In tears listening to the radio

Captain Obvious

SAMTALK wrote: »

But if I'm managing to meet my repayments by cutting out holidays, nights out, sky etc, and Joe Bloggs down the road isn't as inclined to cut back on certain things but gets into arrears , he gets help but I dont ?

That's how it works at the moment.

SAMTALK wrote: »

There is a sense of personal responsibility when you take out a loan, and fair enough there are some cases that are very hard but there are also some where people seem to think it's ok not to pay back what they owe if things get a little tight

I don't dispute that. I simply don't think current policy does a good job of differentiating the two and working with the person trying their best.

SAMTALK

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That's how it works at the moment.






I don't dispute that. I simply don't think current policy does a good job of differentiating the two and working with the person trying their best.

So there's help out there ?

But one man's trying his best and anothers are 2 different things and I can't imagine the banks putting that much work in to sorting through everyones financial issues.
What about people who had pension plans that flopped, do they get help?
What about people who had shares that are now worth nothing, do they get help?

amcalester

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That's how it works at the moment.



I don't dispute that. I simply don't think current policy does a good job of differentiating the two and working with the person trying their best.

These are some of the options available to those in arrears if they engage with their lender...

a) interest only repayments on the mortgage for a specified period of time;
b) permanently reducing the interest rate on the mortgage;
c) temporarily reducing the interest rate on the mortgage for a specified
period
of time;
d) an arrangement to pay interest and part of the normal capital amount for a
specified period of time;
e) deferring payment of all or part of the scheduled mortgage repayment for a
specified period of time;
f) extending the term of the mortgage;
g) changing the type of the mortgage;
h) adding arrears and interest to the principal amount due;
i) equity participation;
j) warehousing part of the mortgage (including through a split mortgage);
k) reducing the principal sum to a specified amount; and
l) any voluntary scheme to which the lender has signed up e.g. Deferred
Interest Scheme.

What more do you want?

facehugger99

jmayo wrote: »

Now the lad that was the mortgage advisor in the EBS branch upon looking at my 30 odd grand decided that I shouldn't just put that as deposit against one house, but 3.
Yep he wanted to flog me 3 mortgages.

I was always amazed back in the Celtic Tiger days at the amount of people who went into a bank/building society and wanted to know the most they could borrow - then they'd look for a house in that price-range.

When I was taking out my first mortgage, I looked at the level of debt I was comfortable in taking on, stress-testing myself against potential drops in income or increases in interest rates.

Why would you delegate what is probably the most important financial decision you will ever make, to some acne-ridden guy in his mid-20's on a commission - it just didn't make any sense to me.

The amount of people bleating and moaning about the reckless lending practices of the banks, as if they were somehow an uninvolved spectator in the whole process, is gall-inducing.

I wasn't untouched by the recession by any means but I've spent over 20 years, getting up early, working my arse off and paying my bills - even when there was years when I would have probably been financially better off on the dole (between my commuting and childcare costs I was basically paying to work) - why? - because I'm lucky enough to be fit and healthy and I don't believe in not not contributing to society.

It's time the free-loaders in this country were told where to get off. Instead we have a host of political parties and media outlets feeding into their self-perceived victimhood and telling them it's all someone else's fault and society will pay for their gaffs.

It's a fcuking joke of a Country for the working man.

goat2

SAMTALK wrote: »

So there's help out there ?

But one man's trying his best and anothers are 2 different things and I can't imagine the banks putting that much work in to sorting through everyones financial issues.
What about people who had pension plans that flopped, do they get help?
What about people who had shares that are now worth nothing, do they get help?

Shares are always a risk, and always were

Captain Obvious

SAMTALK wrote: »

So there's help out there ?

But one man's trying his best and anothers are 2 different things and I can't imagine the banks putting that much work in to sorting through everyones financial issues.
What about people who had pension plans that flopped, do they get help?
What about people who had shares that are now worth nothing, do they get help?

