my house dropped 100k in value, compensate me!

utick

http://www.braypeople.ie/news/residents-outraged-by--huge-house-price-drop-1079320.html

just read this article, its about a new developemnt in delgany, where the first buyers paid 100k more than buyers later on and now they want the developer to give them back 100k. lol crazy stuff

DonJose

I just read that article too... AROUND 5 MONTHS AGO

randylonghorn

Crazy or not, I think we'll see a lot of those kind of price drops in the near future, and a lot of very unhappy people.

BostonB

I'm not surprised by this, it was only a matter of time. The builders want to get rid of houses before they fall further. People had to know for ages that they're buying at the peak.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

For ****'s sake it's past 2.30 am, I can't sleep and these daft feckers are worried about their house prices? They don't know what problems are.

What's next - my football team lost so I want the bookie to repay me for lost and suffereing? Bollox!

Santa Claus

BostonB wrote: »

People had to know for ages that they're buying at the peak.

A lot of people refused to believe that prices would ever peak....Most of them worked in estate agents mind you !

buckfast4me

haha they suck.

DonJose

This happened 5 months ago for f*** sake!!! Old news.

randylonghorn

BostonB wrote: »

People had to know for ages that they're buying at the peak.

They should have, certainly.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

For ****'s sake it's past 2.30 am, I can't sleep and these daft feckers are worried about their house prices? They don't know what problems are.

I suspect there are a lot of people out there who can't sleep worrying about their mortgage re-payments.

DonJose wrote: »

This happened 5 months ago for f*** sake!!! Old news.

LOL ... in fairness, the particular article is old news, the problem is very current.

DonJose

randylonghorn wrote: »

LOL ... in fairness, the particular article is old news, the problem is very current.

And will be for a long time to come

bitemybanger

have pitty for people with 100% mortgages that bought a house in the last 8 or so months, Feel the pinch every time intrest rates go up 1/4% and then see the value or your house drop at the same time. Not cool

randylonghorn

bitemybanger wrote: »

have pitty for people with 100% mortgages that bought a house in the last 8 or so months, Feel the pinch every time intrest rates go up 1/4% and then see the value or your house drop at the same time. Not cool

Tbh, in some ways I have pity ... in other ways, I can't help thinking: "how tf could you be so blind?!"

utick

DonJose wrote: »

This happened 5 months ago for f*** sake!!! Old news.

yeah i didnt realise it was an old article, i have read many articles on the housing bust but i was totaly stunned by this article when they felt that the developer should pay them back beacause the housing market flopped.

FunkZ

Why would anyone buy a house in the last year anyway

dr.bollocko

There seems to be this problem us Gen Y oldsters have lately, feckin once you pass 25, every conversation seems to automatically somehow revert to House prices. I hate houses. I wouldnt live in one. I live in a fridge with my pet orange rinds.

SimpleSam06

utick wrote: »

yeah i didnt realise it was an old article, i have read many articles on the housing bust but i was totaly stunned by this article when they felt that the developer should pay them back beacause the housing market flopped.

It goes to show the completely unrealistic way people have been viewing their houses over the last eight years. Its not just a home to live in, its "getting on the ladder", "equity building up" (the magical equity fairy from the land of free money, proud owner of many a '07 SUV or sports car) and "sure you can't lose with property". Well these people lost, and are going to continue losing for years to come, and theres not one thing they can do about it. Then again, they invested thirty years of their life without considering all the consequences, so...

I think the government should legislate that anyone buying a home must read the entire mega property bubble thread in accommodation first. It would give them a solid grounding in the property markets and give them an idea of what thirty years feels like, by the time they have read it from start to finish.

Hagar

/Edit

Simplesam06 has already said it more eloquently.

aidan_walsh

FunkZ wrote: »

Why would anyone buy a house in the last year anyway

Usually to live in.

Rb

I suppose had the house shot up in value suddenly, these same people would have given the developers some of the cash from it.

It's their own fault and they really don't have a claim to any compensation and it appears they're already aware of this, trying to plea with the developers to do the morally right thing. I hope they're given nothing.

joe_chicken

aidan_walsh wrote: »

Usually to live in.

3 words, "Buy to Let".

