Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Mortgage debt forgiveness is here, Dublin nurse gets €152k debt write-down

13

Comments

  • #102
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Right - and I think you should be entitled to the tracker you signed for. But you think that deals should be renegotiated!

    I think we are kicking the can down the road and until the mortgage arrears issue is dealt with we will continue to have to recapitalise the banks. Allowing a certain amount of debt forgiveness for individuals would alleviate the pressure on those struggling to meet unmanageable debts - something we have already done for developers via NAMA.

    Either way, we will continue to plough millions of taxpayers money into banks. The current system seems to be dropping those millions into an unfillable black hole while suffocating the economy as people do not have the funds to shop for anything more then the bare essentials. The banks are hoovering up state funds while also not releasing funds to SME's all in an effort to balance their books. The books will not balance while they have bad loans on them and many mortgages are now bad loans. They need to be dealt with.
    We need to get the domestic economy moving - we cannot while thousands of people have a mortgage sword of Damocles over their heads.

    It is pointless to moan about individual people being unprudent 5 years ago - the fact is many were. I don't deny it. But, so were developers - we bailed them out but are expecting those in trouble with their mortgages - who bought overpriced houses from those same developers - to suck it up while also requiring them to fund the bail out of the banks to lent them the money and the developers who speculated.


  • #103
    daltonmd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,246 ✭✭✭daltonmd


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I've yet to be shown examples where lenders could not have been reasonably expected to make their payments based on the information they supplied to the banks at the time of the loan.

    Lots of talk about it, but no examples. So this is a purely rhetorical point until such examples are forthcoming.


    I simply don't get this monty - according to you the banks acted based on the information that they got from the borrower and this is fine - yet the borrower who took out the loan based on that same information should have foreseen his job loss or his pay cut?

    Again, it's up to the lender ar much as the borrower to see if those figures would survive an extensive stress test - if you believe that no-one force people to borrow - well by the same token no-one forced the banks to lend.


    I'm not going to get railroaded with this - there's plenty of information out there if you care to look - staff were paid commission and performance related bonuses.

    How does a bank pay commission to staff? Through the "sales" of products, a mortgage is a product - pretty simple stuff really.


  • #104
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    daltonmd wrote: »
    I simply don't get this monty - according to you the banks acted based on the information that they got from the borrower and this is fine - yet the borrower who took out the loan based on that same information should have foreseen his job loss or his pay cut?
    Nope. But if you do get a pay cut or lose your job, you don't get a free house. As the borrower, you are the one sticking your head into the crocodile's mouth. You don't expect to have it taken off, but should always know it is a risk.

    And I think you'll find I've addressed the awesome power of salespeople a short time ago.


  • #105
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Encouraged? As opposed to 'forced'?

    Maybe it's just me, but salespeople routinely encourage me to buy stuff I know I don't need and possibly can't afford. So I don't buy it.

    A salesman will always sell you as much of their product as you let them.

    True - but should a bank manger be a salesman or should he/she be a bank manager?


  • #106
    astrofool
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,900 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    We need to have jingle mail here, it will force the banks to value an asset as security properly.


  • #107
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    True - but should a bank manger be a salesman or should he/she be a bank manager?
    That depends I suppose - is a bank a business or a public service? Is the bank accountable to customers or shareholders?


  • #108
    daltonmd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,246 ✭✭✭daltonmd


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Nope. But if you do get a pay cut or lose your job, you don't get a free house. As the borrower, you are the one sticking your head into the crocodile's mouth. You don't expect to have it taken off, but should always know it is a risk.

    And I think you'll find I've addressed the awesome power of salespeople a short time ago.


    And the same should apply to the bank - they have to have some responsibilty - or do you disagree? And I dealt with the "free house" mantra many threads ago.

    Awesome power of salespeople - yes, they work hard when they're paid a nice bonus or commission for the amount of products they sell - now what if there was a caveat on the bonus - "This bonus is refundable, with interest, if the customer fails to repay the loan" ?