Why wouldn't they?

amcalester wrote: »

These are some of the options available to those in arrears if they engage with their lender...


What more do you want?

Those are at the discretion of the lender though and their assessment of your finances. And what they consider engagement is not the standard dictionary definition.

Guy:Incognito

The lads in the job getting mortgages 15 years ago were all getting false p60s from the office and putting down whatever they wanted to get the the amount they needed. Dickying up bank statements and the like.

People are far from the innocent folk put upon by preying banks.

sbsquarepants

goat2 wrote: »

71 Reposessions, Kerry, 8 turned up in court,

A friend of mine's parents are facing eviction, in and out of courts the past few years. The father had a work accident (a genuine one!) and has been unable to work for the past 6 or 7 years, the mother was working - she retired this year, lump sum and pension, the usual carry on.

Now, what did they spend the lump sum on? Clearing the mortgage arrears you say?

Fúck no!..... New windows, patio furniture and another sons wedding....I shít you not.

New windows in a house they are facing eviction from!

Should these get a handout too? But the headlines and the Boyd Barrets only see pensioner faces eviction and start foaming at the mouth.

Captain Obvious

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The lads in the job getting mortgages 15 years ago were all getting false p60s from the office and putting down whatever they wanted to get the the amount they needed. Dickying up bank statements and the like.

People are far from the innocent folk put upon by preying banks.

That's just fraud though. Haven't seen anyone defending those people.

SAMTALK

goat2 wrote: »

Shares are always a risk, and always were

And no risk when taking out a loan ?

amcalester

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Those are at the discretion of the lender though and their assessment of your finances. And what they consider engagement is not the standard dictionary definition.

The borrower can appeal the lenders decision not to offer an alternative.

There really is no excuse for not dealing with the bank.

That's not to say there won't be evictions, but it's extremely unlikely that any mortgage holder than engages will be evicted.

SAMTALK

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Why wouldn't they?





Those are at the discretion of the lender though and their assessment of your finances. And what they consider engagement is not the standard dictionary definition.

What do you propose the banks do ?

steddyeddy

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The lads in the job getting mortgages 15 years ago were all getting false p60s from the office and putting down whatever they wanted to get the the amount they needed. Dickying up bank statements and the like.

People are far from the innocent folk put upon by preying banks.

If you think the bank lending policy prior to the recession was based on ability to pay back then it's best to lay off the crack pipe.

Captain Obvious

amcalester wrote: »

The borrower can appeal the lenders decision not to offer an alternative.

There really is no excuse for not dealing with the bank.

That's not to say there won't be evictions, but it's extremely unlikely that any mortgage holder than engages will be evicted.

They can appeal. But it will still be decided based on previous expenses, of which they only recognise a limited amount as necessary. And the appeal can only be on limited grounds. So if you know you will have difficulties coming up they won't deal with you until you go into arrears.


I'm not sure how much dealings you've had with arrears units but in my experience they are neither reasonable nor pleasant to deal with.

Hotblack Desiato

sbsquarepants wrote: »

A friend of mine's parents are facing eviction, in and out of courts the past few years. The father had a work accident (a genuine one!) and has been unable to work for the past 6 or 7 years, the mother was working - she retired this year, lump sum and pension, the usual carry on.

So they took out a mortgage which wouldn't be repaid by the time they retired? What sort of complete eejit does that?

Captain Obvious

SAMTALK wrote: »

What do you propose the banks do ?

Banks currently have a statutory duty in relation to arrears. It provides for the minimums they must do. I think they should go further than the minimum. Allow for certain costs even if they are not required to, like health expenses. Deal with customers before they are statutorily required to, i.e. when they go into arrears. Look ahead instead of back. instead of looking at a persons past to determine if they can pay in the future, look at what is most likely to get the mortgage agreement completed tot he satisfaction of both parties.