Sizzler

€675K for a 3 bed house in Delgany and they are blaming the developer. FFS! More money than sense springs to mind

Degsy

Bloody vacuous,money-grabbing fools.Eircom shares anyone?

gurramok

Nobody put a gun to their heads to buy overpriced houses with 100% mortgages!

The value of my 7yr old car has gone down by about 1k in the last year, i demand compensation!

Degsy

Went for a drive up to Tyrellstown recently and decided to have a gander at one of the show houses.It was smaller than my 3-bed semi,in the middle of nowhere,an hour from town and they wanted 570 grand for it!It was no surprise to learn that people werent snapping the gaffs up as quick as the sour-faced woman in the "sales suite" would've liked.Anybody paying that money for one of these places is going to rapidly find themselves stung!

In the past it was easier to buy a house on one income, then multiple incomes were allowed & prices just rose to "soak up" the spending power of home buyers.

If it was illegal to borrow (say) more than three times annual (main) salary, then prices would have been pegged to the amount families were able to afford.

kevmy

House has lost 100K in the last year.

Tough tittie.

You bought it. You decided you could pay for it with your present salary. Now it's changed in price it shouldn't really make that much of a difference. If you weren't able to pay for it you shouldn't have bought it.

BostonB

I don't understand how someone would pay vast amounts of money without doing their homework, or building in some lee way in case of interest rates rise or incase income is reduced or theres some other hardship.

When inflation was higher than now, it didn't take many years for the mortgage to go from the largest monthly outgoing to one of the smaller ones. £250 a month was an enormous mortgage in 1990, by todays standards it's quite modest.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

Deleted User wrote: »

When inflation was higher than now, it didn't take many years for the mortgage to go from the largest monthly outgoing to one of the smaller ones. £250 a month was an enormous mortgage in 1990, by todays standards it's quite modest.

by todays standards its virtually impossible to have a mortgage for £250 a month!

woodyg

i have 2 words for those people who are stupid enough to have bought those house's "tough titty!"

It's like demanding compo for a stock market fall, they were foolish enough to have bought a product at the peak of it's life cycle which now is on the downward slide towards it's proper value.

The housing market will all ways have peaks and falls, if your in it for the quick buck the idea is to sell at the peak not bloody buy!

shrapnel222

woodyg wrote: »

i have 2 words for those people who are stupid enough to have bought those house's "though titty!"

you only had 2 words to write and you got one of them wrong??!!!:D

BostonB

Roundtower2 wrote: »

by todays standards its virtually impossible to have a mortgage for £250 a month!

You can get a mortgage at any price. Depends how much money you put into it. Not everyone is starting at the bottom rung.

SimpleSam06

woodyg wrote: »

The housing market will all ways have peaks and falls, if your in it for the quick buck the idea is to sell at the peak not bloody buy!

Its important to remember though, even halfway through 2007 we had large numbers of people coming into the property forum laughing at those saying it was at the peak.

Staggering sums of money and some very clever marketing tactics went into maintaining the public sentiment that once you had signed away a quarter of a century for a two bedroom apartment, you were in champagne and cufflinks territory.

I can understand why people would buy in that environment, when everyone and their dog were telling them it was the right thing to do, although it is difficult to have sympathy at this stage. Hopefully what will come out of it at the end of the day will be much tighter regulation of banking practices, where you can pretty much lay the blame for the entire mess.

BendiBus

Sizzler wrote: »

More money than sense springs to mind

I think you mean more debt than sense.

Kashkai

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Hopefully what will come out of it at the end of the day will be much tighter regulation of banking practices, where you can pretty much lay the blame for the entire mess.

And you can add in:
the estate agents - "buy now or regret paying higher prices later"

the Government - "we have a booming economy with thousands coming in looking for houses to buy/rent", i.e. why doesn't everyone become a landlord?

the legal eagles who charged fortunes for conveyancing which is a relatively straightforward job

the builders - who hiked prices up and up while reducing the house sizes to smaller and smaller sizes.

My first 3 bed semi bought in 1993 is bigger than these "high density" 4 bed houses on sale today - and I had gardens front and back and my own driveway - oh and no "management fee" to pay either.

There was a large cartel out there in the so called property industry hyping the market up to extreme levels and now that its falling, they are coming out trying to convince us all that "we've reached the bottom of the cycle and now is the time to buy" - what a joke. Do they even believe this themselves?