  • #109
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    astrofool wrote: »
    We need to have jingle mail here, it will force the banks to value an asset as security properly.
    I doubt it. All this will be forgotten in 25 years and we'll be doing it all over again - unless we get some sort of awful racial memory of the perils of asset bubbles and debt.

    I was wary of this bubble because I remembered the bust in the UK in the 80s when I was a child. I've never quite understood how so many of my peers seemed to forget it.


  • #110
    daltonmd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,246 ✭✭✭daltonmd


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    True - but should a bank manger be a salesman or should he/she be a bank manager?

    Well what was the product in this case? The money or the property? If it's the money then due diligence should have been taken and if it's the house then they should take it back. :)


  • #111
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    daltonmd wrote: »
    And the same should apply to the bank - they have to have some responsibilty - or do you disagree? And I dealt with the "free house" mantra many threads ago.
    They do have responsibility. And they have taken that responsibility. This is what people don't seem to realise or accept - the owners of the banks have been completely wiped out (of course, the owners include anyone with an Irish pension, but that's another issue again).
    daltonmd wrote: »
    Awesome power of salespeople - yes, they work hard when they're paid a nice bonus or commission for the amount of products they sell - now what if there was a caveat on the bonus - "This bonus is refundable, with interest, if the customer fails to repay the loan" ?
    I agree entirely that the remuneration and incentivisation of bank staff at every level was a major contributor to the bubble. There have been no moves to address this as far as I'm aware.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    daltonmd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,246 ✭✭✭daltonmd


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I doubt it. All this will be forgotten in 25 years and we'll be doing it all over again - unless we get some sort of awful racial memory of the perils of asset bubbles and debt.

    I was wary of this bubble because I remembered the bust in the UK in the 80s when I was a child. I've never quite understood how so many of my peers seemed to forget it.

    It's cyclical - but I think the difference in Ireland (as far as I know) is the behaviour of the banks. Did banks in the UK behave like this in the 80's? Because I am pretty sure we would have heard something.

    We could have survived a global recession, we could have survived a house crash, we could have survived a banking crisis - but all three together?

    The perfect storm....


  • #113
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    daltonmd wrote: »
    Did banks in the UK behave like this in the 80's?
    I honestly don't know.


  • #114
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I doubt it. All this will be forgotten in 25 years and we'll be doing it all over again - unless we get some sort of awful racial memory of the perils of asset bubbles and debt.

    I was wary of this bubble because I remembered the bust in the UK in the 80s when I was a child. I've never quite understood how so many of my peers seemed to forget it.

    I was an adult living in London during their property bubble and burst. I never forgot it. ;)


  • #115
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    RoverZT wrote: »
    SmMcCarrick.

    Topic is about a nurse that got debt forgiveness, her salary pays for the debt.

    It's relevant

    Regards.

    RoverZT

    The topic is about a bank customer, who happens to be a nurse, who is the first person to be granted a mortgage write-down after surrendering her property and its subsequent sale for less than the principle outstanding on it.

    If you want to turn it into yet another public sector bashing thread- it is not appropriate for this forum, you have been warned, and you will be banned. Quite simple really.

    If you want to discuss Ms. White's employment status- do it elsewhere, or face the consequences.

    The end.


  • #116
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I honestly don't know.

    They did.


  • #117
    daltonmd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,246 ✭✭✭daltonmd


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    They do have responsibility. And they have taken that responsibility. This is what people don't seem to realise or accept - the owners of the banks have been completely wiped out (of course, the owners include anyone with an Irish pension, but that's another issue again).

    I agree entirely that the remuneration and incentivisation of bank staff at every level was a major contributor to the bubble. There have been no moves to address this as far as I'm aware.


    I'm sorry, but in the case of shareholders they took a gamble, they were the risk takers, this was part of the frenzy - keep house prices rising, bank profits keep rising, share prices rise, shareholders make money, shareholders happy - the value of your investment etc...

