In tears listening to the radio

BBFAN

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

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.

You'd be wrong in thinking that.

SAMTALK

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

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.

I have never read or seen anything about a family in doorways having been put out of their houses by the banks

Correct me if I'm wrong

Wheres Me Jumper?

BBFAN wrote: »

You'd be wrong in thinking that.

perhaps but over time they just become part of the landscape of our everyday lives and people become desensitised.
i remember when i first lived in NY & London in the '80s how shocked i was to see people living in cardboard boxes. i just couldn't believe people could live like that. now i doubt most people would give them a 2nd glance.

steddyeddy

Keyzer wrote: »

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...

Good that you could manage it. This is a thread about a woman who could no longer manage it. It's also tough on the kids who had no choice in any of this but will lose their family home. They may not own it but to the children it's a home.

Wanderer78

facehugger99 wrote: »

Apologies, I don't speak non sequitur.

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

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

loads of research going into this at the moment, bill blacks work is probably one of my favorite, his appearance at our own banking inquiry is well worth checking out

Turbohymac

Sorry..wheres me jumper.. but everyone's different out there when it comes to mortgage arrears..history keeps repeating and you might not be concerned now but down the line it could be one of your children and then you'd actually realize what crap they were putting up with. . Certainly some absolute chancers out there and in arrears with 10 years.. hard to have sympathy on those BUT it's fair tough if a marriage fails and children still have to be reared /educated. Main point here is banks are treating all debt equal and very bad.. they should review all and treat people who are engaging..with a little respect..but that would be too easy..
Anyhow unless people take a huge stand against banks..similar to the water charges protest nothing will change and ironically even on the previous posts while the op was horrified and saddened by the bad treatment of a separated woman with children ...other posters see absolutely nothing wrong with the treatment she is receiving from ptsb or the culture funds..everyone has different agendas and seem to be experts within the given field. But aren't currently in arrears and being hounded by these scum

The Rape of Lucretia

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's also tough on the kids who had no choice in any of this but will lose their family home. They may not own it but to the children it's a home.

Kids are very adaptable. Loads of kids move home. Theyll be fine. No kid has a concept of such an idea as a 'family home' or evictio s as if its that or the street. If the woman cared about the childrens fears she would have just moved, making no big deal of it. But she just wants to be a drama queen and make it a Big Bad Bank story when really its just her not paying her bills.

Wanderer78

The Rape of Lucretia wrote:

Kids are very adaptable. Loads of kids move home. Theyll be fine. No kid has a concept of such an idea as a 'family home' or evictio s as if its that or the street. If the woman cared about the childrens fears she would have just moved, making no big deal of it. But she just wants to be a drama queen and make it a Big Bad Bank story when really its just her not paying her bills.

I know people that were moved at an early age, it was a major contribution to the decline of their mental health leading to major breakdowns, subsequent suicide attempts and addiction problems, some kids are deeply affected by such things

facehugger99

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I know people that were moved at an early age, it was a major contribution to the decline of their mental health leading to major breakdowns, subsequent suicide attempts and addiction problems, some kids are deeply affected by such things

Oh FFS!

Kids move all the time - how da fcuk do you even know if them moving house when young was the cause of their subsequent mental health issues?

I know some people who drank water when they were kids and they turned out to be serial killers - don't drink water folks :rolleyes:.

Deusexmachina

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.

If you cant bring yourself to read my post properly, dont call it bull****.

Hotblack Desiato

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I know people that were moved at an early age, it was a major contribution to the decline of their mental health leading to major breakdowns, subsequent suicide attempts and addiction problems, some kids are deeply affected by such things

Oh FFS. I've really heard it all now.
People move home all the time. People with kids move home all the time. Maybe you think it should be classified as child abuse, or something? We should probably stop them taking holidays too, just in case they can't cope with the change in surroundings.

LirW

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I know people that were moved at an early age, it was a major contribution to the decline of their mental health leading to major breakdowns, subsequent suicide attempts and addiction problems, some kids are deeply affected by such things

Don't wanna take the piss here but how are children managing in countries where renting is normal and many children move a few times before they're 18?
I had to change school a few times and while it wasn't nice you can certainly cope with it.
This non-flexible family home concept is very Irish as well as the having family or school around the corner.
As much as I like reading your refreshing posts, I'm not buying that one.

