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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Repossessions

1568101115

Comments

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


    40 thousand repossessions in the uk.....barely has a mention........
    And only 5 per month in Ireland where the owners don't abandon the house. Crazy considering the number of mortgages that are 90+ days in arrears.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    shangri la wrote: »
    how were the bankers severly punished?

    4,500 are due for the chop by the end of the year- they're still trying to negotiate redundancy- but the sticking point is the bankers are not happy with being treated in the same manner as public sector redundancies, and are claiming special treatment. Screw them.


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


    smccarrick wrote: »
    4,500 are due for the chop by the end of the year- they're still trying to negotiate redundancy- but the sticking point is the bankers are not happy with being treated in the same manner as public sector redundancies, and are claiming special treatment. Screw them.
    Indeed. Their organisation f*cked up so spectacularly that they had to be nationalised or go bust. Now they must reckon they are public servants... :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 150 ✭✭arbitrage


    What are the current figures for mortgages 6+ months in arrears?

    Any figures on how many mortgages 6+ months in arrears are primary dwellings as opposed to buy to let properties?

    Has a breakdown by county been published?


    If someone puts their house into a trust for their children and then can't pay their mortgage how difficult is it to repossess the house? What is stopping everyone in trouble from doing this?


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


    arbitrage wrote: »
    What is stopping everyone in trouble from doing this?
    Ethics?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 372 ✭✭Nidot


    arbitrage wrote: »
    What are the current figures for mortgages 6+ months in arrears?

    Any figures on how many mortgages 6+ months in arrears are primary dwellings as opposed to buy to let properties?

    Has a breakdown by county been published?


    If someone puts their house into a trust for their children and then can't pay their mortgage how difficult is it to repossess the house? What is stopping everyone in trouble from doing this?

    That would be considered trying to move the property out of the reach of the lender from which the lender would the ask for a court order to be made to annual the transfer , ala sean quinn and his property dealings at the moment up in the high court.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    arbitrage wrote: »
    If someone puts their house into a trust for their children and then can't pay their mortgage how difficult is it to repossess the house? What is stopping everyone in trouble from doing this?

    Whats to stop them?
    The law actually.
    If a property has a lien (mortgage) on it- the lender has first call on the equity in the property, and ownership of the security (the property) cannot be transferred elsewhere without their prior agreement. The 1976 law regarding family homes is not designed as a mechanism to by-pass the security on the loan- if it were, all mortgages would be considered unsecured loans, on parr with credit card debt, and wiped clean under the proposed personal insolvency act (which most certainly is not the case).

    A property could of course be purchased for the beneficial ownership of a trust- however, until such time as any outstanding debts associated with the property were discharged- the property itself would continue to be under the control of the lender until such time as any tier one debts were cleared.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,078 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    arbitrage wrote: »
    ...

    If someone puts their house into a trust for their children and then can't pay their mortgage how difficult is it to repossess the house? What is stopping everyone in trouble from doing this?

    Fecks sake is that you Sean ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 150 ✭✭arbitrage


    Nidot wrote: »
    That would be considered trying to move the property out of the reach of the lender from which the lender would the ask for a court order to be made to annual the transfer , ala sean quinn and his property dealings at the moment up in the high court.
    who ultimately pays the fees if the annulment is successful?

    I would assume all the fees could run into the tens of thousands for a high court action?


  • Registered Users Posts: 150 ✭✭arbitrage


    The crowd that the banks evicted in Killiney with 21 other properties had most of their property in trust for their children even though there was mortgages on most if not all the properties. Another family sold their heavily mortgaged pub to a private ltd company which they themselves owned and their lender only became aware of this after bringing them to court.

    It is going to cost the banks and ultimately the taxpayer a fortune getting these annuled and if it is easy and straightforward to place a mortgaged property into a trust I can see it becoming quite common to keep the wolf from the door that bit longer.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    arbitrage wrote: »
    The crowd that the banks evicted in Killiney with 21 other properties had most of their property in trust for their children even though there was mortgages on most if not all the properties. Another family sold their heavily mortgaged pub to a private ltd company which they themselves owned and their lender only became aware of this after bringing them to court.