    People bought homes. Not investment products (Am specific here with homeowners, not BTL)


  • #118
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    daltonmd wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but in the case of shareholders they took a gamble, they were the risk takers, this was part of the frenzy - keep house prices rising, bank profits keep rising, share prices rise, shareholders make money, shareholders happy - the value of your investment etc...
    ...and they lost it all. Well, I wouldn't characterise it as a gamble, more as an investment. As I said, the biggest shareholders would have been pension funds - not known for their high-rolling and high appetite for risk.
    daltonmd wrote: »
    People bought homes. Not investment products (Am specific here with homeowners, not BTL)
    They bought an asset with borrowed money. Regardless of the future value of the asset, they still owe the money and must pay it back if they can.


  • #119
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    It seems she was earning €70k/annum when she borrowed the €245k, seems quite reasonable a transaction to be fair. Hardly the banks fault she left the job and had a hankering to live in the West of Ireland.


  • #120
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    daltonmd wrote: »

    People bought homes. Not investment products (Am specific here with homeowners, not BTL)

    Homes are investment products. If they weren't, banks wouldn't be lending people money to get them. They're not lending people money to buy them now because they're not good investments.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Rabidlamb
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,202 ✭✭✭Rabidlamb


    Last week I was shocked to learn they are still assessing full joint income for mortgage applications.
    I thought they'd rowed back to 3+1 or 4+1 at a push, nope.

    http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/prudent-aib-cuts-amount-it-lends-to-home-buyers-by-10pc-3083681.html
    Broker Karl Deeter, of Irish Mortgage Brokers, said that a couple with two incomes of €35,000 each, taking out a 30-year mortgage, would have been approved for €348,000 under the old rules.

    But the new stress-test rules mean that the couple would now be approved for €36,000 less, or €312,000 in total.

    The same couple would end up with more from other lenders.

    KBC Bank would approve the couple for €324,000, if the buyers have a 20pc deposit.

    And ICS Building Society would approve the buyers for €350,000, Mr Deeter said.

    So as long as this generation of home-buyers don't get pregnant, or lose their jobs or split up, everything will be fine.
    That last bunch were a right unreliable shower.


  • #122
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Rabidlamb wrote: »
    So as long as this generation of home-buyers don't get pregnant, or lose their jobs or split up, everything will be fine.
    That last bunch were a right unreliable shower.

    And they have to have the ability to save a 20% deposit- which at least shows some element of financial prudence (the two lenders in the article- ICS and KBC both will give a max of 80% on the figures being quoted). The journalist didn't present all the facts in his article in an objective manner.


  • #123
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Rabidlamb wrote: »
    So as long as this generation of home-buyers don't get pregnant, or lose their jobs or split up, everything will be fine.
    That last bunch were a right unreliable shower.

    Lessons haven't been learned...


  • #124
    RoverZT
    Registered Users Posts: 362 ✭✭RoverZT


    smccarrick wrote: »
    The topic is about a bank customer, who happens to be a nurse, who is the first person to be granted a mortgage write-down after surrendering her property and its subsequent sale for less than the principle outstanding on it.

    If you want to turn it into yet another public sector bashing thread- it is not appropriate for this forum, you have been warned, and you will be banned. Quite simple really.

    If you want to discuss Ms. White's employment status- do it elsewhere, or face the consequences.

    The end.

    Is a private nursing home a public sector job?

    No it is not.

    I don't know why you are bringing public sector into it:rolleyes:

    Why did you just assume that?

    Looking for an argument?

    It's quite simple really.

    Nurses with experience are on savage money here, I showed you an example of it.

    There is plentiful employment in that sector, money is great, most private and state hospitals/homes are unionised so most have job secuirty.

    She is in one of the few sectors that have not been affected by the recession.

    She is in full time employment, fully qualified, on great wages, with plentiful work all around the country, the world.