Wanderer78

lads you d really wanna be talking to mental health professionals such as child psychologists, to see what problems some kids are dealing with!

SAMTALK

Wanderer78 wrote: »

lads you d really wanna be talking to mental health professionals such as child psychologists, to see what problems some kids are dealing with!

Moving house . Really?

We moved house years ago when kids were younger and I don't think they turned out too bad.
If that's the worst thing that will happen to them aren't they lucky

LirW

Wanderer78 wrote: »

lads you d really wanna be talking to mental health professionals such as child psychologists, to see what problems some kids are dealing with!

My sister is a psychologist in training in a country where people move houses a lot and she said she's never come across a case where moving was the trigger of a breakdown but rather their parents attitude.
Of course children will fear the authorities when parents constantly talk about "them" taking their home away. We always got told "okay we have to move to another place in a few months" and were taken to viewings.
Moving house isn't the problem, it's surrounding circumstances like the fear of sleeping rough because that's what mammy tells them.

By the way I do feel for said lady because life can be a major b1tch sometimes and break-ups can be complex. If the house is in negative equity and he doesn't engage there's absolutely nothing she can do, that's a pretty nasty mix. From what I've gathered the banks were also ignoring her attempts to engage since the ex-husbands name was on the mortgage too and he wasn't engaging.

Wanderer78

SAMTALK wrote: »

Moving house . Really?

We moved house years ago when kids were younger and I don't think they turned out too bad.
If that's the worst thing that will happen to them aren't they lucky

google says otherwise! plenty of research out there supporting my statements

SAMTALK

Wanderer78 wrote: »

google says otherwise! plenty of research out there supporting my statements

Not banks fault . Parents obviously handled things badly and telling kids things they don't need to know.
No way can moving house be a bad thing if handled properly

steddyeddy

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Kids are very adaptable. Loads of kids move home. Theyll be fine. No kid has a concept of such an idea as a 'family home' or evictio s as if its that or the street. If the woman cared about the childrens fears she would have just moved, making no big deal of it. But she just wants to be a drama queen and make it a Big Bad Bank story when really its just her not paying her bills.

That's one of the stupidest things I have ever read.

Electric Sheep

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I know people that were moved at an early age, it was a major contribution to the decline of their mental health leading to major breakdowns, subsequent suicide attempts and addiction problems, some kids are deeply affected by such things

Oh for the love of God, children move with their families all the time. They move house, they move town, they move country, they move continent. Many of us moved several times as a child, almost always with no ill effect.

The parental attitude to the move is what will have the most effect on the children. If they present it as a negative, the children are more likely to experience it as negative.

The Rape of Lucretia

OK, we have a winner. I must admit, my view has changed due to new info.

You cannot move house with children - its akin to child abuse.
To finance this social safeguard, anybody with children, who cannot pay their mortgage for whatever reason (it was time to change the beemer or whatever) must have it paid by other mortgage holder through a 1% (approx. TBD) increase in their own rate.
To be fair to the children.

Franz Von Peppercorn

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

OK, we have a winner. I must admit, my view has changed due to new info.

You cannot move house with children - its akin to child abuse.
To finance this social safeguard, anybody with children, who cannot pay their mortgage for whatever reason (it was time to change the beemer or whatever) must have it paid by other mortgage holder through a 1% (approx. TBD) increase in their own rate.
To be fair to the children.

This inability to argue on the actual points in this thread tells us a lot about the lack of intellectual heft here.

We are specifically talking about a woman who can afford 700 a month. She probably doesn’t have a beemer, although developers bailed out by the taxpayer and Nama probably do.

Franz Von Peppercorn

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

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

Presumably they didn’t at the time or else they wouldn’t have got the loan. And if they were borrowing ͏w͏a͏y beyond their means that’s also the banks fault, unless the applicants lied on their application.

The banks employ underwriters to check this stuff.

Franz Von Peppercorn

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.

Mostly what’s driving higher interest rates for non trackers is trackers. And who advertised tracker mortgages? Banks. Who demanded it. Nobody but the banks who had to advertise what it meant.