    It is going to cost the banks and ultimately the taxpayer a fortune getting these annuled and if it is easy and straightforward to place a mortgaged property into a trust I can see it becoming quite common to keep the wolf from the door that bit longer.

    A few lengthy jail terms should dissuade people from the notion that this is a viable course of action- and I for one, would support this to the fullest extreme.....

    It is not acceptable that people should imagine the tax payer will step in and pick up the tabs for these actions- there is a disincentive in that actions of this nature are illegal- however people should have no expectation whatsoever of a gain or not having to pay for actions taken against them.

    Perhaps- removal of citizenship/right to a passport etc might be a path someone might like to explore as a disincentive?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,033 ✭✭✭who_ru


    the whole repossessions issue is now a political football that no party is prepared to tackle. i don't really see any prospect of a resolution either under the current circumstances.

    as a result we will see more people going into arrears, no longer making payments on their mortgages, essentially being given free accommodation for maybe 1-2 years, even longer in some cases.

    meanwhile the private renter continues to get screwed over by high rents, properties owned in some instances by BTL landlords in arrears themselves, and with little chance of being able to access mortgage credit.

    a dreadful situation all round.


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


    who_ru wrote: »
    the whole repossessions issue is now a political football that no party is prepared to tackle. i don't really see any prospect of a resolution either under the current circumstances.

    as a result we will see more people going into arrears, no longer making payments on their mortgages, essentially being given free accommodation for maybe 1-2 years, even longer in some cases.

    meanwhile the private renter continues to get screwed over by high rents, properties owned in some instances by BTL landlords in arrears themselves, and with little chance of being able to access mortgage credit.

    a dreadful situation all round.
    Nobody wants to look like a bad (i.e. realistic) guy, so it will be kicked around until either a populist policy or a populist party 'resolves' the issue at the expense of everybody else. Nobody has yet explained how taxing one person to pay the debts of another will 'boost the economy'.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    I'd love if people did not buy repossessed houses. The banks are getting away Scott free. They were the professionals giving out mortgages to people who should never have been given them in the first place.

    And how in Gods name were Bank of Scotland allowed to up sticks and leave the market so easily. It was those bastards who first introduces the 110% mortgages.

    It these banks had not been nationalised those people who are happy to allow people drown in debt for the rest of their lives might be whistling a different tune.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    Nobody wants to look like a bad (i.e. realistic) guy, so it will be kicked around until either a populist policy or a populist party 'resolves' the issue at the expense of everybody else. Nobody has yet explained how taxing one person to pay the debts of another will 'boost the economy'.

    My understanding from those economists looking for debt forgiveness is that those who are currently under so much debt are not spending and are unlikely to spend in the medium term. This will in turn hurt those companies and professionals offering services. By reducing their debt it allows them to inturn start spending again and employing the services of professionals. So while we may pay more taxes it would be offset by an increase in business.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,364 ✭✭✭golden lane


    arbitrage wrote: »
    The crowd that the banks evicted in Killiney with 21 other properties had most of their property in trust for their children even though there was mortgages on most if not all the properties. Another family sold their heavily mortgaged pub to a private ltd company which they themselves owned and their lender only became aware of this after bringing them to court.

    It is going to cost the banks and ultimately the taxpayer a fortune getting these annuled and if it is easy and straightforward to place a mortgaged property into a trust I can see it becoming quite common to keep the wolf from the door that bit longer.

    in the uk...the land agency will not transfer the deeds until they get the ok off the lendeer...

    no transfer...no ownership......

    sell it as many times as you like...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    smccarrick wrote: »
    A few lengthy jail terms should dissuade people from the notion that this is a viable course of action- and I for one, would support this to the fullest extreme.....

    It is not acceptable that people should imagine the tax payer will step in and pick up the tabs for these actions- there is a disincentive in that actions of this nature are illegal- however people should have no expectation whatsoever of a gain or not having to pay for actions taken against them.

    Perhaps- removal of citizenship/right to a passport etc might be a path someone might like to explore as a disincentive?

    And what of the professional bankers who have ruined this country through their professional negligence? They get a free pass???????


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭carey2010


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    I'd love if people did not buy repossessed houses. The banks are getting away Scott free. They were the professionals giving out mortgages to people who should never have been given them in the first place.

