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

retro:electro

To be honest I think there's a huge difference in someone owing 200,000 and getting their house repossessed and then someone getting their house taken from them over the sake of 20,000 (which I've seen happen)
I've seen debt signed over to debt collectors over the sake of four or five grand, in cases like that I think it's disgusting tbh; especially when the payments have usually been on time for 10+ yrs and then they have just fallen on hard times.

end of the road

OldNotWIse wrote: »

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?

fairness doesn't come into it. if they are evicted, i pay to house them.

anna080 wrote: »

To be honest I think there's a huge difference in someone owing 200,000 and getting their house repossessed and then someone getting their house taken from them over the sake of 20,000 (which I've seen happen)
I've seen debt signed over to debt collectors over the sake of four or five grand, in cases like that I think it's disgusting tbh; especially when the payments have usually been on time and then they have just fallen on hard times.

agree. personally if i had my way these debt collector vermin would be banned. if someone is in debt to the bank, then the bank should not be allowed to sell it on.

OldNotWIse

end of the road wrote: »

fairness doesn't come into it. if they are evicted, i pay to house them.



agree. personally if i had my way these debt collector vermin would be banned. if someone is in debt to the bank, then the bank should not be allowed to sell it on.

That's very good of you.

We all pay tax, we all "pay to house them" - but that doesn't negate the unfairness of being allowed to stay in a house you are no longer paying for, while someone who was more prudent rents or continues paying their own more sensible mortgage.

OldNotWIse

anna080 wrote: »

To be honest I think there's a huge difference in someone owing 200,000 and getting their house repossessed and then someone getting their house taken from them over the sake of 20,000 (which I've seen happen)
I've seen debt signed over to debt collectors over the sake of four or five grand, in cases like that I think it's disgusting tbh; especially when the payments have usually been on time for 10+ yrs and then they have just fallen on hard times.

Do you mean if there is a mortgage of 20k outstanding? or a judgment of 20k registered against the property?

retro:electro

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Do you mean if there is a mortgage of 20k outstanding? or a judgment of 20k registered against the property?

Outstanding payment of 20k

Graham

anna080 wrote: »

Outstanding payment of 20k

As in mortgage arrears of €20k or balance remaining to clear the mortgage €20k?

retro:electro

Graham wrote: »

As in mortgage arrears of €20k or balance remaining to clear the mortgage €20k?

Oh no not arrears, 20k of mortgage left to pay; it had gone into arrears of about 4-5k

Graham

anna080 wrote: »

Oh no not arrears, 20k of mortgage left to pay; it had gone into arrears of about 4-5k

I would guess there's much much more to that story.

retro:electro

Graham wrote: »

I would guess there's much much more to that story.

Nope. It's as clear cut as that. This was about five years ago.

Graham

anna080 wrote: »

Nope. It's as clear cut as that. This was about five years ago.

I'm surprised the bank were granted possession. That must have dragged out over a fairly long period for a court to grant possession over such a relatively small amount.

Saipanne

Why can't we renege on any and every contract we sign?

I want free things.

retro:electro

Graham wrote: »

I'm surprised the bank were granted possession. That must have dragged out over a fairly long period for a court to grant possession over such a relatively small amount.

It was a sad case, they ended up consenting to having it repossessed as they were both elderly and couldn't afford to repay. They went into a home after that.

The J Stands for Jay

end of the road wrote: »

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.

So....

The message to potential new entrants to the market is: "Don't bother".

The message to the existing banks is: " You need to charge the highest rates in Europe to make up for the lack of repossessions and the punishment rates."

murphaph

The likes of the posters on here who argue for debt forgiveness can't understand that this means higher interest rates for everyone else.

end of the road

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.
.

I was offered anything I wanted by the ebs, as much as I wanted!
Did I take it?
No, I went to the aib and borrowed what I could afford to pay back.

Don't give me the whole poor stoopid people didn't know what they were doing, they were climbing over each other to get as big a mortgage as they could, with no regard to their future.

lawlolawl

anna080 wrote: »

Oh no not arrears, 20k of mortgage left to pay; it had gone into arrears of about 4-5k

20k left on a mortgage would mean their repayments would be like €100 a month or so

maryishere

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.

Good point. The banks did lent recklessly during the boom to many, they inflated the boom, the banksters kept their big pensions and bonuses. Time the banks shared a bit of the pain now after all the misery they caused.

retro:electro

lawlolawl wrote: »

20k left on a mortgage would mean their repayments would be like €100 a month or so

How do you figure that? As far as I know their repayments were, and had always been, €500 a month

cml387

I remember the period before 2008.
I walked past many banks and never saw any of them throwing money at people.
I'd have been round there like a shot if they did.

wokingvoter

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

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

So.....I can get a mortgage from the Top Class Bank, then hubby and I give up work and go on the dole.....consequently fall behind on mortgage payments....stop paying mortgage altogether...... and Top Class Bank has to suck it up because "it's our family home".......so the Top Class Bank and all the other lending institutions stop doing mortgages or they'll go bust very quickly.......wont they?.... Interesting ....

Into The Blue

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

and the uncertainty whether i could afford to keep up re-payments for 25 years or so!