SAMTALK

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Banks currently have a statutory duty in relation to arrears. It provides for the minimums they must do. I think they should go further than the minimum. Allow for certain costs even if they are not required to, like health expenses. Deal with customers before they are statutorily required to, i.e. when they go into arrears. Look ahead instead of back. instead of looking at a persons past to determine if they can pay in the future, look at what is most likely to get the mortgage agreement completed tot he satisfaction of both parties.

And in the meantime the rest of us just go on as usual ?

How many people have actually been thrown out on the streets and how bad were the arrears ?

Captain Obvious

SAMTALK wrote: »

And in the meantime the rest of us just go on as usual ?

If you don't want the help then yes. You seem to have an issue with people getting help with things just because you don't want help with it.

SAMTALK wrote: »

How many people have actually been thrown out on the streets and how bad were the arrears ?

No idea.

amcalester

Captain Obvious wrote: »

They can appeal. But it will still be decided based on previous expenses, of which they only recognise a limited amount as necessary. And the appeal can only be on limited grounds. So if you know you will have difficulties coming up they won't deal with you until you go into arrears.


I'm not sure how much dealings you've had with arrears units but in my experience they are neither reasonable nor pleasant to deal with.

None to be fair, but I have worked in Branch Management and have seen first hand how willfully ignorant some people can be about their financial affairs, how little responsibility some will take for their own decisions and how, ultimately for some, it's always the banks fault.

Captain Obvious

amcalester wrote: »

None to be fair, but I have worked in Branch Management and have seen first hand how willfully ignorant some people can be about their financial affairs, how little responsibility some will take for their own decisions and how, ultimately for some, it's always the banks fault.

I don't dispute that, I just don't think everyone should be treated as if they are one of those people.

SAMTALK

Captain Obvious wrote: »

If you don't want the help then yes. You seem to have an issue with people getting help with things just because you don't want help with it.






No idea.

No but I don't understand why it's ok for someone to get help with their mortgage and others not ?
Going back to the original OP, the husband left so it's ok for the bank to help this lady out?
If you read back on my posts you will see that I stated that I was seperated but financially we decided to house share because we still have a mortgage that needs to be paid.
I understand this is not always possible but the banks get to help out this lady while I get up at 6.30am to go to work and skrimp and save to pay back what I owe ?

Captain Obvious

SAMTALK wrote: »

No but I don't understand why it's ok for someone to get help with their mortgage and others not ?
Going back to the original OP, the husband left so it's ok for the bank to help this lady out?
If you read back on my posts you will see that I stated that I was seperated but financially we decided to house share because we still have a mortgage that needs to be paid.
I understand this is not always possible but the banks get to help out this lady while I get up at 6.30am to go to work and skrimp and save to pay back what I owe ?

But I've never suggested you shouldn't get help. In fact, you seem to be the very type of person I think the bank should also be helping. People who live month to month hoping they won't fall on some hard times and end up in arrears. People who have had personal issues which affect their ability to pay.

amcalester

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I don't dispute that, I just don't think everyone should be treated as if they are one of those people.

Fair enough.

I don’t think they are and using your example of being told that after 3 months arrears are referred to legal, I don’t think that is treating customers badly.

sbsquarepants

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So they took out a mortgage which wouldn't be repaid by the time they retired? What sort of complete eejit does that?

By rights the father should still be working.

Their plan is to pay it out of whatever claim he gets - but it's a gamble, he might get less than he thinks, or nothing at all!

My point is they had the means to clear it but simply didn't bother their arses to do so. How many other hard luck cases are in the same boat? How many had holidays or weddings or nice new cars in the time they just couldn't manage to pay their mortgages?