If it were arrears only or bad loans the standard interest rates would be falling much faster, because the banks have sold off many non performing loans, restructured others and the economy is improving allowing most people to pay off once underperforming loans.

end of the road

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Kids are very adaptable. Loads of kids move home. Theyll be fine. No kid has a concept of such an idea as a 'family home' or evictio s as if its that or the street. If the woman cared about the childrens fears she would have just moved, making no big deal of it. But she just wants to be a drama queen and make it a Big Bad Bank story when really its just her not paying her bills.

she doesn't no . she wants to hi-light the hardship she is going through, the genuine situation she finds herself in and her genuine struggle. she is paying her bills except the exact amount of money she originally agreed to pay in different times. if it was financially viable for her to move, then perhapse she may have done so, but given she would be chased for any outstanding money should the house not cover the rest of the mortgage if sold, then she may as well stay and try and dig herself out of the mess and get back on track.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Oh FFS!

Kids move all the time - how da fcuk do you even know if them moving house when young was the cause of their subsequent mental health issues?

I know some people who drank water when they were kids and they turned out to be serial killers - don't drink water folks .

he gives the answer to the question away in his post. he knows these people, and presumably they told him.

SAMTALK wrote: »

Not banks fault . Parents obviously handled things badly and telling kids things they don't need to know.
No way can moving house be a bad thing if handled properly

it could be argued the bank is partly to blame if it gave out a mortgage without really checking if the person could pay it back.

SAMTALK

[QUOTE=end of the road;108191596

it could be argued the bank is partly to blame if it gave out a mortgage without really checking if the person could pay it back.[/QUOTE]

If I buy something it up to me whether I can afford to pay for it not the seller, and if I can't it gets taken back.
I do have sympathy for people but no way do I want to pay for someone else's mistakes.

I pay more than enough tax as it is and sometimes it just feels that the worker gets hit for all that goes wrong but eventually the well runs dry

The Rape of Lucretia

end of the road wrote: »

it could be argued the bank is partly to blame if it gave out a mortgage without really checking if the person could pay it back.

Which it is. And pays for that in all the hassle the problem person causes them to get the eviction and disposal of the property.

But that doesnt get the mortgage holder off the hook in anyway. They are still reponsible for upholding their side of the bargain. And if that means moving house, then so be it. Its a pity. But they must suck it up.

Drifter50

Deusexmachina wrote: »

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.

Well said, thats nailed the point. Too many posters here are either on the social services side or the pay what you owe and put up with it side.

There is a huge middle ground here that is a grey area with people who fall foul of the banks and their commitments for various reasons not necessarily due to their own fault.

Also some posters need to understand the MABS charter. If there are 2 partners on a mortgage, one is self employed, the other is a homeworker then the MABS charter does not provide for them to seek any help or assistance from MABS. You must be employed, unemployed or on a very low salary to even avail of their services.

We will be providing support to the banks probably for the next decade. Is it right, No but we will have to live with it

Drifter50

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?

FGS, you need to step into the real world. Answer.thousands of mortgage holders.
Its not just 20/30 somethings taking out their first mortgages you know, lots of more mature customers who were not in a position to get a mortgage in their younger years had to wait until they were 45/55 to take out a mortgage and therefore won`t be finished. My mortgage won`t be paid off until I am 71 and Yes I am concerned about illness or plain running out of the gas needed to continue a full time job so I can service the loan.

But hey, you have this somewhat introverted outlook

10000maniacs

Why do people keep using the argument "the banks were bailed out so the defaulters should be too"? Who pays for this? Yes its middle Ireland again.

Hotblack Desiato

Drifter50 wrote: »

FGS, you need to step into the real world. Answer.thousands of mortgage holders.
Its not just 20/30 somethings taking out their first mortgages you know, lots of more mature customers who were not in a position to get a mortgage in their younger years had to wait until they were 45/55 to take out a mortgage and therefore won`t be finished. My mortgage won`t be paid off until I am 71 and Yes I am concerned about illness or plain running out of the gas needed to continue a full time job so I can service the loan.

But hey, you have this somewhat introverted outlook

I'm not wrong though and I think you know that. Thousands of lemmings jump off cliffs. Doesn't make it sensible.

sbsquarepants

SAMTALK wrote: »

Moving house . Really?

We moved house years ago when kids were younger and I don't think they turned out too bad.
If that's the worst thing that will happen to them aren't they lucky

I agree with you Sam, total pile of shíte!

People move all the time with kids, they move from town to town, from country to country even - it's probably not the absolute ideal, but it's hardly driving kids to suicide ffs.

