Repossessions

Ray Palmer · 31-01-2012 5:18pm

Yeah, ranting and raving makes all the difference. You will change nothing and do nothing. It really doesn't matter what you say as you have done nothing and what you say is having no impact. Hard to believe you didn't see what could happen as you seem to now know how to fix it all.:rolleyes:

Wait actually you don't have a single constructive comment to make. You don't have any solution just you don't like the current one. Of course you can always nit pick anything said until people don't engage and you can feel like your point is valid.

Ray Palmer · 31-01-2012 5:23pm

Zamboni wrote: »

If elitism represents logic and prudence rather than greed and poorly research specualtion, then I for one applaud the new elite.

Missing the point totally. People with lots of money will buy up the cheap property. They will then rent it out. If the price plummet I have money to buy more than one and that is what will happen. The people waiting in the wings have much more clout than those people who are trying to buy a family home. Of course some people are missing the facts for their own vested interests. Real property developers are still about.

gnag · 31-01-2012 6:08pm

[
Yes I have and I have lost money.
I regretted it and I learnt a lesson.
Did I go off whinging that I had made a bad investment or bad purchase and that I should get other people to cough up for me ?
NO I fooking didn't.

You missed my point again. Neither you nor anybody else should have to pay for my house, I am simply trying to look at ways that the banks could take some responsibilty for this mess. I am not whinging just looking for a little help. At the end of the day, we are not the worst off in this economy, I am still in full time employment, and if my husband could even get a minimum wage job we would be able to pay our mortgage and start to pay back arrears, although it would take years. Its a very upsetting position to be in without people making you feel as if you are trying to take advantage of them. I can't imagine how hard it is on people who have no income and much worse situations than me.

jmayo · 31-01-2012 6:36pm

gnag wrote: »

You missed my point again. Neither you nor anybody else should have to pay for my house, I am simply trying to look at ways that the banks could take some responsibilty for this mess. I am not whinging just looking for a little help.

And you are completly missing the point.
The Irish banks are not some external entity.
Their fortune is now tied to the taxpayers and indeed all the people living in this country.
If you make the likes of AIB, BOI, EBS, INBS take a hit then who pays for that hit but the taxpayers and eventually the citizens of this state.

It is a different kettle of fish when dealing with foreign owned banks like Ulster, Rabobank or RBOI/Halifax and what they chose to do with their mortgage holders is not as great a concern to me since I am not tied to those banks as a shareholder and guarantor.

gnag wrote: »

At the end of the day, we are not the worst off in this economy, I am still in full time employment, and if my husband could even get a minimum wage job we would be able to pay our mortgage and start to pay back arrears, although it would take years. Its a very upsetting position to be in without people making you feel as if you are trying to take advantage of them.

Can you imagine how hard it is for people who did not go into debt, who decided that prudence was in order, who tried to tell others that they were making a mistake only to be ridiculed, now being told that they are also at fault and that they should help out the ones who were imprudent ?

Of course the property vested interests and ff supporters are now claiming we are all at fault and that statement really fooking sticks in my throat. :mad:

gnag · 31-01-2012 9:22pm

Well if as you say the banks are tied to the tax payer, what would be the benefit of repossessing all of these houses? Will it give you back all the taxes you paid? What do you suggest be done? And by the way are you always so aggressive?

Victor · 31-01-2012 11:43pm

Can we ease off on the sharpness and snide comments please?

01-02-2012 7:43am

Its the banks house really, people have a mortgage that they signed to say they would pay off in return for eventual full ownership of the house.

If you cant pay for it then you have to give it back. If then you cannot pay the mortgage there should be a reformed bankruptcy process in light of the reckless lending by the banks. It took two to tango.

But these people should never have their lifestyles subsidised by those who held back from the mayhem and by those who were merely children when it all happened.

The_Conductor · 01-02-2012 8:04am

Deleted User wrote: »

Its the banks house really, people have a mortgage that they signed to say they would pay off in return for eventual full ownership of the house.

If you cant pay for it then you have to give it back. If then you cannot pay the mortgage there should be a reformed bankruptcy process in light of the reckless lending by the banks. It took two to tango.

But these people should never have their lifestyles subsidised by those who held back from the mayhem and by those who were merely children when it all happened.

Well- we have the reformed bankruptcy heads of bill published already. It comes in three separate strands. Strand 1- unsecured debt of under 20k. Strand 2 debts of over 20k. Strand 3- reformed personal bankruptcy. In the case of mortgage debt- there is a working presumption that people will engage with their lender and come to arrangements- however this is at the discretion of the lenders, they are under no compulsion to offer enticements to borrowers.