I'd guess a damn site more than not!

fxotoole

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Sean O Rourke had a report today from the repossession court in Tralee. I found it really upsetting. There was a very quietly spoken gentle woman in tears about how the bank is threatening her to take her home from her. She has two children and, as a result of a marriage separation, is struggling to cope. The banks don’t care and are scaring her to death.
Then there was a man who was trying to deal with a vulture fund who bought out his loan from Irish Permanent and who is also getting threatened and terrified by these mafioso bully boys.
We bailed out these banks with our income tax. We watched in horror as unsecured bond holder walked away with our money. We propped up their outrageous salaries.
Where are our politicians now? When are we going to stop being so damned passive in the country. We need to defend our citizens from this attack.
I will not forget that poor woman and that poor man I heard this morning. I will not forget at the next election.

I may have some sympathy for the woman who’s unable financially to cope due to seleration, but I’ve zero sympathy for the other cowboy who overextended himself and is now finally getting his comeuppance on his PTSB loan. F*** him out on his arse, I say

PlaneSpeeking

sbsquarepants wrote: »

By rights the father should still be working.

Their plan is to pay it out of whatever claim he gets - but it's a gamble, he might get less than he thinks, or nothing at all!

My point is they had the means to clear it but simply didn't bother their arses to do so. How many other hard luck cases are in the same boat? How many had holidays or weddings or nice new cars in the time they just couldn't manage to pay their mortgages?

I'd guess a damn site more than not!

A friend's father had to medically retire at 52.

The mortgage was a struggle but at the time the pal was working and took it over himself.

Eventually the insurance finally agreed that a heart problem was a critical illness and paid out.

No one helped the family, but each other and yet they had done nothing to bring about their misfortune.

Incidentally, the mother won 2,000 pounds at bingo and immediately paid off some bills. Not a piss up in sight or a holiday.

Some people are just brought up responsibly and some will be wasters. It is sad to see the wasters get the help and "respect".

Wheres Me Jumper?

i did say back in 2007, it would all end in tears ...

SAMTALK

Captain Obvious wrote: »

But I've never suggested you shouldn't get help. In fact, you seem to be the very type of person I think the bank should also be helping. People who live month to month hoping they won't fall on some hard times and end up in arrears. People who have had personal issues which affect their ability to pay.

I don't expect the banks to help because I went into the agreement with my eyes open and I will stay going as long as I can

I just don't understand where the line is between needing help and not needing help. and the deciding factors involved

PlaneSpeeking

SAMTALK wrote: »

I don't expect the banks to help because I went into the agreement with my eyes open and I will stay going as long as I can

I just don't understand where the line is between needing help and not needing help. and the deciding factors involved

In the UK when you have a long term disability benefit claim renewed, your bank statements are pored over, your spending habits are put under the microscope and any large expenses, you better have a good explanation for.

Similar should be used here. If you go a year or more without paying a mortgage payment, not a red cent and then go for help your finances should be looked at.

If it turns out you got any kind of lump sum and went off to Dubai - out you go on your arse.

Those getting help should be the ones who need it and only those who have tried everything else.

SAMTALK

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

In the UK when you have a long term disability benefit claim renewed, your bank statements are pored over, your spending habits are put under the microscope and any large expenses, you better have a good explanation for.

Similar should be used here. If you go a year or more without paying a mortgage payment, not a red cent and then go for help your finances should be looked at.

If it turns out you got any kind of lump sum and went off to Dubai - out you go on your arse.

Those getting help should be the ones who need it and only those who have tried everything else.

Yes this would be the ideal. Does this happen with the banks when you get in arrears ?

PlaneSpeeking

SAMTALK wrote: »

Yes this would be the ideal. Does this happen with the banks when you get in arrears ?

I'd doubt it but I would imagine that if that was the case it would have been in at least the Mirror - some sob story about how the nasty bank wanted to know about the 20 grand wedding they had whilst they were being evicted.

Captain Obvious

SAMTALK wrote: »

I don't expect the banks to help because I went into the agreement with my eyes open and I will stay going as long as I can

Great for you. Many people weren't expecting a major crash and suffered severe financial difficulties as a result of it. i personally don't think I'd be able to deal with the stress of living with a separated spouse just to avoid going into arrears. The fact of the matter is your circumstances are not the same as when you applied for the mortgage and i don't see why it is so unreasonable to expect your provider to take account of that.