    And how in Gods name were Bank of Scotland allowed to up sticks and leave the market so easily. It was those bastards who first introduces the 110% mortgages.

    It these banks had not been nationalised those people who are happy to allow people drown in debt for the rest of their lives might be whistling a different tune.

    Hang on now no one forced these people who are in arrears and cant pay their mortgages to take out such an excessive loan amount knowning damn well they wouldnt be able to pay it off trying to keep in with the jones.... if you ask me both parties are to blame for the circumstances of the country right now


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    carey2010 wrote: »
    Hang on now no one forced these people who are in arrears and cant pay their mortgages to take out such an excessive loan amount knowning damn well they wouldnt be able to pay it off trying to keep in with the jones.... if you ask me both parties are to blame for the circumstances of the country right now

    Not everyone took out excessive loans. You have heard of the 400,000 people who have lost their jobs?

    BTW I'm not saying people should get a free ride. But the banks should take at least 50% of the loss. But since the FF traitors hung us out to dry by nationalising the banks we take exception to anyone getting relief.

    The banks should not be owned by the tax payer. That is the bigger crime.


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


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    I'd love if people did not buy repossessed houses. The banks are getting away Scott free. They were the professionals giving out mortgages to people who should never have been given them in the first place.
    The point has been made a hundred times, so you must be deliberately ignoring it, but the banks have NOT gotten off scot-free. The owners of the banks have been wiped out, the senior management is gone. What else should happen to them? Should the bank tellers by publicly whipped? Should the IT people have burning oil poured on their nads?

    What do you want to see happen? :rolleyes:
    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    And how in Gods name were Bank of Scotland allowed to up sticks and leave the market so easily. It was those bastards who first introduces the 110% mortgages.
    And they lost a fortune. How do you think they should have been 'kept' in the market? A chain around their staff? Block the ports?
    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    It these banks had not been nationalised those people who are happy to allow people drown in debt for the rest of their lives might be whistling a different tune.
    Anyone who has a pension was a shareholder in the Irish banks. I doubt people would be happy to see their pensions decimated so people who decided their two-bed shoebox wasn't worth the half-million they borrowed for it after all could just not bother paying. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    Not everyone took out excessive loans. You have heard of the 400,000 people who have lost their jobs?

    A significant portion of the 400,000 who are unemployed are in receipt of Mortgage Interest Supplement- which in many cases is 100%- so irrespective of whether or not their loans were excessive- they are being covered by the taxpayer.
    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    BTW I'm not saying people should get a free ride. But the banks should take at least 50% of the loss. But since the FF traitors hung us out to dry by nationalising the banks we take exception to anyone getting relief.

    So make the banks take a 50% hit on mortgages. What happens next? We need to recapitalise the banks, yet again, to cover this. Add another 100 or 200 billion to the national debt. When our figures are this high, they are meaningless anyway........

    The exercise conducted by Blackrock on behalf of the government came up with a worse case scenario of 12% default on mortgages (and a best case of 7%). The 12% default represents between 140 and 160 billion- the 7% a more manageable amount- but its all relative. Whatever way we look at this- we have a min of heading towards 100 billion- that will have to be magic'ed up from somewhere. Keep in mind- banks were made realise losses on loans of over a certain size, primarily commercial, but also development loans. Their mortgage book were not and have not been written down in a similar manner......... yet.
    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    The banks should not be owned by the tax payer. That is the bigger crime.

    I agree with you here. Bank of Ireland were more prudent with their loan books- and are the only of the clearing banks to have managed to stay out of majority state ownership. AIB in comparison are fully state owned, and on their 3rd rescue in a little over 30 years (the first being a boom and bust in agricultural lending in the late 70's, the second being the life assurance debacle in the mid 80s- and here we are again.........)

    Personally I'd disband AIB altogether- having to bail them out 3 times is twice too many in my books- but I'd also chase Michael Summers etc- and make damn sure they got prison terms.

    They only bankers who are going to pay for the mess- are the 2-3000 being made redundant themselves- who seem to think they deserve better redundancy than offered to HSE and other public sector employees- and have managed via the IBOA to drag proceedings out for almost 2 years.......

    Politicians and Bankers have not copped how screwed up the country is.