    She doesn't deserve the debt forgiveness.


  • #125
    RoverZT
    Registered Users Posts: 362 ✭✭RoverZT


    RoverJames wrote: »
    It seems she was earning €70k/annum when she borrowed the €245k, seems quite reasonable a transaction to be fair. Hardly the banks fault she left the job and had a hankering to live in the West of Ireland.

    Thank you RoverJames.

    Glad to see some people have some cop on here.


  • #126
    Rabidlamb
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,202 ✭✭✭Rabidlamb


    smccarrick wrote: »
    And they have to have the ability to save a 20% deposit- which at least shows some element of financial prudence (the two lenders in the article- ICS and KBC both will give a max of 80% on the figures being quoted). The journalist didn't present all the facts in his article in an objective manner.

    Back in my day a deposit was optional as there were more jobs than people & a minimum 6% pay rise was guaranteed every year.
    You could also downsize when you retired to release some lovely equity.
    My homes brochure spoke of horse racing evening in the Curragh & golf at the K-Club while my wife enjoyed her spa treatment.
    They were simpler times with less form filling.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Steven81
    Registered Users Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭Steven81


    Think she did quite well, havent read all pages but the amount she has to repay is of a small amount, repaying between 50-60 euros a week as a nurse if she is still employed as this wont make her poor but i can only think they looked at her circumstances and that is all she can afford.

    As for slating nurses they are the ones on the front line, work unsociable hours ( Nights, weekends, christmas) and have to deal with a lot, if you are in a hospital this is seen and think they deserve everything they earn.


  • #128
    odds_on
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭odds_on


    Part of the problem was that people wanted as much as they could get to buy a house that was often bigger and better than they actually needed - a status symbol.
    And today there is the exact same problem - just looking at other threads in Accommodation & Property today, where someone is asking
    How much of Net Income should you pay towards Mortgage.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056615900

    Ok, he is just asking but IMHO he really wants to buy a bigger better property that he doesn't actually need. Peoples wants and needs are completely different.


  • #129
    Zamboni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    Just catching up with this story now.
    It is a massive two fingers to the prudent tax payer who sat back from the celtic savage property rush.
    Despite making a conscious decision to stay out of the market we now must pay for the losses of the banks and the bail outs of individuals who made life financial decisions without the adequate knowledge or research.
    This society does not value informed decision, prudence or effort and it rewards incompetence, poor mathematical ability and irrational decision making.


  • #130
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    odds_on wrote: »
    Part of the problem was that people wanted as much as they could get to buy a house that was often bigger and better than they actually needed - a status symbol.
    And today there is the exact same problem - just looking at other threads in Accommodation & Property today, where someone is asking
    How much of Net Income should you pay towards Mortgage.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056615900

    Ok, he is just asking but IMHO he really wants to buy a bigger better property that he doesn't actually need. Peoples wants and needs are completely different.

    I agree completely. I remember when my sister remortgaged to pay for an extension she didn't need- she just had to have a wet room with a multi-jet shower, a bathroom with a jacuzzi, 2 ensuites plus two separate toilets - making 4 in the house. There's only herself and her husband - how many toilets do 2 people need in a suburban semi detached???
    I nearly had a stroke when I heard that the tiles for the wet room cost 14 grand - wtf??? Do they wake you in the morning with a cooked breakfast and do the ironing while you are out at work???
    When exactly did we all begin to need our own personal jax? :confused:


  • #131
    coup1917
    Closed Accounts Posts: 262 ✭✭coup1917


    The deal this woman has received seems to good to be true. There is obviously s lot more to it but the issue i have is that she borrowed on the back of a 70k salary. Then she decided to move to a job paying 50k as it was something she had always wanted to work at. Taking a job with a lesser salary when you are a single income paying a mortgage was naive. We would all like to move into our dream job but its not always possible, even for a joint income household paying a mortgage.