SAMTALK wrote: »

I just don't understand where the line is between needing help and not needing help. and the deciding factors involved

Fair enough.

jmayo

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I've never advocated open borders.

Nah you just advocate taking every johnny and mohammad come lately from God knows where which really boils down to the same thing basically.

You never appear to say what numbers should be allowed in.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I've not suggested anybodies money be spent in this thread.

Yes you have by claiming people not repaying their debts should get help from the banks.
Where the flying fook do you think the bank then recoups that bad debt and handouts to the bad debtors.
They keep or increase interest rates for other lenders and they add extra charges to customers.

Ever wondered why we have some of the highest interest rates in Europe and foreign institutions fled out of the market and haven't returned ?

Or do you believe in some magic money tree like a lot more of the proponents of a handouts Ireland ?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So they took out a mortgage which wouldn't be repaid by the time they retired? What sort of complete eejit does that?

A lot of older people remortgaged, or as the banks put it leveraged the equity in their homes, to buy more property, give money to their kids, bought property overseas.

The amount of people I met at foreign property shows that were releasing equity in their homes to buy a gaff in Bulgaria, Florida or Spain was huge.

Deusexmachina

Keyzer wrote: »

No.

There are a lot of people on this thread who don't make stupid decisions and buy stuff they can't afford, who don't expect the world and its mother to give them everything for free.

People who get up in the morning, pack their kids off to creches and pay a fortune to have someone else raise their kids because they have no other choice. People who work their arses off to provide for their families.

People who are sick of others being given free houses, free buggies, free money who contribute little or nothing to society while they go to work, earn an honest living and, ironically, pay for all this madness.

People who are sick of the sob stories about downright idiots who bought houses they couldn't afford, the "homeless", the downtrodden and the poor unfortunates who are having their homes "taken" away from them even though they didnt bother to pay the mortgage for years.

And a big fat well done to you for earning an honest living. Does this exemplary behavior mean you cannot have compassion for people who have fallen on hard times? (Not talking about the wilfully irresponsible but the people who are struggling due to tough circumstances).

Seems to me many posters can only see this issue in back and white. Either you pay everymonth on time for your 25 years or you are a complete good for nothing and deserve to lose your home without sympathy.

There is a middle ground. Sometimes good, hard working and responsible people meet unforeseen issues which can lead to temporary difficulties. In the overall scheme of things None of us know for certain that we will always be fully solvent at all times.

What’s happening to some genuine decent hard working people is a disgrace.

The banks got our support when they met with difficulties. We will be paying back for that for generations. All I am calling for is some protection for the genuinely vulnerable. It makes no sense to make these people homeless.

Captain Obvious

jmayo wrote: »

Nah you just advocate taking every johnny and mohammad come lately from God knows where which really boils down to the same thing basically.

You never appear to say what numbers should be allowed in.

Again, not what I have ever suggested. I've never suggested no criteria should be applied. I've only ever said people shouldn't be assessed based on their nationality, ethnicity or religion.

jmayo wrote: »

Yes you have by claiming people not repaying their debts should get help from the banks.
Where the flying fook do you think the bank then recoups that bad debt and handouts to the bad debtors.
They keep or increase interest rates for other lenders and they add extra charges to customers.

Ever wondered why we have some of the highest interest rates in Europe and foreign institutions fled out of the market and haven't returned ?

Or do you believe in some magic money tree like a lot more of the proponents of a handouts Ireland ?

I never suggested handouts. All I've suggested is more flexible and less burdensome payments for people who are in difficulty. If you'd even read my posts you'd see that I believe this would benefit both sides because the bank is more likely to have the agreement completed and not have to repossess and sell a house and the homeowner is more likely to be able to get back on their feet and complete the agreement. This would be the opposite of bad debts and wouldn't require any money tree.