SimpleSam06

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

they are coming out trying to convince us all that "we've reached the bottom of the cycle and now is the time to buy" - what a joke. Do they even believe this themselves?

They don't need to believe it, they just need other people to believe it, same as always. Unfortunately for them they are being rolled over by their own carefully manicured public sentiment juggernaut.

Slutmonkey57b

woodyg wrote: »

The housing market will all ways have peaks and falls, if your in it for the quick buck the idea is to sell at the peak not bloody buy!

Economics 101:
In order for you to SELL, someone else has to BUY.

As to the argument that "people should have seen it coming", naysayers (like me) were saying 10 years ago that house prices were too high, unsustainable, only a moron would buy now etc etc - and were proved wrong year in year out. If you'd bought in 1997 you'd be laughing right now.

Saying that, the bastards deserve no compensation whatsoever. You pays your money and you takes your chance.

Slutmonkey57b

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Its important to remember though, even halfway through 2007 we had large numbers of people coming into the property forum laughing at those saying it was at the peak.

Staggering sums of money and some very clever marketing tactics went into maintaining the public sentiment that once you had signed away a quarter of a century for a two bedroom apartment, you were in champagne and cufflinks territory.

I can understand why people would buy in that environment, when everyone and their dog were telling them it was the right thing to do, although it is difficult to have sympathy at this stage. Hopefully what will come out of it at the end of the day will be much tighter regulation of banking practices, where you can pretty much lay the blame for the entire mess.

Rubbish. The public sentiment that house buying = free money was based on simple observation. You buy a house for 125,000 and 5 years later it's worth twice that. That's "free money", as close as the definition gets. It isn't the bank's, or the estate agent's fault there was a housing bubble - it was the fault of a rapid rise in incomes among a proportion of the population. The early buyers started making money, other people bought into it. The difference is simply that someone on 50-100k a year was in there at the start and isn't going to feel the pinch as quickly as someone who's had to over-extend themselves on 25k a year. Banks over here stalled for *years* before bringing in 98% or 100% mortgages, when 120% mortgages were available from banks in the UK and US.

SimpleSam06

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Rubbish. The public sentiment that house buying = free money was based on simple observation. You buy a house for 125,000 and 5 years later it's worth twice that.

You're missing a few important points. First of all the central bank released a report back in 2000 saying that houses were overpriced. They were right then, but they couldn't have foreseen that interest rates would be dramatically slashed in 2001, which extended the boom far beyond its natural life.

The banks also loosened lending criteria so that larger sums of money became readily available with much less scrutiny. True not as bad as the US NINJA (No Income, No Job and no Assets) loans, but still more than enough to push things upwards ad infinitum.

With your approach you may as well be reading entrails for all the predictive power you get.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

it was the fault of a rapid rise in incomes among a proportion of the population.

The facts don't bear out your views; the growth of income in the private sector lagged far behind that of the public sector, which lagged even farther behind the growth in property prices. The single and only enabler of that was the banks.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Banks over here stalled for *years* before bringing in 98% or 100% mortgages, when 120% mortgages were available from banks in the UK and US.

But a 90% mortgage here was much larger than a 100% mortgage over there, generally speaking.

leninbenjamin

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

it was the fault of a rapid rise in incomes among a proportion of the population.

no that was just what kick-started it. historically Irish people seem to have a disproportionate attachment to their little plot and 4 walls, it seems to be everyone's dream in this country is to own their own house. that's why when prices became absurd, people wouldn't stop like should normally happen. Indeed one of the reasons we are so reliant on FDI in this country is because we have this fixation on property that it completely crowds out any sort domestic enterprise investment. And now, instead of moving the money to different markets, we find investors simply buying up properties in hot economies elsewhere in the world. have they not learned their lesson about property?

SimpleSam06

leninbenjamin wrote: »

historically Irish people seem to have a disproportionate attachment to their little plot and 4 walls, it seems to be everyone's dream in this country is to own their own house.

I don't think Irish people are disporportionately attached to owning land, its just that given the third world state of tenants rights in this country, renting is not a long term option. I mean we have a charity to look after that, for goodness sake.

faceman

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

You're missing a few important points. First of all the central bank released a report back in 2000 saying that houses were overpriced. They were right then, but they couldn't have foreseen that interest rates would be dramatically slashed in 2001, which extended the boom far beyond its natural life.