Wait till you try paying rent from a pension.

jluv

I did my homework before applying for my mortgage in 2007. Needed 150,000 to build my home. The bank would have given me twice that and did their best to persuade me but I was too scared and thankfully stuck to what I needed.
Roll on 8 years later and due to unfortunate circumstances my finances changed dramatically. I didnt want to lose my home so I approached my bank BEFORE I got in trouble and I have to say they were very helpful and they did say that the fact I was proactivly trying to manage the situation stood in my favour. I only ever went behind by one payment (which I since caught up with) I was given 2 terms of interest only which bought me time to figure out how to manage my situation. It will still be a struggle but if I want to keep my home it's something I have to do. I have to say I found them supportive which when you are dealing with so many crisis at one time, is so valueable.
I borrowed the money,I owe the money but appreciate the support when I needed it..

lawlolawl

anna080 wrote: »

How do you figure that? As far as I know their repayments were, and had always been, €500 a month

Actually, you're right.

I'm just presuming that people knock lump sums off their mortgage the same way as i do and that makes the monthly replayment go down along with the total owed. Nevermind so :pac:

Andy From Sligo

strange, some saying its peoples responsibility to make sure they can repay back a mortgage or not sign the the papers and not enter into the contract. Nobody has a crystal ball and can look that far ahead into the future. I think most people get a mortgage on a wing and a prayer and hope they will always have a job and be able to make the repayments

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

If I'm planning to have a couple of kids and know I'll be taking time off work, or be crippled with childcare fees, and I know my partner has a good job but not much prospects of promotion or a significant payrise and still borrow 400 thousand, despite not being able to scrape together 15/20% of the deposit ourselves, I'd be pretty sure I'm gonna be under a lot of pressure for the years to come

maryishere

cml387 wrote: »

I remember the period before 2008.
I walked past many banks and never saw any of them throwing money at people.

They did not throw money at people, but they ensnared some people by lending them money they could not afford to pay back. The banks were supposed to be the financial experts, they should have known property was overvalued and not to give 110% mortgages on properties sometimes even to people without a job.

Allinall

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

strange, some saying its peoples responsibility to make sure they can repay back a mortgage or not sign the the papers and not enter into the contract. Nobody has a crystal ball and can look that far ahead into the future. I think most people get a mortgage on a wing and a prayer and hope they will always have a job and be able to make the repayments

I don't think anyone is saying you must make sure you can make all the repayments over 25 years.

However, you should be aware of the consequences if you don't .

That is where a lot of people are in denial .

aido79

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.

So you don't believe that someone taking out a mortgage, the most serious financial decision in most people's lives, should sit down and do their own figures regardless of what a bank, who has only taken a snapshot of their financial situation at that point in time, tells them they can afford?

I am far from an economist but I did see the crash coming but not to the extent it did( I don't think anyone could have predicted that)

As I said earlier the banks were reckless in their lending but mortgage holders have to take some responsibility too.
Anyway in the collapse of the banks mortgages to ordinary people was only a very small part of the story. Anglo was the main problem and it generally didn't lend to ordinary people. I hold Sean Quinn responsible for a lot of the problems in Anglo as his actions and deceit caused the share price to drop so rapidly. I would like to see Sean Quinn, David Drumm and Sean Fitzpatrick sharing the smallest cell in mountjoy for a very long time. The government should have let that Anglo go then bailing out the other banks would actually have been a smart move as it would benefit the country in the long run. However the way it is now it will take a long time to sort it all out.

maryishere

maryishere wrote: »

They did not throw money at people, but they ensnared some people by lending them money they could not afford to pay back. The banks were supposed to be the financial experts, they should have known property was overvalued and not to give 110% mortgages on properties sometimes even to people without a job.

Well maybe those people should have known that they couldn't afford to pay it back

_Kaiser_

This thread is gas... and shows many have learned nothing from the last 8 years

The obsession that Irish people have with "getting on the property ladder" coupled with the inability to take responsibility for that choice if it goes wrong (but at the same time happily reap the rewards if it doesn't) is exactly why the economy crashed in the first place. To read some posts here you'd swear banks were dragging people off the street at gunpoint and making them sign mortgage applications (many of which were fudged of course to meet the already lax criteria).

Then you have the justification/superiority attitude regarding how renting is "dead money" and for losers, or a temporary stepping stone on the road to ownership (assuming that mammy and daddy won't put you up or gift you the deposit). This attitude of course carries through to the policy makers which is precisely why the rental sector is the mess it is, even apart from the current supply shortages.

It's this nonsense that has a situation where people who aren't making their mortgage payments are still in the house (which remember they do not own until the final payment has been made) while people who didn't buy in the "Good Times" have been left to pick up the tab AND pay again through higher rents and the uncertainty that always hangs over it, and are now unable to buy because there are so many still sitting on property they're not entitled to be in.

And just on that - no-one is ENTITLED to own property. If you can make and maintain the repayments then fair enough and work away.. but if not, and after a fair (but not indefinite) chance to get things in order again, the property should be repossessed and sold with the original holder left to settle any outstanding amounts... just like any other loan!