Should the banks wait longer before starting possession proceedings?

merlynthewizard

At the moment they can start after 2 payments are missed but they virtually never do. These are very difficult times and people missing payments

BobbyD10

In the UK the RBS group has guaranteed not to repossess the properties of customers who fall behind on payments for at least six months.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7757840.stm

Blackjack

Gilmore's populist nonsense about giving a 2 year holiday moratorium is definetly the wrong idea. That's basically a ticket for people to not bother paying a mortgage and to be protected for it.

The_Conductor

If you have a problem making your repaying- don't stick your head in the sand, like an ostrich, approach your lender and talk to them. Also contact MABS and organise your finances.

Its these people who hope all their problems are going to be magic'ed away who are hoping for a bail out. Why should the banks not foreclose on property in arrears? They are commercial businesses, not charities.

The 2 year moratorium on repossessions proposed by the Greens is ludicrous political pandering to the masses (keep in mind the local and EU elections next year)..........

Victor

I think they should be quicker to be honest.

Ste.phen

Victor wrote: »

I think they should be quicker to be honest.

Agreed, the damage that would be caused to the economy at large if it became widely known that you won't lose your home if you stop paying your mortgage would be immense,

Fatloss08

Ste.phen wrote: »

Agreed, the damage that would be caused to the economy at large if it became widely known that you won't lose your home if you stop paying your mortgage would be immense,

and what about the government giving €200m xmas bonus to dole people ???

or more give money from the spongers , sure why work these days if there gonna pay for you not to , and why pay foreigners childrens allowance when there claiming it in there own countries

government needs to look after the workers not the spongers or foreigners

The_Conductor

Fatloss08 wrote: »

and what about the government giving €200m xmas bonus to dole people ???

I agree this is wrong.
Workers don't get a Christmas bonus- we are expected to borrow to cover our additional costs (or do the intelligent thing and save in advance). Its hard for everyone. The Irish social welfare system is incredibly generous, and particularly for lower paid people, a massive disincentive to working. For those on middle incomes or better- there is a massive resentment at the perception that they are subsidising wastrels who really couldn't be bothered to find themselves something meaningful to do.

Fatloss08

or young single mothers

why save for a house , just have a kid and the social will pay for it and then move ur bf in

free house practically

we let go a few foreign workers 3 weeks ago , and there in poland getting dole money for a year lodged into their account

i know this as fact as he showed me the documentation that the social sent him , so he gets paid benefits for a year and he aint even here ??????

what the fook ????????????????

The_Conductor

I think we'll leave that topic where it is. If you want to discuss this- there is a forum dedicated to social welfare here.

Regards,

SMcCarrick

Fatloss08

well on the repossesion thing

banks shouldnt be allowed to

they created the mess , buy giving mortgages to people who didnt qualify for a mortgage , i borrowed 305k and i checked and i needed to earn 140k a year to get that on my own , but i earn half of that but they still gave me it , so its their own fault and the banks want tax payers money used to bail them out so they can screw us more ???

ehh no

asdasd

For those on middle incomes or better- there is a massive resentment at the perception that they are subsidising wastrels who really couldn't be bothered to find themselves something meaningful to do.

Some of these middle income boyos will be on the dole next year, or for some part of it. maybe even me.

thus attitudes will change.

The_Conductor

asdasd wrote: »

Some of these middle income boyos will be on the dole next year, or for some part of it. maybe even me.

thus attitudes will change.

I agree- there is no such thing as a safe job anymore. They are even suggesting making between 10 and 20% of public sector worker redundant- something no-one ever considered. A lot of people who never ever anticipated themselves relying on social welfare will end up on the dole queues.

BendiBus

Fatloss08 wrote: »

well on the repossesion thing

banks shouldnt be allowed to

they created the mess , buy giving mortgages to people who didnt qualify for a mortgage , i borrowed 305k and i checked and i needed to earn 140k a year to get that on my own , but i earn half of that but they still gave me it , so its their own fault and the banks want tax payers money used to bail them out so they can screw us more ???

ehh no

You chose to accept the offer. Caveat emptor.

The_Conductor

BendiBus wrote: »

You chose to accept the offer. Caveat emptor.