Houses are worth what people are willing to pay for them at that point in time. Therefore the central bank was wrong in 2000.

I could stick a price of 200k or 1.2m on the same house but it means feck all if no one wants to buy it.

SimpleSam06

faceman wrote: »

Houses are worth what people are willing to pay for them at that point in time. Therefore the central bank was wrong in 2000.

Actually if rates hadn't been slashed in 2001, you too would have been astonished by the central bank's predictive abilities.

gurramok

The CB are idiots, they failed to forecast 9/11

connundrum

I haven't won the lotto yet, despite having invested several hundred euros into the scheme. Compensate me!

bill_ashmount

Degsy wrote: »

Bloody vacuous,money-grabbing fools.Eircom shares anyone?

I made money from the eircom shares..

faceman

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Actually if rates hadn't been slashed in 2001, you too would have been astonished by the central bank's predictive abilities.

i tend to take most of what they say with a pinch of salt. Although they have improved the past year.

sunnyjim

bill_ashmount wrote: »

I made money from the eircom shares..

So did my parents.

I guess you got the free shares through the company too?

rubadub

sunnyjim wrote: »

So did my parents.

I guess you got the free shares through the company too?

My father made money too, just bought and sold quickly.

My house has gone up in value, should I be handing back money to the builders? And picketing the sale of other houses, demanding to chip in. Or can I expect a picket of auctioneers outside my house looking for a cut.

Also I bought a load of beer in O'Briens only to come back 2 weeks later and see it on offer. I thought it was a good offer at the time, otherwise I wouldn't have bought it, but now I think I deserve the money back.

Slutmonkey57b

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

You're missing a few important points. First of all the central bank released a report back in 2000 saying that houses were overpriced. They were right then, but they couldn't have foreseen that interest rates would be dramatically slashed in 2001, which extended the boom far beyond its natural life.

The naysayers were right for years before that. House prices here have been overpriced long before 2000. The simple proof of that is the "5 for...." feature in the Irish Times property supplement. As soon as you could see run down kips in the bog arse of nowhere being sold for more than villas in the sun then you know prices are off kilter. The point is that whether the houses were overpriced or not made no difference - people were still buying, and were prepared to pay stupid money. Banks and economists can say whatever they like, but ultimately the market makes its own decisions.

The banks also loosened lending criteria so that larger sums of money became readily available with much less scrutiny. True not as bad as the US NINJA (No Income, No Job and no Assets) loans, but still more than enough to push things upwards ad infinitum.

The facts don't bear out your views; the growth of income in the private sector lagged far behind that of the public sector, which lagged even farther behind the growth in property prices. The single and only enabler of that was the banks.

But my point was that banks didn't drive the loosening of lending criteria until they were under a lot of pressure to do so - pressure from the consumers. Having cheap finance with low terms of entry is only a factor - people have to want or need to take up that finance. There are plenty of depressed areas up north in England where 120% finance has been available for years - yet prices are stagnant because nobody wants to buy the property there. In our high rental market, with artificially low interest rates, ROI was far higher than it should have been. Increasing wealth didn't need to keep up with property prices - it had to keep up with rental prices. First time buyers weren't driving up the prices - golden years buyers using massive older houses as remortaging capital, and pre-95 buyers were able to use their much lower costs to keep buying - and keep tenants in the properties at increasing rents. House prices here aren't determined by what the average buyer can afford, they're determined by how much rent a property can net.

With your approach you may as well be reading entrails for all the predictive power you get.

Economics is a science that only ever works in retrospect. There's too much data and too many unknowable variables - hence the CB "missed" forecasts of 2000.

But a 90% mortgage here was much larger than a 100% mortgage over there, generally speaking.

That's only relavent when taking into account average income, interest rates, rental incomes, inflation, and tax rates between the two areas. A mortgages' sustainability is only based on the mortgagee's costs, not the %age of the loan.

faceman

Hasnt this gone off topic dramatically.

THe op was looking for compo for us.

Pay us ya bunch of economic tabloid think-ya-know-it-alls!!!