competition. If the banks are charging excessive interest rates, new entrants won't be long to enter the market to redress the balance.

Andy From Sligo

McGaggs wrote: »

So you feel more secure in your 12 month lease where you will be evicted if you do not keep up the owner's mortgage repayments, or if they decide to sell up, or move in, or jack up the rent to a level you can't afford?

no, obviously renting is not 100% secure - but id still rather than have the headache than having to look years ahead wondering if I could meet high mortgage repayments each month. - of course if your renting and structural damage or something else happens with the house its the landlords problem, yet another security plus for people at renting. feel sorry for people who have took out a big long term mortgage and maybe on top of their mortgage payments have got to find money to fix the house when something goes wrong.

Graham

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

no, obviously renting is not 100% secure - but id still rather than have the headache than having to look years ahead wondering if I could meet high mortgage repayments each month. - of course if your renting and structural damage or something else happens with the house its the landlords problem, yet another security plus for people at renting. feel sorry for people who have took out a big long term mortgage and maybe on top of their mortgage payments have got to find money to fix the house when something goes wrong.

Swings and roundabouts, there may come a stage in your life where other (family) commitments make the relative long-term security of owing your own home more appealing.

aido79

end of the road wrote: »

in an ideal world where banks are responsible and operate responsibly, nothing. in a world where banks can bankrupt the country, get bailed out by the tax payer and have generations of tax payers paying for their mistakes, then the normal rules don't apply to those particular banks. any bank who wasn't bailed out by the tax payer can continue business as usual. if the house needs to be taken then the state should take it if it belongs to a bank who was bailed out by the tax payer as compensation for incompitentsy

Taking out a mortgage is a massive decision and anyone doing so should do their homework. So what if the bank says a person can have the money to buy a house. The person taking out the mortgage has a responsibility to figure out if they can afford it. There are literally hundreds of mortgage calculators on the internet so it's not that hard to work it out.

I rented for 10 years before and during the Celtic tiger. People said I was mad to be wasting money on rent. Turns out it was the best money I have ever spent. At one stage(around 2006)I actually went into the bank to query how much I could borrow. I was an apprentice at the time and the amount I was told I could borrow astounded me. There was no way I was going to buy then because as far as I could see the writing was on the wall and there was no way things could keep going the way they were and something had to give. I had already made my decision to emigrate anyway.

I fully believe that if the banks relaxed the mortgage rules and started giving mortgages out again like they did during the Celtic tiger the same thing would happen again. The blame does not lay completely with the banks. Yes they were reckless and they made some serious mistakes but at the end of the day every mortgage that was issued was signed for by a person who should have realised the seriousness of taking out a mortgage. I don't believe that anyone was issued a mortgage by any bank against their will.

OldNotWIse

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

quite different. most people/families could survive without a car, but if they loose their house and get homeless ....

Rent

Andy From Sligo

stevedublin wrote: »

So if you stop paying your rent you get to stay in your house?

its a possibility maybe - maybe my landlord would be more accommodating and flexible than if I owed mortgage repayment(s) to the bank - landlord might say thats ok , give me next payment when you can afford it (I lives in cuckoo land) - I dunno I have never been in that situation (thankfully) .

mickoneill31

If banks can't repossess houses who is going to pay? My mortgage is with Kbc. We didn't bail them out and their rates are among the highest now. If they can't repossess they'll just put the cost onto the customer.
Banks are already doing this. Ireland has the highest Svr rates in Europe. We don't need the government to fiddle and cost us more. Look how well they worked out for the rental market.

JustTheOne

People are forgetting the banks are paying back the loans they needed during the bailout with interest.

It's not as if they got the money for nothing.

The only one we lost money on was Anglo. Disaster that was.

Maximus Alexander

I'm perplexed as to why anyone would expect to hang on to a house that doesn't belong to them.

"Hey bank, buy me this house. I'll pay you back, promise."

"Ok."

"Hehe thx, im not guna pay you bak tho i woz jk lol"

"Ok. Get out of my house then."

Makes sense to me.

K-9

Fecking property obsessed in this country.
The result of which is the "I'm entitled to a house" mentality even if you can't pay for it or the inheritance thread on here.

Basically it's The Field, updated for 2016

OldNotWIse

K-9 wrote: »

Fecking property obsessed in this country.
The result of which is the "I'm entitled to a house" mentality even if you can't pay for it or the inheritance thread on here.

Basically it's The Field, updated for 2016

True, and looking down on people who were "only renting" and not getting themselves up shít creek or into negative equity.

maudgonner

K-9 wrote: »

Fecking property obsessed in this country.
The result of which is the "I'm entitled to a house" mentality even if you can't pay for it or the inheritance thread on here.

Tsk, tsk. If you're saying 'I'm entitled to a house' your ambitions are just not high enough.

'I'm entitled to my dream house, in my ideal area' - that should be your mantra!

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

its a possibility maybe - maybe my landlord would be more accommodating and flexible than if I owed mortgage repayment(s) to the bank - landlord might say thats ok , give me next payment when you can afford it (I lives in cuckoo land) - I dunno I have never been in that situation (thankfully) .

No. The landlord is probably paying his mortgage and needs that rent. He could have his crèche fees due and need to subsidise you to stay in his house rent free. Also, if you can't pay one months rent, how could you pay two/three or more when you get into arrears? You'd be given your notice much faster renting

osarusan

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

"Hey bank, buy me this house. I'll pay you back, promise."