Very true. A shocking number of people made what is the biggest financial decision of their lives without ever reading the fine print of what they were signing....... It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect to be bailed out. Apart from anything else- the money simply is not there to bailout people who got carried away with irrational exuberance about the economy...... Perhaps they might pay a little less heed to politicians and the media next time round, and actually put a bit of research into their actions........

Fatloss08

so its the buyers fault

cop on , some need to get a life

a bank is ment to be one of the safest financial institutes

they should be more responsible end off , the buyer or public will always try get more if they can , and always will

its up to the banks to say no sorry

instead of saying yes please

good business practice from there end , they no better than the consumer

The_Conductor

Not so.
A bank is a business like any other business- and is ultimately responsible to its shareholders, not its customers. It would be doing its shareholders a disservice were it to simply allow people park their debts. Certainly they should be prudent about their lending practices- in order to safeguard the interests of the shareholders- not to mollycoddle the poor people looking for mortgages. If people lied about their income (and many did) those people are at fault for having done so- the local bank manager is not a psychic. The expectation that the good times would continue was not an unreasonable expectation at the time- the probability of house prices continuing to rise at stratospheric rates is entirely a different matter. Could the various cards that ultimately contributed to the downfall of the economy all have been foreseen to fall in the manner they did? Highly unlikely. Who is at fault- everyone, not just the crazy bankers who shoveled out the money like there was no tomorrow. Who will shoulder the burden of paying for the mess- everyone too....... Why should the banks allow people to park their debts and walk away? I can't walk down to the local Jag dealer, take an XJS for a week and then park it on the forecourt and take the bus to town instead. Its just not how things work. If difficulties were isolated- perhaps the individual cases could be looked at in isolation. They aren't though. There are problems everywhere- businesses are just trying to cover their backs. I am sympathetic to the people who find themselves in these situations- but bloody hell- they should have been more prudent.

asdasd

and is ultimately responsible to its shareholders, not its customers

What if its shareholders include us, We the People. As seems likely.

By the way if a mortgage defaults does the debtor still owe the money, or is the asset good enough? I think in American you just hand in your keys. In England it seems you are liable for the debt.

anybody know?

Fatloss08

yes many people lied not hiding that fact , but there should be more secure methods ie 6 month account statement in order to obtain or have any reasonable idea of what somebodys earning

ive friends who lied and provided a statement contradicting what they said they where on , still got mortgage , why is that , have they not got morals or set practice to adhere to ???

if ye dont got the funds ye get no house , plain and simple , we wouldnt be in this mess were in

i didnt lie , gave them statements and poyslips ( correct ones ) showing €70k , did they turn me down when i should have 140k wages ???? no

everybody chances their arm be honest , it will always be this way , people looking for more wages etc but u have to say no is no at some point and the banks didnt

The_Conductor

asdasd wrote: »

What if its shareholders include us, We the People. As seems likely.

By the way if a mortgage defaults does the debtor still owe the money, or is the asset good enough? I think in American you just hand in your keys. In England it seems you are liable for the debt.

anybody know?

In Ireland the asset is insufficient- the debt must be repaid in full and final settlement, in order to be extinguished. This might not necessarily mean the whole debt, but an agreed sum, be repaid in lieu. A persons salary and pension contributions can be purloined indefinitely to satisfy the debt (if personal bankruptcy is declared). Irish laws are incredibly out of date in this respect- and desperately in need of updating.

The_Conductor

Fatloss08 wrote: »

everybody chances their arm be honest , it will always be this way , people looking for more wages etc but u have to say no is no at some point and the banks didnt

Not everyone chances their arm- no.
Perhaps the current situation is a learning experience for people- they should sit down and work out what they can afford to pay- before blindly feeding financial institutions false information in order to secure additional cash.

I am not picking on you in particular- the whole country went on a mad credit binge- even the sanest of people went out and bought their 40" plasma and lcd panels- and new cars like they were going out of production. Some people had a little more sanity than others- but most people at the end of the day, when the dust settles, have to accept, that the position they find themselves in was percipitated by their own actions.

