14 years of free living

cruizer101

Its ridiculous, they signed up for 30 year mortgage (as an aside that surprises me a lot I thought mortgages were all 20 year until celtic tiger years when people took 30 year ones to reduce monthly payments so they could stretch themselves to buy better houses) there was no way they could have thought it was done in 15 years.

Its like someone finding a very obvious pricing mistake on a website and chancing their arm buying it, then giving out reams when the retailer doesn't send them their 500 euro tv that they paid 5 quid for.
Except in this case there is clear documentation from the start of what they will have to pay back, idiots.

Interest rates have more or less consistently dropped from when they took their mortgage so their repayments will have been dropping all the time, add in inflation and repayments have effectively dropped even more, if they could afford the 500 odd initial repayments in 1992 (back then that was a significant amount) the reduced payment of probably 2-300 in 2007 would be nothing, idiotic to not just continue to pay it off.

It does show there a significant problem in repossessions when it takes that long for a judgment to be made.

Calahonda52

Darc19 wrote: »

The central bank details the time line of arrears.

24,000 are in arrears of 5 years or more. That's 5+ years of no payments.

Not necessarily true.
I was in arrears for 10 years but still made payments

Peregrinus

Nermal wrote: »

No, it's the legal system. Plenty of countries with worse social housing provision than Ireland have legal systems that resolve these cases in weeks, not years.

Yeah, but only if they are prepared to make people homeless at short notice. Which, generally speaking, as a society, we are averse to doing. Especially in the middle of a housing crisis.

iColdFusion

Clareman wrote: »

So if I get this right, these people get a 30 year mortgage in 1992 of €59,500 at an interest rate of 10.9%, by using an online loan calculator that works out as a monthly payment of €562.14 for a total amount to be paid of €202,370.77. In 2000 they get a letter with a typo that says the mortgage will be completed in July 2007 but in 2006 they got an other letter correcting this, they decided in 2007 to stop paying the mortgage.

Assuming they had kept up to date with the payments, they'd have paid ~€100k towards the mortgage but decided to be smart and try to get out of it. Surely the smartest move back then would have been to move to a tracker mortgage which they would more than likely have been eligible for, assuming that they were in a good LTV place and assuming they could get a rate of 1.25% and assuming they wanted to get another mortgage for the whole amount again, their repayments would have dropped to €198.28 per month.

A quick google shows houses in their area selling for 400k now also :rolleyes:

Amadan Dubh

Another shocking aspect of this story is that a 30 year mortgage taken out in 1992 is 1 year off being fully paid off - the 1990s were 30 years ago!

Bass Reeves

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

Another shocking aspect of this story is that a 30 year mortgage taken out in 1992 is 1 year off being fully paid off - the 1990s were 30 years ago!

When it was taken out it was probably 2.5 years wages to two people.one of them could be now earning that a year.
There is another reason to wonder if these were not the brightest sparks back then. They originally took out an endowment mortgage. In 1990 the issue with them were public knowledge. They changed to a straight annuity, I think in the early noughties. It took them that long to figure that endowment loans were a disaster. If they had opted for a 1% ECB tracker back then even if because of the endowment they had to borrow 55k paying it up to now would entail 13-17k in interest in that period.

Darc19

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Not necessarily true.
I was in arrears for 10 years but still made payments

The central bank arrears are calculated by the months of arrears. So if for argument sakes you are 6 month of arrears and these have been siting there for 5 years, you are in the 6 month category.

If you have agreed to add these to the end of your mortgage and the bank has agreed (or agreed any other solution) you are considered a "restructured" mortgage and you are not included in the arrears list.

baldbear

Jesus Christ what is wrong with some people. What a stupid gamble.

...Ghost...

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

Let's not forget about these other high profile selfish, ignorant folks who also think they have a god-given right to a free house even if they don't pay their mortgage;

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/nothing-paid-off-sandymount-couple-s-mortgage-since-2015-court-told-1.3899847



https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/pamela-flood-and-ronan-ryan-refused-stay-against-repossession-order-1.3988540?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law%2Fcourts%2Fhigh-court%2Fpamela-flood-and-ronan-ryan-refused-stay-against-repossession-order-1.3988540



https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/deluded-odonnells-owe-71m-but-want-to-keep-mansion-31035382.html



https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/ex-model-to-appeal-repossession-order-on-dalkey-house-1.1975568?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law%2Fcourts%2Fex-model-to-appeal-repossession-order-on-dalkey-house-1.1975568



https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/couple-who-owe-336k-in-arrears-on-double-mortgage-given-stay-of-one-year-before-repossession-of-south-dublin-home-37479280.html

Too much entitlement in Dawkey

Jerry Attrick

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yeah, but only if they are prepared to make people homeless at short notice. Which, generally speaking, as a society, we are averse to doing. Especially in the middle of a housing crisis.

Speak for yourself. I regard grown ups as grown ups, expect them to pay their bills where possible, and have a complete and utter loathing for parasites.

DubCount

DubCount wrote: »

The exact rights and wrings of this particular case is not the issue IMHO. The issue is that a dispute between 2 sides of a mortgage dispute has taken 14 years to work through the system. A system taking this long is broken. Of course banks need to engage with people to deal with financial problems or disputes, but at some point, if you dont pay, you lose your home. That point should come way before 14 years and a small fortune in legal fees. If it means you become homeless, then you become homeless and our local authorities need to have better systems to house people in these circumstances. It should not fall on banks or landlords for that matter, to house people who cant pay or wont pay.

The legal system has done well here. The owners and the banks. Not so much.

They obviously got some advice that the typo changed the nature of the loan. That was probably formal legal advice.

Dav010

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The legal system has done well here. The owners and the banks. Not so much.

They obviously got some advice that the typo changed the nature of the loan. That was probably formal legal advice.

Was there a mention of legal advice? The reports state the typo was corrected the year before they stopped paying their mortgage. Also, would a typo in correspondence alter the signed mortgage contract?

As repayments rarely remain constant through out the term of a mortgage (coincidently a new product is being launched with just that arrangement), if the term was being reduced by the time period they claim, their repayments would have increased significantly between the date the letter was received and the new 2007 end date, they would still be in arrears if they continued to pay the lower repayments as per the original term.

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

Was there a mention of legal advice? The reports state the typo was corrected the year before they stopped paying their mortgage. Also, would a typo in correspondence alter the signed mortgage contract?

Yes.

She was satisfied the position was made “entirely clear” to the couple in October 2006 and they could not thereafter rely on the 2000 letter as a justification to cease paying the mortgage from October 2007. Because they were legally represented, there could be no question of a misunderstanding on their part.

Dav010

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes.

She was satisfied the position was made “entirely clear” to the couple in October 2006 and they could not thereafter rely on the 2000 letter as a justification to cease paying the mortgage from October 2007. Because they were legally represented, there could be no question of a misunderstanding on their part.

I’m sorry, I took it you meant they got legal advice that supported their contention that the mortgage term ended in 2007.

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

I’m sorry, I took it you meant they got legal advice that supported their contention that the mortgage term ended in 2007.

I suppose they did. I mean if they were advised by any solicitor that they had no case and the typo was just that they would have dropped it. You’d think.

It’s speculation alright.