So- a) lender agrees to temporary or more permanent measures to reduce the debt burden on a borrower (these are treated as individual cases- even if there are tens of thousands of them).

or b) the lender does not agree new terms with the borrower- the borrower files for personal bankruptcy and looses all possessions (incl. their home) and is a declared bankrupt for 3 years (down from the current 12).

In the case of significant negative equity- there is a certain amount of hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel in the personal bankruptcy scenario- however the person looses everything, and good luck ever hoping to get a loan or credit of any type in the future.

Its not a get out of jail free card- its a structure for managing significant numbers of people who are incapable of repaying their loans- without rewarding their recklessness.

Presumably- Mr. and Mrs. Virtuosity, who didn't get entangled in the whole credit morass- could avail of credit and buy that house that is repossessed, providing their family with a home in lieu of their shoebox apartment (which admittedly is a separate issue).

So- its a mechanism for allowing people (eventually) escape crippling debts, without rewarding them.

The presumption behind all of this- is that the banks and other lenders will engage with large numbers of their customers in arrears, and not force people into personal bankruptcy situations (though for some people- particularly with hopelessly large negative equity balances- the personal bankruptcy option- with its new 3 year term, could appear to be a safety valve, should all else fail).

No-one is going to be entirely happy- regardless of what they come up with- personally I can see why they're proposing the revised legislation in the manner they are- its to try and cover as many bases as possible. You know you've done something right when absolutely everyone has gripes with what you've come up with...........

arbitrage · 22-02-2012 1:41pm

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0217/mortgage-business.html

107,708 mortgages were either in arrears or had been restructured.

A total of 109 repossession orders were granted by the courts between October and December.

In total, lenders took possession of 133 properties, of which 83 were voluntarily surrendered or abandoned.

53,000 were more than 180 days behind with repayments, and their arrears amount to more than €1 billion.

poseidon64 · 24-02-2012 12:03am

this is my first post here - been a reader of Boards.ie for some time though - have just received verbal communication from bank that mortgage is unsustainable (its our PPR and difficulties arose following loss of both of our jobs) received basic redundancies - have two young children - official letter is on the way to us - have 2 choices, we sell house ourselves and take personal loan on the shortfall or bank takes control of sale using average of 3 independent valuers and we take shortfall from sale as per 1st option in personal loan - their recommended option is the first - estimated shortfall will be 150-170k - its a SVR with PTSB - all savings to date been invested in this family home - been co-operating under the MARP since difficulties arose 2 years ago following 1st redundancy - took moratorium then - had to go to IO when wife made redundant soon after - stuck to IO payments until SVR rose to 5.65% and then was unable to keep up and made less than IO payments in agreement with lender - now at the end of road - salary immiment for one of us but will be unable to sustain the high IO payment - any advice gratefully received from those who perhaps are already partaking in short sale process?

The_Conductor · 24-02-2012 12:21am

I'd advise that you hang in there until the new laws on personal debt are enacted. Enquire at your local health centre whether the CWO (community welfare officer) is available and tell him or her your predicament. You may very well be entitled to Mortgage Interest Supplement- which is a social welfare payment covering the interest component (or a portion thereof) of your mortgage- which might well be sufficient to get the bank of your back in the short to medium term (or at least until the new legislation governing personal debts is enacted- only the heads of bill have been published thus far- but the terms being discussed are far more favourable than those on the table at the moment).

poseidon64 · 24-02-2012 12:28am

Thanks for your reply - we are in receipt of a MIS and have been making payments on top of that to lender but it falls a few hundred short of the IO payment still due to high interest rate - our MIS is up for review now as 6 months has lapsed (I should add that I managed to find work following redundancy but was short term work for just 9 months and could only managed IO payments during that time) - my wife is recovering from post pregnancy illness - we are both professionals and will work again but unfortunately the debt is large and house value is I guess at or near bottom now. I gather we have 12 months left in this process now - will take your advice and go to CWO to discuss

ronan45 · 24-02-2012 11:01am

poseidon64 wrote: »

Thanks for your reply - we are in receipt of a MIS and have been making payments on top of that to lender but it falls a few hundred short of the IO payment still due to high interest rate - our MIS is up for review now as 6 months has lapsed (I should add that I managed to find work following redundancy but was short term work for just 9 months and could only managed IO payments during that time) - my wife is recovering from post pregnancy illness - we are both professionals and will work again but unfortunately the debt is large and house value is I guess at or near bottom now. I gather we have 12 months left in this process now - will take your advice and go to CWO to discuss

In the case of Posidon here, why cant the bank take back say 60% ownership of the house. Posiden then can pay the other 40%. If poseiden needs social housing he will need a house. can the government not give him a small contribution to his current mortgage so he does not need to move to social housing and thus save them selves money also. WHen things pick up (WHICH THEY WILL) he can start to catch up on his payments etc?

