People power halts eviction

20Cent wrote: »

Warnings were given re the housing bubble. Now some of the same people are warning about an upcoming mortgage crisis as well. Should we just ignore them again like last time? Worked out well then.

I know feeling smug and calling people stupid is fun for some but isn't it time to prepare and put something in place to head off this problem or should we wait until it becomes a crisis again?

There is a difference between warning about something and doing what you are doing.
What you are doing is akin to a banker telling everyone in 2007 that they should be given billions in a bailout less the world caves in.

We all know there probably is a load of mortgage defaults coming down the road.
Some are just surviving and if anything rocks the boat they will sink.

But what you are doing is demanding that those people be given a get out of jail card on their debts, i.e. debt forgiveness.

Just like I argued against bailouts for banks like Anglo/INBS and NAMA, I am arguing against a bailout of every mortgage defaulter.

Where would the madness end ?
Basically this country would be a state where you can borrow as much as you like, not pay it back and continue as if nothing had happened.
Try and see if any lender would give mortgages after that.
You could definetly say goodbye to any foreign bank offering any form of loans in this country.

southsiderosie wrote: »

I have to agree with 20Cent here. The foreclosure issue isn't about dumping on taxpayers, it is about rule of law. Just as buyers were trying to make extra money by flipping houses, lenders were trying to make money by bundling and selling mortgages. Only the mortgage holder has the right to foreclose on a home - if you can't prove who actually holds the mortgage, then how can you kick someone out of their house?

Yes we know the situation in the states and I have a feeling the somehting similar may apply to some of those developers who got wads of cash with little securitisation in return and the deals were poorly documented.

Now if someone was to come on here and say that developer X does not have to pay back x hundred million to NAMA, because the paperwork was screwed up there would be uproar.
And I can assure you that some of those getting angry would include the very ones that think it is ok if mortgage holder Y doesn't pay anything back because there was a screwup with the paperwork.

IMHO it appears 20cent is hoping that there might be similar screwups with the paperwork here and thus some get out of paying their debts.

I wonder does he think the same should be used by seanie fitz, sean dunne, seamus ross, sean quinn, etc ?

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I don't get why you said the Government are making a mockery of You and Me, cause we had an election a year ago, it was all free, there have no major protests, opinion polls are strong for the Government and it all is fairly stable. So looking at it objectively, it seems the Government are acting exactly the same the majority of people want it to act.

I have never voted for any of the three major parties in this country so I would consider what they are doing to be a mockery of what I believe and stand for and so by extension me as a whole.

The general consensus from all I have read on the boards and other forums is that the majority of people in this country are not happy with what the government have done over the last year.

One subjective example of this is my position regarding furthering my education. The new rules regarding post-grad grants and fees mean that I will not get any help in doing a masters degree. The current figures show that the average time spent on the live register is 21 months. I no doubt will have to sign on in may when I finish my exams. Even if I by some miracle only last half of the average time on the dole the government will have spent nearly twice as much for me to p*ss about looking for jobs that aren't there rather than making me more employable which would cost around 5k.

Further to this the new rules they propose to bring in about expected signing off the live register are yet another grand scheme which will most likely result in disaster. How can they implement this sort of policy without adequate time to create the massive infrastructure needed to fulfil it? Where are these training opportunities going to come from? Where are the jobs going to come from ? 200,000 jobs by 2020? Are you serious? In the 1950s and the 1980s Irish governments relied on emigration to reduce the unemployed of this country. Back then it was mainly uneducated people leaving - today all the highly educated brains (that we as tax payers paid for) are leaving. We will end up mass-exporting our greatest asset, hell they are leaving right now!

Less access to education + mass emigration ≠ highly educated workforce

This is not going to get any better any time soon. Our government and the ESRI think our growth will be nearly 1% this year... The IMF say 0.5%. I'd be inclined to agree with the IMF. Either way we are screwed.

I haven't got time to continue this which has clearly deviated into rant territory - suffice it to conclude that this is not the type of country I want to live in nor is this the type of Europe I want to live in. I feel like I have been made a mockery of.

Zombrex wrote: »

True, I certainly know people who are kicking themselves now for being so naive but who would say that at the time they felt a pressure that they had to buy something, anything, in order to get on the rising tide.

This pressure to buy property is central to the entire question of how Ireland and it's prople ended up in this dreadful situation.

What makes it all the more disgusting,is that a great source of this presure came from actual Government Policy enacted by a legislature comprised of Gamblers,Publicans,Auctioneers,Lawyers and Speculators.

This cabal managed successfully to forge the folk-myth that owning a Place of your own was almost compulsory if one was to survive at all.

Whilst all of this policy formulation was going on,the same crew managed to consistently derail any attempts to advocate affordable,regulated Private Long-Term Rental as a sustainable means of housing citizens.

Sadly,even in todays supposedly clearer situation,our Government still clings to the fallacy that we can still get the Property Canoe upright again.....:)

jmayo wrote: »

Anyone with a modicum of common sense knew that prices could not go increasing forever.:

Eh, I never said otherwise, and if you bothered to read what I wrote you would know this. I said I do not believe average folks could confidently predict two events happening together. Prices would STOP rising, as well as them then dramatically crashing. I know well the prices couldn't keep rising. They were great at saying this after it happened, but there were never clear signs that the prices would stop AND drop dramatically.

walshb wrote: »

Eh, I never said otherwise, and if you bothered to read what I wrote you would know this. I said I do not believe average folks could confidently predict two events happening together. Prices would STOP rising, as well as them then dramatically crashing. I know well the prices couldn't keep rising. They were great at saying this after it happened, but there were never clear signs that the prices would stop AND drop dramatically.