Keep trying.

stratowide

Deleted User wrote: »

no need to be smarmy. Many people who borrowed were not aware of how bankruptcy laws in Ireland differed from other countries.

Many people could never have foreseen themselves in the position of not being able to make their mortgage payments, especially those who's livelihood was connected to property.

Well I have no idea how bankruptcy laws work in this country either but I could find out if need be.I'm sure they are available to the public.

Why could people not look at the worst case scenario when getting a mortgage..?
If x,y or z happens will I be able to continue payments..?
Seems reasonable enough things to ask oneself.

Captain Obvious

stratowide wrote: »

Well I have no idea how bankruptcy laws work in this country either but I could find out if need be.I'm sure they are available to the public.

Why could people not look at the worst case scenario when getting a mortgage..?
If x,y or z happens will I be able to continue payments..?
Seems reasonable enough things to ask oneself.

Would anyone have been able to get a mortgage in that scenario?

SAMTALK

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Great for you. Many people weren't expecting a major crash and suffered severe financial difficulties as a result of it. i personally don't think I'd be able to deal with the stress of living with a separated spouse just to avoid going into arrears. The fact of the matter is your circumstances are not the same as when you applied for the mortgage and i don't see why it is so unreasonable to expect your provider to take account of that.





Fair enough.

To be fair it's probably just as stressful as being in arrears with the bank

A friend of mine went to view a house that was under bank repossession . The family still lived there and it was going for about a third of what was paid.
When friend came out of house the lady shouted across "are you going to put my children on the street".
She decided it wasnt worth the hassle and down the line found that the lady's family had bought the house for next to nothing and family still live there now
Same lady had a great lifestyle and kids had the best of everything.

You can see why people would have a problem with banks helping out in cases like this.

I would like to know is there actually a figure for the amount of people put out of their homes against their will

Keyzer

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I'm not sure if you are aware of this but we went through a rather bad recession a decade ago. Some people lost jobs, some people got massive pay cuts. People get sick, have injuries, family tragedies.

Bought a gaff just before the whole thing came down. Lost over 150K against what I paid for it. I know all about the recession.

Kept paying the mortgage though...

BBFAN

stratowide wrote: »

Well I have no idea how bankruptcy laws work in this country either but I could find out if need be.I'm sure they are available to the public.

Why could people not look at the worst case scenario when getting a mortgage..?
If x,y or z happens will I be able to continue payments..?
Seems reasonable enough things to ask oneself.

For the majority of couples going into a mortgage if they were to ask themselves can I afford this on my own if we split up the answer would be no.

There would be very few houses bought if everyone considered every case scenario before buying.

end of the road

SAMTALK wrote: »

No but I don't understand why it's ok for someone to get help with their mortgage and others not ?

because some people don't meet whatever criteria is set out for such help whereas others do. just like access to any other state support that one isn't automatically entitled to regardless.

SAMTALK wrote: »

Going back to the original OP, the husband left so it's ok for the bank to help this lady out?

if she meets the criteria for that to happen, then yes

SAMTALK wrote: »

If you read back on my posts you will see that I stated that I was seperated but financially we decided to house share because we still have a mortgage that needs to be paid.
I understand this is not always possible but the banks get to help out this lady while I get up at 6.30am to go to work and skrimp and save to pay back what I owe ?

yes . because you are still living in the house and are still able to contribute toards the mortgage.

facehugger99

Deusexmachina wrote: »

What’s happening to some genuine decent hard working people is a disgrace.

This is bull****, we had one of the biggest credit bubbles followed by a massive property crash and still have one of the lowest repossession rates in the world.

People can go for years without paying a cent or engaging with their lending institute.

The only 'disgrace' is the cost of this is being past onto socially conscious hard-working people through higher interest rates and fees. These people are then forced to listen to the ill informed bullsh;ttery about staving widows and orphans being thrown into the gutters by the bailiffs.