Give People a break for a few years till the economy picks up for gods sake

pawnacide · 24-02-2012 12:34pm

ronan45 wrote: »

In the case of Posidon here, why cant the bank take back say 60% ownership of the house. Posiden then can pay the other 40%. If poseiden needs social housing he will need a house. can the government not give him a small contribution to his current mortgage so he does not need to move to social housing and thus save them selves money also. WHen things pick up (WHICH THEY WILL) he can start to catch up on his payments etc?
Give People a break for a few years till the economy picks up for gods sake

Common sense .. are you mad? When was the last time a common sense approach was adopted to any financial problem in this country. Common sense kinda implies that it would be in the common good. The common good is not top priority. Protection of vested interests takes priority despite the rhetoric.

If anyone has an example of a common sense approach taking precedence over vested interests in relation to the financial woes of this or other countries I'd be delighted to hear it.

ronan45 · 24-02-2012 1:00pm

pawnacide wrote: »

Common sense .. are you mad? When was the last time a common sense approach was adopted to any financial problem in this country. Common sense kinda implies that it would be in the common good. The common good is not top priority. Protection of vested interests takes priority despite the rhetoric.

If anyone has an example of a common sense approach taking precedence over vested interests in relation to the financial woes of this or other countries I'd be delighted to hear it.

Yeah F(*K the family out on their ears I guess and give them a 4 bed semi rented from a private landlord for the next 30 years. That would Be the best solution i guess.

arbitrage · 24-02-2012 2:35pm

The bank pays interest themselves for the money it lends to the homeowners.

You want the banks to continue to pay interest while giving the homeowners a break?

A solution needs to be found with potentially up to 50,000 mortgages beyond salvage and at least 200,000 houses in massive negative equity but just saying to the banks to give us a break for a few years is not it.

Who do you think is going to pay for the interest to the banks depositors, Troika, ect... Its the taxpayers so why should taxpayers who don't have a mortgage have to pay additional tax to give mortgage holders a break?

Now that BOI and AIB are mostly state owned its no longer "us against the banks".

pawnacide · 24-02-2012 2:55pm

arbitrage wrote: »

The bank pays interest themselves for the money it lends to the homeowners.

You want the banks to continue to pay interest while giving the homeowners a break?

A solution needs to be found with potentially up to 50,000 mortgages beyond salvage and at least 200,000 houses in massive negative equity but just saying to the banks to give us a break for a few years is not it.

Who do you think is going to pay for the interest to the banks depositors, Troika, ect... Its the taxpayers so why should taxpayers who don't have a mortgage have to pay additional tax to give mortgage holders a break?

Now that BOI and AIB are mostly state owned its no longer "us against the banks".

Just so long as you're singing of the same hymn sheet as the country gets bled dry over the next 25 years by the troika. Applying the same logic Ireland has no business looking for an extension on promissory notes or anything else.

arbitrage · 24-02-2012 3:13pm

pawnacide wrote: »

Just so long as you're singing of the same hymn sheet as the country gets bled dry over the next 25 years by the troika.

Yes I will still be asking why non mortgage holders are sharing the burden of having to pay for mortgage holders to take a break on top of paying rent themselves which is inflated due to high rent allowance rates and thousands of vacant Nama properties.

pawnacide wrote: »

Applying the same logic Ireland has no business looking for an extension on promissory notes or anything else.

I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.

pawnacide · 24-02-2012 3:22pm

arbitrage wrote: »

Yes I will still be asking why non mortgage holders are sharing the burden of having to pay for mortgage holders to take a break on top of paying rent themselves which is inflated due to high rent allowance rates and thousands of vacant Nama properties.

I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.

Europe has not engaged in quantitive easing or money printing, therefore someone somewhere is funding the loans to Ireland.Why should they pay for our supposed folly any more than u should pay to support people with mortgage difficulties.

pawnacide · 24-02-2012 3:25pm

arbitrage wrote: »

on top of paying rent themselves which is inflated due to high rent allowance rates and thousands of vacant Nama properties[/B].