Ps- I borrowed more money than I am now comfortable repaying too- I'm far from innocent, I don't pretend to be.

seamus

smccarrick wrote: »

Perhaps the current situation is a learning experience for people- they should sit down and work out what they can afford to pay- before blindly feeding financial institutions false information in order to secure additional cash.

It's a learning experience for a lot of us. The assumption was that the money would keep coming and if we didn't get a bumper payrise next year, we could jump jobs to something with better pay. Now we'd be lucky for either scenario to appear.

Ultimately, we'll just have to put the head down, work hard and spend frugally. It'll be fine, we'll adjust. Ultimately none of use will end up dead or living on the streets, so if it does go down the crapper, it's not the end of the world.

I don't think Gilmore's suggestion is that stupid, though I haven't heard the whoel thing.

I wouldn't condone it as a get out of jail free card for people who aren't making their repayments, but if it could be used as a period where someone could restructure their debt without having to panic about not having the cash.

Ideally, the person shows the court that they will/should have sufficient means to restructure their debt, and the court issues an instruction to the ICB to put a freeze on their record.
This prevents any other lenders from providing money to the person and also freezes credit cards and overdrafts.
The person then uses the two years to repay their other debts (the bank can get involved and advise if they wish). At the end of the two years, the expectation would be that they've cleared most if not all of their extra debts and all they need to service is the mortgage.
It should also include an additional five-year freeze in the ICB record which prevents the person from getting personal loans and caps credit cards - maximum of one card (per family) with a limit of no more than €500 - and overdrafts @ €250.

Obviously if the person's situation seems hopeless, the court can reject the application.

The main concern with any kind of moratorium is that it only serves really to put off the inevitable and prolong the pain, which is why I thought of the above.

jimmycrackcorm

smccarrick wrote: »

Not everyone chances their arm- no.
Perhaps the current situation is
I am not picking on you in particular- the whole country went on a mad credit binge- even the sanest of people went out and bought their 40" plasma and lcd panels- and new cars like they were going out of production

Guilty as charged too but then I've a good salary. The problem comes only if I lose my job and can't get another. Then, whether or not I went and bought a new car or plasma tv is irrelevant as either way my mortgage is in danger regardless.

AARRRGH

Fatloss08 wrote: »

banks shouldnt be allowed to, they created the mess, by giving mortgages to people who didnt qualify for a mortgage

Bull****.

Haven't you ever heard of personal responsibility?

I would never apply and accept a mortgage of one million because I know I can't afford the repayments.

The fools who took on too much debt - they should lose their homes if they can't afford to live there.

People need to stop looking for someone to blame. The problems in your life are your own fault. Take the blame and sort out your life.

SimpleSam06

smccarrick wrote: »

I am not picking on you in particular- the whole country went on a mad credit binge- even the sanest of people went out and bought their 40" plasma and lcd panels- and new cars like they were going out of production.

Not everyone. I have a forty grand overdraft facility on one of my accounts alone, and I never touched it, owe nothing to anybody. Maybe I was lucky, maybe I was frugal and prudent, take your pick, but my commercial enterprises are struggling with the rest of the economy because the people I do business with, like most other people, depend on credit. At this point I'm looking at going turtle on it, just locking up and heading off to the tropics for a few years rather than trying to tough it out.

Either that or get into politics.

AARRRGH wrote: »

I would never apply and accept a mortgage of one million because I know I can't afford the repayments.

In an environment where houses were growing at double figures annually, its hard to blame people for taking risks. Its hard to blame the banks too, because they were acting within the regulatory framework given to them - they didn't break any laws. Its easy to blame the lawmakers, however.

AARRRGH

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

In an environment where houses were growing at double figures annually, its hard to blame people for taking risks. Its hard to blame the banks too, because they were acting within the regulatory framework given to them - they didn't break any laws. Its easy to blame the lawmakers, however.

I think people should accept responsibility for themselves. They were the ones who filled in the application form, and they were the ones who took the money.

Blaming the banks and Government is a cop out. (Note, I don't think the bank and Government are innocent, but no one was forcing people to take on debt they can't afford.)

SimpleSam06

AARRRGH wrote: »

but no one was forcing people to take on debt they can't afford.