"Ok."

"Hehe thx, im not guna pay you bak tho i woz jk lol"

"Ok. Get out of my house then."

They've clearly suffered a serious brain accident between since borrowing.

Bit harsh kicking somebody out of a house in such circumstances.

ForstalDave

osarusan wrote: »

They've clearly suffered a serious brain accident between since borrowing.

Bit harsh kicking somebody out of a house in such circumstances.

its ok it will be 10 years or so before they actually have to leave

end of the road

bubblypop wrote: »

If people paid their debts maybe the banks wouldn't have needed to be bailed out

if the banks who's job it is to know better didn't throw money at people they knew couldn't afford it then they wouldn't have needed to be bailed out. the banks are the only ones responsible for needing to be bailed out. the only thing the person is responsible for is being a bit stupid and paying a bit to much for that house. getting a mortgage in good faith that they did think they could pay back.

Graham wrote: »

Imposing interest rated on banks is only likely to put off additional entrants to the banking market reducing future competition. If the banks are charging excessive interest rates, new entrants won't be long to enter the market to redress the balance.

except that isn't happening, nor does it work like that.

aido79 wrote: »

Taking out a mortgage is a massive decision and anyone doing so should do their homework. So what if the bank says a person can have the money to buy a house. The person taking out the mortgage has a responsibility to figure out if they can afford it. There are literally hundreds of mortgage calculators on the internet so it's not that hard to work it out.

I rented for 10 years before and during the Celtic tiger. People said I was mad to be wasting money on rent. Turns out it was the best money I have ever spent. At one stage(around 2006)I actually went into the bank to query how much I could borrow. I was an apprentice at the time and the amount I was told I could borrow astounded me. There was no way I was going to buy then because as far as I could see the writing was on the wall and there was no way things could keep going the way they were and something had to give. I had already made my decision to emigrate anyway.

I fully believe that if the banks relaxed the mortgage rules and started giving mortgages out again like they did during the Celtic tiger the same thing would happen again. The blame does not lay completely with the banks. Yes they were reckless and they made some serious mistakes but at the end of the day every mortgage that was issued was signed for by a person who should have realised the seriousness of taking out a mortgage. I don't believe that anyone was issued a mortgage by any bank against their will.

all this talk about mortgage calculators is irrelevant. the banks are in the majority responsible for operating wrecklessly and giving out to much money. all the people did was take out mortgages in good faith. in some cases the bank wouldn't give the people what they actually wanted, they had to take more before the bank would say yes. ireland's situation with the banks isn't a normal situation so non normal rules apply. not everyone is an economist like yourself who can see when a crash is about to happen.

JustTheOne wrote: »

People are forgetting the banks are paying back the loans they needed during the bailout with interest.

It's not as if they got the money for nothing.

The only one we lost money on was Anglo. Disaster that was.

they aren't paying back enough. they need to pay a punishment rate, IE double what we gave them to send out a strong message.

OldNotWIse

end of the road wrote: »

if the banks who's job it is to know better didn't throw money at people they knew couldn't afford it then they wouldn't have needed to be bailed out. the banks are the only ones responsible for needing to be bailed out. the only thing the person is responsible for is being a bit stupid and paying a bit to much for that house. getting a mortgage in good faith that they did think they could pay back.



except that isn't happening, nor does it work like that.



all this talk about mortgage calculators is irrelevant. the banks are in the majority responsible for operating wrecklessly and giving out to much money. all the people did was take out mortgages in good faith. in some cases the bank wouldn't give the people what they actually wanted, they had to take more before the bank would say yes. ireland's situation with the banks isn't a normal situation so non normal rules apply. not everyone is an economist like yourself who can see when a crash is about to happen.



they aren't paying back enough. they need to pay a punishment rate, IE double what we gave them to send out a strong message.

Is there to be zero accountability on the part of the borrower? Are we expected to believe the banks ran down the street after them throwing cash their way? That they bullied them into a mortgage? We all know some people were up to every trick in the book to get the "multiples" they needed to borrow way beyond their means. The thought of renting was too much for those obsessed with getting onto the property ladder no matter what. People were queuing overnight for houses, and buying houses they hadn't even seen, houses off plan that hadn't even been built yet. It was pure mania and madness, and now they want write downs and to be left in the houses they can no longer pay for? How is that fair on the more prudent who rented, saved and borrowed within their means?

um7y1h83ge06nx

I think it's a bit mad that some people want a nanny state in this country for so many things.

Personal responsibility appears to be gone well out of fashion.

Last year I took out a mortgage and stress tested us far beyond the bank with much higher worst case interest rates and assuming that I would be unemployed and just my wife would be working.

Could still get screwed but at least I've tried to be cautious.

Andy From Sligo

LexieOnRale wrote: »

No. The landlord is probably paying his mortgage and needs that rent. He could have his crèche fees due and need to subsidise you to stay in his house rent free. Also, if you can't pay one months rent, how could you pay two/three or more when you get into arrears? You'd be given your notice much faster renting

Naw none of that, farmer with grown up kids - its a 70's house and I bet the mortgage is all paid up on it ages ago - i reckon we are just renting out their kids inheritance property - we are 2 years into a 4 year renting contract.