Now ur just babbling.

Zamboni · 24-02-2012 3:39pm

We need a direct end to the reposession moratorium.
It is time people dealt with the consequences of their actions.
The country is frozen in a moral and economic limbo.

pawnacide · 24-02-2012 6:22pm

Zamboni wrote: »

We need a direct end to the reposession moratorium.
It is time people dealt with the consequences of their actions.
The country is frozen in a moral and economic limbo.

Yeah maybe we could supply them with horse and cart to carry their belonging to the nearest warm ditch while we pelt them with rotting fruit.

Maybe we should close all the public hospitals too, I mean seriously if you can't afford health insurance should you really be allowed to live and continue to be a drain on the financially prudent.

Education , why would the masses need education ? they won't be willing to work for peanuts if we educate them. We could start by withdrawing services for the ones who need the most help .. Oh wait they already tried that.

ALERT smugness levels around the country are on the rise.

Icepick · 24-02-2012 7:13pm

pawnacide wrote: »

as the country gets bled dry over the next 25 years by the troika..

They can leave right now and leave us with €15,000,000,000 yearly deficit.
How is that for bleeding?

pawnacide · 24-02-2012 7:24pm

Bleeding awful .. but it's even worse than that coz ur missing a 0

The_Conductor · 24-02-2012 8:57pm

pawnacide wrote: »

Bleeding awful .. but it's even worse than that coz ur missing a 0

No- its a 15 billion annual deficit- you're thinking about the national debt- which may well peak at over 200 billion........ eeeek!!!

shangri la · 24-02-2012 11:31pm

It sounds like you got yourself in over your head with your mortgage pawnacide and want a timeout but someone always pays, if not you for your home then I will have to as a taxpayer.

Yes its unfortunate you might lose your home but maybe you should have bought a cheaper house or continued to rent.

Just because the bank approved your mortgage does not absolve you. I assume you can work a calculator.

The_Conductor · 25-02-2012 8:13am

The new proposal for personal bankruptcy might be applicable here- it only lasts 3 years, and you walk away from all your assets and your debts, and start afresh at the end of the 3 years? Where debts are totally unsustainable- this might be the better course of action?

arbitrage · 26-02-2012 6:01pm

smccarrick wrote: »

The new proposal for personal bankruptcy might be applicable here- it only lasts 3 years, and you walk away from all your assets and your debts, and start afresh at the end of the 3 years? Where debts are totally unsustainable- this might be the better course of action?

I don't think it is that straightforward and seemingly the effects will last longer than 3 years from the initial interpretations of the legislation that has been seen so far.

Has there been any speculation about how many homeowners/insolvent business owners may apply to do this?

The_Conductor · 26-02-2012 6:14pm

arbitrage wrote: »

I don't think it is that straightforward and seemingly the effects will last longer than 3 years from the initial interpretations of the legislation that has been seen so far.

Has there been any speculation about how many homeowners/insolvent business owners may apply to do this?

There certainly has been speculation- some government figures are quoting 7-8000 as the extent of people who might apply for this (and note- this is only for personal bankruptcies- companies and/or businesses would continue to be governed under the pre-existing rules). Other commentators are saying that possibly 40-50,000 may apply under the rules- who knows? Its really up in the air- the only certainty (according to Richard Bruton) is that the new rules will not lead to a further demand for further capital for the banking sector (aka- the recapitalisation programme has already factored this into the equation). What proportion or extent this is factored in- well, your guess is as good as mine. Its not in the banks interests to allow people to walk away from their debts- the presumption is that re-arrangements (of which we've already had 120,000) will be the order of the day, rather than personal bankruptcies.

Its a mess- and trying to call how it'll turn out, is a fools game.....

pawnacide · 27-02-2012 10:56am

shangri la wrote: »

It sounds like you got yourself in over your head with your mortgage pawnacide and want a timeout but someone always pays, if not you for your home then I will have to as a taxpayer.

Yes its unfortunate you might lose your home but maybe you should have bought a cheaper house or continued to rent.

Just because the bank approved your mortgage does not absolve you. I assume you can work a calculator.

Nope,mortgage is just fine, just don't wanna see people on the streets, as i said to the last guy .. just hope your singing of the same hymn sheet if Germany pulls the plug on our little indebted nation and your savings hit the floor.

WARNING : Smugness levels now at an all time high.

Repossessions

Comments