[golden lane]

Originally Posted by shangri la

10.4% per annum.

it makes perfect sense now. Cant drop much more than 10% and will almost certainely be worth more in 10 years.

the masses never learn.

40 thousand repossessions in the uk.....barely has a mention........

[Monty Burnz]

Originally Posted by golden lane

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.

[smccarrick]

Originally Posted by shangri la

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.

[Monty Burnz]

Originally Posted by smccarrick

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...

[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?

[Monty Burnz]

Originally Posted by arbitrage

What is stopping everyone in trouble from doing this?

Ethics?

[Nidot]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[smccarrick]

Originally Posted by arbitrage

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.

[jmayo]

Originally Posted by arbitrage

...

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 ?

[arbitrage]

Originally Posted by Nidot

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?

[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.

[smccarrick]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

[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.

[Monty Burnz]

Originally Posted by 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.

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'.

[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.