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


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    My understanding from those economists looking for debt forgiveness is that those who are currently under so much debt are not spending and are unlikely to spend in the medium term. This will in turn hurt those companies and professionals offering services. By reducing their debt it allows them to inturn start spending again and employing the services of professionals. So while we may pay more taxes it would be offset by an increase in business.
    And what about the decrease in business from the money that the people who are paying extra tax now can't spend?? Which, oddly enough, is exactly the same amount that is being handed to to those who aren't paying their mortgages...


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,033 ✭✭✭who_ru


    smccarrick wrote: »
    Politicians and Bankers have not copped how screwed up the country is.
    they have. a long time ago as well. it's just they have prioritised their interests over ours.

    vote yes for jobs - what a f***ing laugh that is.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    any pension holder was a shareholder in the Irish banks. I doubt people would be happy to see their pensions decimated so people who decided their two-bed shoebox wasn't worth the half-million they borrowed for it after all could just not bother paying. :rolleyes:

    this x 1,000,000


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    who_ru wrote: »
    vote yes for jobs - what a f***ing laugh that is.

    Perhaps.
    However- despite all our cutbacks thus far- we're still running a budget deficit of 13 or 14 billion- which has to be financed from somewhere. If we vote no- it would akin to turkeys voting for Christmas. Short of a general sovereign default- we'd be finished. We may have to default anyhow- but deliberately precipitating a default would be foolhardy.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭true


    smccarrick wrote: »
    Perhaps.
    However- despite all our cutbacks thus far- we're still running a budget deficit of 13 or 14 billion- which has to be financed from somewhere. If we vote no- it would akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.

    The people who benefit most from the country currently borrowing 14 billion a year are the public servants and the public servant pensioners and the politicians. They are the ones still creaming it compared to most other people. The average public servant in Donegal or Drogheda is still paid double that in Downpatrick or Dundonald. The country is still spending double on the public service compared to what it did ten years ago. The sooner the house of cards is brought down the better, for the sake of our grandchildren.

    The banks are afraid to start repossessing in volume, because many there made such foolish lending decisions 4 or 5 years ago. The commission they got for mis-selling should be clawed back of the individuals concerned.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,033 ✭✭✭who_ru


    true wrote: »
    The people who benefit most from the country currently borrowing 14 billion a year are the public servants and the public servant pensioners and the politicians. They are the ones still creaming it compared to most other people. The average public servant in Donegal or Drogheda is still paid double that in Downpatrick or Dundonald. The country is still spending double on the public service compared to what it did ten years ago. The sooner the house of cards is brought down the better, for the sake of our grandchildren.
    absolutely.

    this is their primary motivation now if you ask me. Maintain the croke park agreement at all costs, when it's not even remotely transparent.

    they are still awarding increases in many depts across the public sector.

    makes me ill just thinking about it.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    true wrote: »
    The people who benefit most from the country currently borrowing 14 billion a year are the public servants and the public servant pensioners and the politicians. They are the ones still creaming it compared to most other people. The average public servant in Donegal or Drogheda is still paid double that in Downpatrick or Dundonald. The country is still spending double on the public service compared to what it did ten years ago. The sooner the house of cards is brought down the better, for the sake of our grandchildren.

    The banks are afraid to start repossessing in volume, because many there made such foolish lending decisions 4 or 5 years ago. The commission they got for mis-selling should be clawed back of the individuals concerned.

    If you want to sit down and look at actual figures- the social welfare budget along with HSE sanctioned disbursements- is per claimant 12-14% higher than the gross average pay of a public sector employee (of course this also includes Mortgage Interest supplement and a bewildering array of other entitlements- but the fact of the matter is that more is spent on the average social welfare recipient, than on the average public sector employee). We all hear the stories about the ridiculous excesses of politicians and bankers- because they make good headlines- they don't however reflect the average employee- they are not exceptional by any means, given we have so many of them- but they are also not the norm.

    Yes- the average public sector salary here is double that of a public sector employee in the UK- the inverse of this is our social welfare entitlements are, when enumerated, over 5 times the UK level. If you want to bring down public sector salaries and social welfare entitlements- you need to reduce the cost of living here- so it is comparable with where-ever you want to compare headline entitlements with.