In the past 4 years a friend of mine has gone from Sydney to Dublin to Wexford to London and is heading back to Melbourne in the next 6 months. Her kids seem perfectly fine to me, and I personally would say that's extreme. I'd hate to move around that much.

I've moved county myself with 3 kids myself in the past year, they barely batted an eyelid!

amcalester

10000maniacs wrote: »

Why do people keep using the argument "the banks were bailed out so the defaulters should be too"? Who pays for this? Yes its middle Ireland again.

Because they are not part of middle Ireland??

VinLieger

Drifter50 wrote: »

FGS, you need to step into the real world. Answer.thousands of mortgage holders.
Its not just 20/30 somethings taking out their first mortgages you know, lots of more mature customers who were not in a position to get a mortgage in their younger years had to wait until they were 45/55 to take out a mortgage and therefore won`t be finished.

Its still their fault for choosing to take out a mortgage that late in life, the circumstances leading up to that decision do not negate the responsibility involved with making that decision

Drifter50 wrote: »

My mortgage won`t be paid off until I am 71 and Yes I am concerned about illness or plain running out of the gas needed to continue a full time job so I can service the loan.

But hey, you have this somewhat introverted outlook

And if the unthinkable happens and you are unable to pay it for whatever reason who will be at fault? Who will be responsible?

gozunda

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I know people that were moved at an early age, it was a major contribution to the decline of their mental health leading to major breakdowns, subsequent suicide attempts and addiction problems, some kids are deeply affected by such things

Right that explains everything now - so it does. Thanks for the insight...

:rolleyes:

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

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.

The banks do actually do this to an extent from talking to a family member who used to work in the arrears section of a bank. If you are behind they will regularly go through your spending and question transactions and ask why this money was spent on that item rather than than the mortgage. They have a very good idea who is really doing their best to repay and those who are not.

PlaneSpeeking

Ellie Short Safflower wrote: »

The banks do actually do this to an extent from talking to a family member who used to work in the arrears section of a bank. If you are behind they will regularly go through your spending and question transactions and ask why this money was spent on that item rather than than the mortgage. They have a very good idea who is really doing their best to repay and those who are not.

Thanks, that helps!

Sadly though GDPR etc would prohibit banks from being able to call up the papers and say "that load of bollocks you printed yesterday should be retracted. They say they've missed one payment ? They've paid **** all since before Obama was elected and have been to Disneyland twice".

Hector Bellend

What I find with these radio reports is either that you only get one side of the story or there is some information not reported that could change how you view things.

Deusexmachina

Hector Bellend wrote: »

What I find with these radio reports is either that you only get one side of the story or there is some information not reported that could change how you view things.

Or maybe not. The people on that radio report sounded utterly sincere. I doubt they would want to be interviewed (under really unsetting circumstances) if they were actually fine and just pretending to be under duress from the banks.

I think if you are predisposed to thinking of these people as leeches, spongers, scum, etc (as has been reflected so eloquently in this thread), then you are going to hear what you want to hear, irrespective of the facts.

There are genuine people suffering through no fault of their own. There are also people who are lazy, irresponsible and cynical who are abusing the system. It's important not to conflate one with the other.

VinLieger

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Or maybe not. The people on that radio report sounded utterly sincere. I doubt they would want to be interviewed (under really unsetting circumstances) if they were actually fine and just pretending to be under duress from the banks.

I think if you are predisposed to thinking of these people as leeches, spongers, scum, etc (as has been reflected so eloquently in this thread), then you are going to hear what you want to hear, irrespective of the facts.

There are genuine people suffering through no fault of their own. There are also people who are lazy, irresponsible and cynical who are abusing the system. It's important not to conflate one with the other.

Yes the people who turned up sound sincere, but you are forgetting that only 8 out of 71 people chose to turn up for their cases

PlaneSpeeking

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes the people who turned up sound sincere, but you are forgetting that only 8 out of 71 people chose to turn up for their cases

The others no doubt continued to do **** all and perfect their sob story for the Land League heavies to fall for and then also run to the papers.

The Rape of Lucretia

Deusexmachina wrote: »

There are genuine people suffering through no fault of their own.

Not being their fault doesnt exempt them from suffering. Or mean that others should foot the bill to solve their problem.