    With property supplements falling out of our daily papers and stories of property prices in certain parts on the rise, news of this type of deal are really leading to a disjointed economy for years to come.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Lantus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,027 ✭✭✭Lantus


    Solair wrote: »
    Yeah, but it's a bit like the difference between a weather forecast done by a professional meteorologist using all the best tools available and some guy in the pub going "Woohoo! It's going to be sunny forever - I'm burning all my winter clothes and investing in shorts and suncream!"

    Personally, I'd go for the high-tech meteorologist with their computer models, satellites, forecasting technology than the lad down the back of the pub.

    The Irish banks seem to have very much in the "woohooo!" school of economic modelling.

    If you look at the the history of modern banking, the Irish banks' collapse is right up there with the very worst economic melt downs and it's entirely down to lack of ability to assess risk and forecast market trends.

    The main role of a bank is risk assessment. If that system goes horribly wrong, then your organisation will not be in banking for very long! That's why we no longer have any normally functioning banks in Ireland.

    We'd love to think that banks assess the future long term but in reality they are a business and any business tends to base it's future on the last quarter only. If the LQ was good they get bouyant and invest and spend.

    It's maddness really but for most businesses the money going into the till day to day is the only measure they have.

    That said ALL economies move in cycles, boom, bust and so on. After sudden screaching up periods there are always corresponding down periods. You would think that someone somewhere in even just one bank would of known that. But you get too many new age managers talking up the 'we are different' and this whole 'soft landing' thing that we seemed to swallow. If anyone had bothered to look it up you'd see (according to wiki) that there isn't one example of it happening anywhere. Not a good sign. Yet the 'herd' repeated it until they all believed it.

    Almost willing it to happen. Life doesn't work like that though.....

    SO, I would blame in this order, banks and politicians equally at about 40% each for shameless greed, reckless spending, lack of regulation and believe in infinite growth as if this country had discovered a never ending seam of gold we could all tap into for ever. The people (us) must also take some responsibility at around 20% for swallowing the rubbish the banks and politicians put out and not stopping to think for ourselves. For many of us there was much greed and profiteering to be had and we enjoyed it far too much.

    If we want to change ireland for the better the first person to change must be ourselve's.


  • #133
    the groutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,096 ✭✭✭✭the groutch


    nobody should get this kind of debt forgiveness if they are still in full-time employment, END OF!


  • #134
    Rabidlamb
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,202 ✭✭✭Rabidlamb


    Looks as those who emigrated while leaving mortgage debt haven't much to worry about.
    I remember people touting in here how the banks would chase you to Austrailia for any shortfall.
    How they'd have agents waiting at the airport for when you'd show up.
    A woman moves to Galway & they let her off €150k.


  • #135
    Gandhi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 976 ✭✭✭Gandhi


    Seems to me that she got the forgiveness because the bank sold the property for such a low value. The article says her lawyer argued that the bank repossessed, and then let the house sit for too long while prices were dropping. I think the details of that court case should be a central part of this story and the original article only spent a sentence or two on it.

    Plus, she spent tens of thousands on this house, and will be forced to spend thousands more, having already lost the whole thing. It is not like she got a free house out of it.


  • #136
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Zamboni wrote: »
    Just catching up with this story now.
    It is a massive two fingers to the prudent tax payer who sat back from the celtic savage property rush.
    Despite making a conscious decision to stay out of the market we now must pay for the losses of the banks and the bail outs of individuals who made life financial decisions without the adequate knowledge or research.
    This society does not value informed decision, prudence or effort and it rewards incompetence, poor mathematical ability and irrational decision making.

    Let's not forget the prudent tax payers who also are still paying their mortgages and getting on with things despite the negative equity, not all homeowners who bought during the boom jacked in their €70k/annum job because they fancied moving to the West.