Wanderer78

facehugger99 wrote: »

This is bull****, we had one of the biggest credit bubbles followed by a massive property crash and still have one of the lowest repossession rates in the world.

People can go for years without paying a cent or engaging with their lending institute.

The only 'disgrace' is the cost of this is being past onto socially conscious hard-working people through higher interest rates and fees. These people are then forced to listen to the ill informed bullsh;ttery about staving widows and orphans being thrown into the gutters by the bailiffs.

at what point will our financial institutions be held account for reckless lending?

SAMTALK

end of the road wrote: »

because some people don't meet whatever criteria is set out for such help whereas others do. just like access to any other state support that one isn't automatically entitled to regardless.



if she meets the criteria for that to happen, then yes



yes . because you are still living in the house and are still able to contribute toards the mortgage.

ok so then I'd probably be better off if one of us moved out and then the banks will help.
Still not buying into this . We go down that road of helping people pay mortgages then we are heading in the same direction again.

Surely you can see why people would have a problem with this happening ?

Wheres Me Jumper?

the homeless/housing "situation" is a direct consequence of the bailout that the EU foisted on us, but SF & friends are too busy trying to land a few punches on the minister for housing to accept this.
anybody who thinks that level of national indebtedness is without consequences is crazy.

end of the road

Keyzer wrote: »

People who get up in the morning, pack their kids off to creches and pay a fortune to have someone else raise their kids because they have no other choice. People who work their arses off to provide for their families.

how many of those don't have any actual choice, rather they are choosing to do this because both want to work.

Keyzer wrote: »

People who are sick of others being given free houses, free buggies, free money who contribute little or nothing to society while they go to work, earn an honest living and, ironically, pay for all this madness.

there are no free houses. the only stories i've heard about free buggies are from the odd person who goes on to some of those radio shows spreading the urban myth that the foreigners abandon buggies to supposibly get new ones.

Keyzer wrote: »

People who are sick of the sob stories about downright idiots who bought houses they couldn't afford, the "homeless", the downtrodden and the poor unfortunates who are having their homes "taken" away from them even though they didnt bother to pay the mortgage for years.

i find (ironically) that it's some of those who are sick of these supposed sob stories who are much more willing to put out their own sob stories, if i'm honest.
people need to understand, we are not special or great because we work and have or had mortgages.

facehugger99

Wanderer78 wrote: »

at what point will our financial institutions be held account for reckless lending?

Apologies, I don't speak non sequitur.

RocketRaccoon

Wanderer78 wrote: »

at what point will our financial institutions be held account for reckless lending?

At what point will stupid people be held account for borrowing way beyond their means?

Turbohymac

Have constant ongoing dealings with ptsb absolute scum bank. Maybe some ptsb loans passed to vulturefunds might not be as bad as trying to correspond with ptsb...nobody should be allowed walk away from their debts ..but BUT theres actually no punishment dished out to banks when they piss on their customers and they treat all in any arrears and circumstances equally ..theres huge variations to the arrears of everyone's loans but all treated like scum bu a scum bank...sorry but like a previous poster I also find the comment regarding your vote at next election funny... regardless of who's voted in well still end up with corrupt banks constantly milking the taxpaying working. mules here in craggy island and politicians turning a blind eye cos it might effect what they get in brown envelopes. from the corporation elites in the banking sector and also the large multinational companies whom we are all paying for ..simply for them to pay minuscule taxes on their billions..
Funny old island when a new apple product or similar reaches this side people still fight to get one..we should all get one for free seeing weve paid their taxes.
Nothing changes and history simply repeats itself...
Ah that's my rant over for today

Wheres Me Jumper?

tbh so long as my family are looked after and have a roof over their heads, then seeing homeless people in doorways doesn't really bother me. encountering them at airport hotels and having to step over them when shopping with my kids can be a bit unsettling.

i think most people feel the same way.