As far as they knew, they could. I mean if worst came to worst, they could always sell their property for a profit, right?

Fatloss08

AARRRGH wrote: »

Bull****.

Haven't you ever heard of personal responsibility? of course , shouldnt they for being gun ho with throwing money at people

I would never apply and accept a mortgage of one million because I know I can't afford the repayments. wow ur sensible

The fools who took on too much debt - they should lose their homes if they can't afford to live there. hey pal ever hear of recession ??? its happening u know and some dont have a choice

People need to stop looking for someone to blame. The problems in your life are your own fault. Take the blame and sort out your life.

my life is dandy , earn alot , work for a family business etc

im not blamming anybody , i simply just said that if a bank gives out money without proper precautions they should be thought a lesson ,

better give back my new car and 50" tv and get my life sorted out so

cop on , not always back and white

The_Conductor

Guys- just keep this 1. Ontopic, and 2. Deal in facts, not personal issues. Ok? Cheers- SMcCarrick

AARRRGH

Fatloss08 wrote: »

my life is dandy , earn alot , work for a family business etc

im not blamming anybody , i simply just said that if a bank gives out money without proper precautions they should be thought a lesson ,

better give back my new car and 50" tv and get my life sorted out so

cop on , not always back and white

Blaming others for your own actions is a recipe for a life of disappointment.

People made mistakes - that's fine. And I have a lot of sympathy for people who are struggling (even if it was their own stupidity which caused them to buy that two bed apartment for 500k), but again, they filled in the form and took the money. By choice.

So if they are in debt, they have a responsibility to deal with it.

The_Conductor

Warning.....
No personal abuse.......

JimiTime

.

AARRRGH

smccarrick wrote: »

Warning.....
No personal abuse.......

I'm not sure if that's aimed at me. Apologies if it is, my post was not meant as any sort of personal attack.

asdasd

In general the idea that people are responsoble for their own lifes is true, and there is amongst all of us who stayed out of the market a sense of schadenfreude at people who stayed in, but Fatloss08 has a point.

he pays the penalty but the banks get bailed out. Hardly fair.

AARRRGH

asdasd wrote: »

the penalty but the banks get bailed out. Hardly fair.

I agree completely - the banks getting a bail out is "unfair".

I don't see what the alternative is though... allow the banks collapse? That's a lose lose for everyone.

The_Conductor

asdasd wrote: »

he pays the penalty but the banks get bailed out. Hardly fair.

Its not a free ride though- the institutions partaking of the bailout have to pay EUR2billion over the next 2 years (to the end of Sept. 2010) for the pleasure of availing of the government guarantee.

Then again- as its degraded Irish sovereign debt and we need to restructure 38billion by next April, along with possibly borrowing another 14 or 15- well over a billion of the 2 billion is immediately spent on higher interest payments on our national debt, than we would otherwise have been making.......

merlynthewizard

Brown unveils mortgage help plan

Many people facing repossession will be able to defer part of their mortgage interest payments for up to two years under plans unveiled by Gordon Brown.

The plan is designed to give those who lose their jobs or take a big cut in their income an extended breathing space before losing their home as well.

The scheme will cover mortgages worth up to £400,000, the BBC understands.

Mr Brown made the announcement during a House of Commons debate on the Queen's Speech, which took place earlier.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7763044.stm

petrochemical

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Either that or get into politics.

You have my support, for one. A new party for the Celtic Phoenix...

merlynthewizard

Well I'm out of work and have a 100% 330k mortgage over 35 years of which I have repaid 12 months.
I have never missed a payment but my savings are nearly through the wall after losing my job out of the blue in march. I am getting offered work overseas but the wage is not enough to pay the excess on my property too after its rented at current rates.
So do I just offer the 200 euro a week dole payments to the mortgage and myself and the wife not eat or do I hand the keys back to the bank manager?

My wife is a foreign national too so its not so easy for her to find work but she does waitress for about 290 a week and I have found a few little jobs temping but in total has not added up to more than 10 weeks over all

stepbar

Fatloss08 wrote: »

my life is dandy , earn alot , work for a family business etc

im not blamming anybody , i simply just said that if a bank gives out money without proper precautions they should be thought a lesson ,

better give back my new car and 50" tv and get my life sorted out so

cop on , not always back and white

Wow, 70k eh? and can't spell. Nice.

