Repossession of family home

jca

SteM wrote: »

Do you not remember 2005? Sure if you didn't own 2 properties in Ireland, one abroad and have mortgage approval for one more then you were a pauper.

I like being a pauper if that's why defines being a pauper. ( I know you're being sarcastic) god there was some scary **** going on in those years.

smelly sock

We need to be careful with family home repossessions.

This guy is a bit different than your average young family who simply cannot pay.

Lest we forget that it wasn't the average PAYE worker who got us into this mess in the first place.

mariaalice

The house would fetch more than he owes if he had sold it, not all that much more but if he still has the houses in Kildare ( not clear from the article ) he could have moved there.

In other words he could have extradited himself and his family form the situation and has a small amount of money left if he has acted sooner.

Cuddlesworth

Since the status of the two houses in Kildare was so obviously omitted I think its fair to say he probably still has them and is not quite as homeless at it would seem.

the_syco

dev100 wrote: »

Probably mortgages on them ? That would mean they're not assets then ? How does that work if your 2 other properties are performing but you still have a mortgage but with different banks ?

From looking at it, I'm thinking he remortgaged his house to buy the two houses on the cheap, and thus if he loses this house, he still potentially has at least one house to move into, providing he kicks out the tenants if there are any there.

It'll be ironic if said tenants decided to overhold :pac:

The_Conductor

smelly sock wrote: »

Lest we forget that it wasn't the average PAYE worker who got us into this mess in the first place.

Plenty of average PAYE workers borrowed more than they should have, to buy properties they shouldn't have. I'm not saying it was all their fault- but the prudent folk out there- who didn't live beyond their means- are the very folk who have had to pick up the pieces.

Certainly- the manner in which the taxpayer was on the hock for poor lending by the banks- was particularly appalling- and there are tens of billions which will never be recovered.

As for NAMA- well, despite their continuous blowing of their own trumpet- its kind of difficult not to make a profit, when you buy assets at 40-50c in the Euro.

It wasn't just the developers who got us into the mess- there was a mass mania in the country- a small minority refused to get caught up in euphoria- and were mocked mercilessly for their prudence- yet- the average person who did take part- seems to have a very very short memory........

smelly sock

The_Conductor wrote: »

Plenty of average PAYE workers borrowed more than they should have, to buy properties they shouldn't have. I'm not saying it was all their fault- but the prudent folk out there- who didn't live beyond their means- are the very folk who have had to pick up the pieces.

Certainly- the manner in which the taxpayer was on the hock for poor lending by the banks- was particularly appalling- and there are tens of billions which will never be recovered.

As for NAMA- well, despite their continuous blowing of their own trumpet- its kind of difficult not to make a profit, when you buy assets at 40-50c in the Euro.

It wasn't just the developers who got us into the mess- there was a mass mania in the country- a small minority refused to get caught up in euphoria- and were mocked mercilessly for their prudence- yet- the average person who did take part- seems to have a very very short memory........

Oh I'd agree regarding buy to let properties. When it comes to family homes and primary residence I think it makes sense for everyone including the tax payer for the family to stay in that house.

If people are kicked out it's us who has to foot the bill to house them.

hidinginthebush

The_Conductor wrote: »

Plenty of average PAYE workers borrowed more than they should have, to buy properties they shouldn't have. I'm not saying it was all their fault- but the prudent folk out there- who didn't live beyond their means- are the very folk who have had to pick up the pieces.

Certainly- the manner in which the taxpayer was on the hock for poor lending by the banks- was particularly appalling- and there are tens of billions which will never be recovered.

As for NAMA- well, despite their continuous blowing of their own trumpet- its kind of difficult not to make a profit, when you buy assets at 40-50c in the Euro.

It wasn't just the developers who got us into the mess- there was a mass mania in the country- a small minority refused to get caught up in euphoria- and were mocked mercilessly for their prudence- yet- the average person who did take part- seems to have a very very short memory........

And don't forget they've made just €3bn profit on €70bn, over 8 years! So 4% profit in 8 years, on assets which were bought at below cost price, fairly poor return on investment to be fair.

exaisle

dev100 wrote: »

Probably mortgages on them ? That would mean they're not assets then ?

Eh...no....they're still assets. Whether there's a mortgage on them or not.

Lumen

exaisle wrote: »

Eh...no....they're still assets. Whether there's a mortgage on them or not.

I think the debts are the assets. The property is the security on those debts.