    99% of people who bought in the boom haven't been bailed out so let's not get carried away ;)


  • #137
    riclad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    Germany ,france never had a boom bust in housing,
    because they have a proper banking regulatory system.
    WHEN i saw houses in rough areas ,council estates going for 220k ,i knew we were going for a housing price crash.
    Central bank,regulator ,debt of finance were not doing their job, since they are civil servants they will still retire on nice big pensions.
    I wonder will other single people ask for the same deal as that nurse.
    She gets off just paying 20k,without even going thru bankruptcy process.
    Many single people bought apartments for 200k, now worth 100k.
    And in a few years, she can buy a nice house in the west ,much cheaper than dublin .

    The banking industry was run for the benefit of bankers, builders, developers.crony capitalism and the taxpayer is left with the bill to rescue the banks.


  • #138
    monkeybutter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,894 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    You'd have to admire her though. While the rest of us bend over to take our medicine, she's off scot free, enjoying the sunsets in connemara no doubt.

    Is she smart and we are thick?

    If the rest of you piggys don't get it, there's only so much in the feeding trough, and you don't want to go hungry now do ya. To be paddy last yet again? Like 2007, climbing over each other for the last scrap.

    If you are underwater with your mortage, if it makes financial sense, then walk away, it's not painless, it will cost you, but you owe it to yourself. People say you should treat buying a house as a business decision, now is your chance.


  • #139
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,675 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Just saw a clip of this on the late news. She got off the hook and was whinging that she wouldn't be able to get a mortgage. I don't see why there should be any debt forgivness, people need to take responsibility for their own actions, noone forced them to take out loans and those of us who used our heads and calcuated what we would actually be able to pay back and borrowed accordingly won't get any such write down of debts.


  • #140
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,310 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    I lost €22,000 investing in the Dot.com boom and bust in 2001-2003.

    I demand that the taxpayer reimburse me.

    Just like we're footing the bill for this irresponsible nurse.


  • #141
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,675 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    I lost €22,000 investing in the Dot.com boom and bust in 2001-2003.

    I demand that the taxpayer reimburse me.

    Just like we're footing the bill for this irresponsible nurse.

    We are.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    ted1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,658 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    I decided to rent during the boom as I knew that everything wE overvalued. Do you think I'll get money back. I have serious problems with tax money being used to bail out bad investments. The funny thing is i'm an engineer and all my friends who are bankers and accoutants told me I was not buying. As my daughter says silly you.


  • #143
    clarsax
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38 ✭clarsax


    Facts in this case are misleading. The crux is she handed back the keys and surrendered the property years before the bank sold it. Yes she was naive and irresponsible but she thought it was the end of it. If the bank had sold it promptly then the deficit would have been far less, possibly nil


  • #144
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    clarsax wrote: »
    Facts in this case are misleading. The crux is she handed back the keys and surrendered the property years before the bank sold it. Yes she was naive and irresponsible but she thought it was the end of it. If the bank had sold it promptly then the deficit would have been far less, possibly nil

    Naive and irresponsible isn't an excuse though. If I tell someone I don't think I'm paying my debts, and think that's the end of it, they're still my debts, and my responsibility to repay them. Jingle mail works in the states, not here.


  • #145
    xoxyx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,811 ✭✭✭xoxyx


    clarsax wrote: »
    Facts in this case are misleading. The crux is she handed back the keys and surrendered the property years before the bank sold it. Yes she was naive and irresponsible but she thought it was the end of it. If the bank had sold it promptly then the deficit would have been far less, possibly nil

    So, what. Did she bury her head in the sand and think everything would be taken care of? A reasonable person would have followed what the bank was doing in order to protect their interests. Totally irresponsible IYAM.

    Gurgle wrote: »
    Something smells a bit off here:


    If she borrowed €245k and never made a repayment, then the house was sold for €75k? That's pretty damn cheap, even for Coolock in a recession.

    Sorry if this has already been addressed, but I skimmed the thread and didn't see an answer. That was my first question - why was there such a downfall between €245,000 and €75,000?