    The recent OECD study on how austerity and cuts are affecting people- states plainly that the only group in Irish society largely unaffected thus far by austerity are pensioners. It also pointed out that workers are delibertly having smaller families while social welfare recipients are having larger families, and suggested the government to explore how to lower childcare costs for workers as a matter of urgency. Wonder how they'll address this one- seeing as its not even tax deductable. Also seeing as its the OECD and not the Troika- doubt anything will happen.

    We're getting away from the point of this thread though- which is repossessions.

    Our politicians love playing to the media- and have enshrined the family home in the constitution. They have also allowed us the top five most expensive- gas, heating, electricity, food, clothing, footwear and car tax and insurance in Europe. So- on the one hand they're the good guys- and on the other hand- they have made living here so expensive compared with most of Europe, that our social welfare and healthcare bill exceeds our total tax take (ignoring all other expenditure- including public sector pay and pensions). Sometimes you have to scratch your head to check- do these people really think money grows on trees?

    Irish society has historically been defined by parish pump politics- sure I'll vote for Jimmy and he'll get a new library for us, or a new road, or a swimming pool, or extra teachers for the school, or keep the local barracks open etc etc etc. Everyone is looking at how much they can grab for themselves at a local level- including the politicians, and no-one is looking at the bigger picture- actually governing Ireland as a small state on the periphery of Europe. And you know what- the few who have tried, and there have been a few, were punished by voters for not delivering the extra teacher, or filling in a few potholes or whatever.

    As long as the population refuse to accept that there isn't a magic money tree rooted in the back garden of the Taoiseach's office on Merrion Row- that can be liberally shaken for whatever today's pet project might be- we are finished, troika or no troika.

    The current arguments over whether we will be able to borrow more if we vote no to the fiscal treaty- are symptomatic of this. Do we really want to be incrementing our national debt by 10-15 billion a year ad infinitum? Where does it end? We are already considered toxic by the largest economy in Europe (Germany) and by the holders of 30% of Europe's government debts (Norway). If they allowed Greece default- we're certainly not the important spoke our leaders like to allude to. The only thing keeping us together- is the fear of Spain, France and Italy- and what they might do to ease their own predicaments- this weekends events make this even harder to call........


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    smccarrick wrote: »
    our social welfare and healthcare bill exceeds our total tax take (ignoring all other expenditure- including public sector pay and pensions).
    The healthcare bill is largely public sector pay and pensions. ~800,000 persons are entirely dependent on the state for all of their income, between the public sector and the unemployed. The workforce is what, 2, 2.4 million? The upshot is that out of every three people two are paying for the third in taxes. The solution obviously isn't to tax the two to keep the third in the manner to which they are accustomed, its to cut the spending on the third.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,078 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    I'd love if people did not buy repossessed houses. The banks are getting away Scott free. They were the professionals giving out mortgages to people who should never have been given them in the first place.

    And how in Gods name were Bank of Scotland allowed to up sticks and leave the market so easily. It was those bastards who first introduces the 110% mortgages.

    It these banks had not been nationalised those people who are happy to allow people drown in debt for the rest of their lives might be whistling a different tune.

    AFAIK it is not against forum rules to state a post is complete bullsh**.

    BTW I think basic economics and budgeting should be compulsory subjects in school upto junior cert and unless people got an C or better in it they should never be lent a penny or cent in their lifetime.
    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    My understanding from those economists looking for debt forgiveness is that those who are currently under so much debt are not spending and are unlikely to spend in the medium term. This will in turn hurt those companies and professionals offering services. By reducing their debt it allows them to inturn start spending again and employing the services of professionals. So while we may pay more taxes it would be offset by an increase in business.

    Did it ever cross your mind that the ones ultimately paying for this will have less disposabole income to spend? :rolleyes:
    It used to be called robbing Peter to pay Paul.
    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    The healthcare bill is largely public sector pay and pensions. ~800,000 persons are entirely dependent on the state for all of their income, between the public sector and the unemployed. The workforce is what, 2, 2.4 million? The upshot is that out of every three people two are paying for the third in taxes. The solution obviously isn't to tax the two to keep the third in the manner to which they are accustomed, its to cut the spending on the third.

    Doc away with you and your sensible opinions.
    Don't you know the majic money tree will pay for it all. ;)


Advertisement