FYI, someone on a salary of 70k (assuming no other debt) could hope to get a mortgage of approx 350k @ 92% = 322k (based on a multiple of 5 times gross salary). I love people like you who have no real clue of what they're talking about.

bigsam

we put a deposit on house last feb after getting full mortgage approval.......
firstly bank have reduced loan amount from 95% to 92%
reducing our loan amount......
now valuation reduced by 20 grand and loan amount ma y be now only 80% because of new contract....
we are 45 grand short now cause of this where do we stand we both could have covered the mortgage easily at start but now we are completely stumped.....
the builder wont budge on price ...
we can,t now go ahead cause of all this do we have any case if it goes to court

SimpleSam06

merlynthewizard wrote: »

Well I'm out of work and have a 100% 330k mortgage over 35 years of which I have repaid 12 months.

My sincere sympathies for your troubles. Have you looked into renting a room in the house, you can have up to 10k a year tax free under the rent-a-room scheme?

The_Conductor

merlynthewizard wrote: »

Well I'm out of work and have a 100% 330k mortgage over 35 years of which I have repaid 12 months.
I have never missed a payment but my savings are nearly through the wall after losing my job out of the blue in march. I am getting offered work overseas but the wage is not enough to pay the excess on my property too after its rented at current rates.
So do I just offer the 200 euro a week dole payments to the mortgage and myself and the wife not eat or do I hand the keys back to the bank manager?

My wife is a foreign national too so its not so easy for her to find work but she does waitress for about 290 a week and I have found a few little jobs temping but in total has not added up to more than 10 weeks over all

Contact your local Community Welfare Officer. There is a state benefit which helps people in your position make interest repayments on their mortgages. There are a number of criteria you have to meet- but its entirely possible that you might qualify. I'd advise you have a browse of the State Benefits forum here on boards. Link here.

S.

bigsam

with us we never lied to bank about earnings or anything we were told we would get 95% of the 315,000 easily an we both still have good jobs can the bank really turn around and leave us 50 grand short and at the mercy of the builder

bigsam

bigsam wrote: »

we put a deposit on house last feb after getting full mortgage approval.......
firstly bank have reduced loan amount from 95% to 92%
reducing our loan amount......
now valuation reduced by 20 grand and loan amount ma y be now only 80% because of new contract....
we are 45 grand short now cause of this where do we stand we both could have covered the mortgage easily at start but now we are completely stumped.....
the builder wont budge on price ...
we can,t now go ahead cause of all this do we have any case if it goes to court

anyone any ideas on this

The_Conductor

bigsam wrote: »

with us we never lied to bank about earnings or anything we were told we would get 95% of the 315,000 easily an we both still have good jobs can the bank really turn around and leave us 50 grand short and at the mercy of the builder

Check the terms of your mortgage approval in principle document. Banks have been trying to wriggle out of a lot of agreements they put in place previously- as they are now seen to be poor value/bad risks.

You should get your solicitor to contact the builder's solicitor advising them of the situation. If you have signed the contract with the builder- examine the contract (or have it examined on your behalf) in minute detail. Its entirely possible that some of the terms or conditions attached to it may be breached- which could be legally argued to make the document void.

If this is the case- you might possibly loose your deposit- but its also possible that it could be used as a bargaining tool with the builder to have the price reduced to current market values (if indeed these can be determined.......)

S.

godtabh

Fatloss08 wrote: »

well on the repossesion thing

banks shouldnt be allowed to

they created the mess , buy giving mortgages to people who didnt qualify for a mortgage , i borrowed 305k and i checked and i needed to earn 140k a year to get that on my own , but i earn half of that but they still gave me it , so its their own fault and the banks want tax payers money used to bail them out so they can screw us more ???

ehh no

smccarrick wrote: »

Very true. A shocking number of people made what is the biggest financial decision of their lives without ever reading the fine print of what they were signing....... It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect to be bailed out. Apart from anything else- the money simply is not there to bailout people who got carried away with irrational exuberance about the economy...... Perhaps they might pay a little less heed to politicians and the media next time round, and actually put a bit of research into their actions........