  • #146
    daenerysstormborn3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,213 ✭✭✭daenerysstormborn3


    Steven81 wrote: »
    Think she did quite well, havent read all pages but the amount she has to repay is of a small amount, repaying between 50-60 euros a week as a nurse if she is still employed as this wont make her poor but i can only think they looked at her circumstances and that is all she can afford.

    As for slating nurses they are the ones on the front line, work unsociable hours ( Nights, weekends, christmas) and have to deal with a lot, if you are in a hospital this is seen and think they deserve everything they earn.

    They chose the profession knowing the conditions of the job, this does not give them free reign to whinge and moan about it. And having just come out of hospital after being involved in an RTA, i'm afraid the majority of nurses i dealt with do not deserve their large pay packets and job security. I dealt with one nurse who was a shining example of the profession.

    Anyway that's OT.

    This woman does not deserve debt forgiveness and i don't think it should be introduced in this country at all. What about the people who have struggled and gave up every luxury to ensure they could meet their mortgage repayments? Is their struggle less so just because they put their mortgage repayments as their top priority? Sure why doesn't everyone just stop paying and then nobody will have to deal with their debts? That's the kind of attitude this precedent is going to set.


  • #147
    golden lane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,364 ✭✭✭golden lane


    the country is in a terrible mess.........some are rewarded, some are punished........i think there needs to be a complete overhaul of the banking system.........and then a complete overhaul of the public employment renumeration.........

    ireland is becoming a mafia type state........


  • #148
    indiewindy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭indiewindy


    golden lane wrote: »
    the country is in a terrible mess.........some are rewarded, some are punished........i think there needs to be a complete overhaul of the banking system.........and then a complete overhaul of the public employment renumeration.........

    ireland is becoming a mafia type state........

    There are so many things still wrong in this country
    the effective rewarding of failure like the nurse who is the source of this thread
    new beginnings: a vested interest
    The landlords in killeney with a substantial property portfolio getting misplace sympathy when they tried to play the old eviction card
    ps wages too high
    sw to high
    vested interested getting free reign to sout their nonsense economic policies on the airwaves
    This country is run for the benefit of a small minority, not the vast majority of people who live prudently:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:


  • #149
    golden lane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,364 ✭✭✭golden lane


    indiewindy wrote: »
    There are so many things still wrong in this country
    the effective rewarding of failure like the nurse who is the source of this thread
    new beginnings: a vested interest
    The landlords in killeney with a substantial property portfolio getting misplace sympathy when they tried to play the old eviction card
    ps wages too high
    sw to high
    vested interested getting free reign to sout their nonsense economic policies on the airwaves
    This country is run for the benefit of a small minority, not the vast majority of people who live prudently:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

    exactly.......mafia style


  • #150
    How Strange
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,339 ✭✭✭How Strange


    She was on morning Ireland yesterday and said there was great mercy in this country at the moment whatever that means. I suppose for her it means she walks away from her obligations. She said she was all for paying her debts .... and yet she got her debt reduced to 18k by engaging new beginnings. They can expect lots of calls from people in negative equity. Oh and she'd prayed to god and left it in his hands to sort out .... so BoI and New Beginnings were really doing gods work.

    It's a pity we're atheists so we just keep paying a mortgage on a 2 bed apt in huge negative equity.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    JuliusCaesar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,882 ✭✭✭JuliusCaesar


    Can't see what everyone is getting so excited about, as most of you don't seem to have read the basis of her case, which isn't applicable to most people in negative equity.
    Her legal team argued that the house should have been sold more quickly before the property market plunged.
    clarsax wrote: »
    The crux is she handed back the keys and surrendered the property years before the bank sold it. Yes she was naive and irresponsible but she thought it was the end of it. If the bank had sold it promptly then the deficit would have been far less, possibly nil

    The bank mishandled her case, and could have covered the mortgage outstanding if they had sold the house promptly.

    Yet another example of banks not managing themselves properly.

    You can be irate at the bank, not the nurse.


Advertisement