When?

In 2006 I gave two people I knew who were just about to buy apartments clippings from the Economist predicting a 50% drop for Ireland and drawing comparisons with other property crashes.

I got laughed at. They bought anyway. I think one is now 60% underwater.

walshb wrote: »

Eh, I never said otherwise, and if you bothered to read what I wrote you would know this. I said I do not believe average folks could confidently predict two events happening together. Prices would STOP rising, as well as them then dramatically crashing. I know well the prices couldn't keep rising. They were great at saying this after it happened, but there were never clear signs that the prices would stop AND drop dramatically.

Ah FFS remember the stuff I said about looking at history.
For a start all someone had to do was talk to someone who had lived in the UK during the 80s who saw the prices drop drastically, checked out the Japanese collapse of the early 90s or the Scandanavian bubble of the 90s.

Disregarding all these bubbles/bursts and somehow believing the bullsh** being pedalled by vested interests about how we were somehow different to everyone else and how we would have some mythical soft landing was really dumb.

What type of sign did you want ?
An appartition at Knock or something ?

20Cent wrote: »

The banks, nope they were bailed out.
Bondholders nope they got paid back,
Developers, nope they get a wage pus will be buying back their property for a song soon.
The bloke who wanted a home for his family yep, hammered for all they have moral hazard only applies to them. And soon we will be bailing out the banks again when this goes tits up.
To properly learn from this incident we need some justice re-Anglo, the banks, developers etc or its bound to happen again. Not to mention a lot of people losing their homes ending up in Gov accumulation which will probably end up costing us more than helping them out now. Cheapest bank bailout ever etc............

Yes I agree that we really need to see justice.
We need some high ranking bankers, entrepreneurs/developers and regulators seeing their assets being stripped away, pensions removed and answering questions in a court of law.
BTW I don't think the number of developers getting salaries from NAMa is anything like it is made out.
What is more concerning is indeed the fact that they have salted away their wealth to family and friends to allow them fight another day.
Every penny they have ceeded post 2005 should be confiscated.

But all of the above still doesn't also mean I want to see someone who bought a 4,000 sq ft house, rolled his credit card debt and car loans into his mortgage getting a bailout which allows him stay in his home and walk away
from his debts.
There should never have been any bailouts except for the two big truly systemic banks.

Your idea of justice seems to be that rather than stopping fraud/theft, everyone should be allowed do it.

The argument runs....

Have you broken a criminal law if you have not discharged a debt?

If not, then your house is not violable under the constitution.

A Garda on his Oath to be "upholding the Constitution" means he cannot allow the house to be entered.

quietriot wrote: »

ULA/SWP/"Freemen" are socialist wasters but thankfully we'll never see them with any real presence in this country.

Freemen would not be socialist. They remind me more of the right wing fringe groups that appeared in the States, e.g. Survivalists, militia etc

Realistically there is a massive lack of understanding regarding how mortgages operate. The mortgagor, while having the appearance of owning the home, actually only has an equitable right to use the home as they wish – obviously this is heavily dependant on them making the agreed repayments.
The mortgagee (the lender) actually owns the home/property; their contract with the mortgagor is clearly subject to protection both statutorily, in the laws of equity and in common law. However, once the mortgagee has applied to the courts for possession then they are entitled to evict the inhabitants out of the property.

If you think it's easy to get an order for possession, it's not. You have to prove multiple things to the courts, comply with the Family Home Protection Act and jump through many hoops. I have been in court on both sides of this situation (although admittedly more often for the banks) and I can tell you that borrowers/mortgagors are given every possible opportunity to make good on their payments – this, compounded with the massive amount of statutory protection in place for mortgagors and an onus on the mortgagee to negotiate and deal with the mortgagors puts the borrower in a very strong position.

Do I feel sorry for people that are losing their homes? Of course I do, but it simply cannot be said that they have not had a chance to work things out with the banks.
They do not own these homes; they can and should be taken away where there is continued non-payment and the banks have satisfied the courts that they have complied with the rules and proceeded fairly.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No


Not necessarily. The lender could either be the mortgagee of the property (in which case they already own the property) or they could have been granted a judgment mortgage or well-charging order over the property and then been granted an order for possession


Their duty is to protect the constitutional rights of the home owner and/or to enforce a court order.

The squatter who refuses to leave following a possession order is the one violating the owner's constitutional rights. Any concerns about the mortgagor's or debtor's rights were duly considered by the courts prior to granting the order for possession.

Out of interest, does this get anywhere where a loan has been taken on the house, but the householder owns the house?

This is what needs to be done

Families that can't afford there family homes should be evicted, we should stop allowing people to keep properties that they refuse to pay for

If need be they could be housed in nama apartments for a smaller rent but good quality houses should be allowed to be released on the open market

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It really depends. If you use the house as security, then it's in danger... but I doubt the court would really give an order for possession if you owed like 10,000 to the bank on a loan secured with a house.

In fact, now that I think about it... I don't think the bank would be able to accept a house as security for such a small loan. I'm not a banking expert though, so I'm open to correction on that.

When I've taken out small business loans previously it was all based around personal guarantees not on any assets.