Add in nonsense about worried kids, and attempts at 'loosing the family home', 'living in a ditch' cliches, and it just comes across as a monumental whinge given uncritical air time. Then the fact that 700€ a month is being paid and it really is just a case of someone living beyond their means, whi had to get a grip of their new reality, move, and get on with life according to their new, if unfortunate, circumstances.

The Rape of Lucretia

Not to mention the idea that the trauma inflicted on children by moving house should be a consideration. Thats one of the biggest piles of poo Ive seen on boards for a while.
Id have been proud of it myself.

Deusexmachina

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Not being their fault doesnt exempt them from suffering. Or mean that others should foot the bill to solve their problem.

Add in nonsense about worried kids, and attempts at 'loosing the family home', 'living in a ditch' cliches, and it just comes across as a monumental whinge given uncritical air time. Then the fact that 700€ a month is being paid and it really is just a case of someone living beyond their means, whi had to get a grip of their new reality, move, and get on with life according to their new, if unfortunate, circumstances.

You are making stuff up to suit your prejudices. Or you didn’t bother to listen to the programme but you are an expert anyway.
As I explained above. Some people hear what they want to hear.

Deusexmachina

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes the people who turned up sound sincere, but you are forgetting that only 8 out of 71 people chose to turn up for their cases

Nope I’m not. I am referring to the cases that did turn up. Not the others. Do try to keep up.

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote: »

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..

Well it's perfectly understandable that an Irish person wouldn't know how lets say American bankruptcy laws differed from Irish.

What's less understandable, idiotic in fact, is that after being born and reared in Ireland, working in Ireland and taking out a mortgage in Ireland, complete with the independent financial advice they were obliged to attain in Ireland by the Irish bank they were borrowing from, they somehow assumed it was the American laws they were subject too!

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Surely they should have seen it a bit clearer than the rest of us?

I get that people were unlucky - you kinda need to buy a house when you need to buy a house, you can't always wait 10 years or any other crystal ball bull****, but that's it - you were unlucky - you weren't conned, you weren't swindled, you aren't owed reparation - you were just unlucky.
Suck it up and move on.

I was unlucky - I bought at a bad(ish) time, split up with the missus shortly after, prices plummeted and I was left paying over the odds on my todd. It could have been much worse, through sheer blind luck I missed the peak by a couple of years and was spared the worst of it.

I'm only back to breakeven last year. Such is life. I made sure to pay my mortgage above all else. I've precious little time for whingers.

There are lots of stories where people bought at the peak, lost their jobs, couldn't afford the mortgage and the bank repossessed the house, sold it on for whatever they could get, then went after the original mortgage holder for the loss that was made on the sale. There are many people who were not aware that this could happen, and who thought that they could lose their home, end of story. This is why so many people relocated to the UK for 12 months and then declared themselves bankrupt (the bankruptcy laws being different in the UK etc)

Personally, I bought at a bad(ish) time also, but have never missed one mortgage repayment, and in fact am still over-paying on the mortgage. I think I have about 8 years to go. I dont know what property values will be like when the mortgage is paid, but it will be an asset for my kids. At least thats the way Im looking at it. I think that strategic defaulters might win the occasional battle but they wont win the war.

Those who genuinely lost everything should not be hounded by the banks.

Guy:Incognito

When did it stop being the done thing that if you split up, one person takes on the mortgage if both parties want and it's doable or you sell the house and move on?

If your husband/wife ****s off, sell the house you can't afford and do whatever you need to do. Not paying the mortgage for 6 months/a year/ 2 years isn't going to leave you in any better of a situation at that stage.

PlaneSpeeking

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Not to mention the idea that the trauma inflicted on children by moving house should be a consideration. Thats one of the biggest piles of poo Ive seen on boards for a while.
Id have been proud of it myself.

You need to look up the meaning of the word "trauma".

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

Those who genuinely lost everything should not be hounded by the banks.

That's what the insolvency/bankruptcy processes are for.

Galwayguy35

The banks do try to engage with mortgage holders and work out something with them if at all possible, if it's hand back the keys time then it's a last resort.

People need to take some personal responsibility, buy in an area you can afford and factor in things like a job loss that could put repayments on hold for a few months.

It's not rocket science.

scopper

Finance is a funny one, it makes Stockholm Syndrome a collective madness.

In 2030 and we all lose our pensions in some financial crisis our empathy will suddenly return...