I was offered a home loan 10 times my then salary. The banks reckoned I could pay it but I didnt so I finally got a loan about 100k less than what the bank were willing to offer me.

I've not got a saving fund that could pay of the loan for about 8 months if I got let go. Alot of thinking went to this.

I wonder how many people thought behond getting there new keys? I think these people deserve what they get

merlynthewizard

kearnsr wrote: »

I was offered a home loan 10 times my then salary. The banks reckoned I could pay it but I didnt so I finally got a loan about 100k less than what the bank were willing to offer me.

I've not got a saving fund that could pay of the loan for about 8 months if I got let go. Alot of thinking went to this.

I wonder how many people thought behond getting there new keys? I think these people deserve what they get

I did but things changed fast and I did not have time to react in the 3 months I moved in but it's comments like your that makes me think I should just throw the keys and the back manger and head off out of europe with that job offer never to return.
Imagine if everyone in a similar situation to mine done the same sending this country (which is already in a bigger mess then most of europe) back to being the economic backwash of western europe again.

It won't effect my new life

See we both can be selfish prats

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

I think they should be quicker to be honest.

Quicker than 2 months i.e. 1 month in arrears? Don't forget that if you miss the due date on a payment you are one month in arrears.

The reason why the banks don't seek orders for possession earlier is nothing to do with charity or whatever, it is a practical business decision.

The vast majority of arrears cases are dealt with without the bank repossessing a property. If you think about it, a lot of people have difficult times - lose a job for a few months, have a new baby and are on unpaid leave, sudden bereavement, grossly mismanage their funds, marital breakup etc.

Also Irish law for the most common type of mortgage is not simply you've missed 2 months therefore have breached the terms of the mortgage therefore we are entitled to recover possession. Irish law is that the court will not grant possession unless they are satisfied that the person cannot or will not repay the principle + interest on or before the end of the mortgage.

merlynthewizard

Tom Parlon should be shot. What an odious **** of a man. Indeed the government should have fallen, after the decision to provide €1.67 billion in new, sub-prime loans. I mean, what the ****???

Trying to con, more people in their 20's into buying overpriced, overvlaued, shoeboxes. Burdening and saddling people with a mountain of debt, negative equity and basic economic slavery, for 40+ years. Anyone who buys, or is thinking of buying property now, in this country. IS A MORON.

Hold off, for another 3 years. Let the ******* thing crash. **** the builders, and their lackys in government. If they are so stuck for revenue, then why don't they increase the measly €200 tax on second and third properties, to something meaningful. Like €2000. Afterall, it's the generation 40+ who have accumulate all the "wealth". Which is being paid for by those and will continue to be paid for, by the 20-35 age block. Tax those who have been part of the property inflation. The **** with three empty houses, looking to extort rent out of young couples. Take them to the ******* cleaners. Not people over 70, or increasing the sub-prime mess with those in their 20's.

If ever there was an example of where FF's real priorities lie, then it's this current shambles. Their mates in the CFI and the building sector. Not with the vast majority of the population. Specifically those in their 20'-30's. Who are being screwed.

Fatloss08

merlynthewizard wrote: »

Tom Parlon should be shot. What an odious **** of a man. Indeed the government should have fallen, after the decision to provide €1.67 billion in new, sub-prime loans. I mean, what the ****???

Trying to con, more people in their 20's into buying overpriced, overvlaued, shoeboxes. Burdening and saddling people with a mountain of debt, negative equity and basic economic slavery, for 40+ years. Anyone who buys, or is thinking of buying property now, in this country. IS A MORON.

Hold off, for another 3 years. Let the ******* thing crash. **** the builders, and their lackys in government. If they are so stuck for revenue, then why don't they increase the measly €200 tax on second and third properties, to something meaningful. Like €2000. Afterall, it's the generation 40+ who have accumulate all the "wealth". Which is being paid for by those and will continue to be paid for, by the 20-35 age block. Tax those who have been part of the property inflation. The **** with three empty houses, looking to extort rent out of young couples. Take them to the ******* cleaners. Not people over 70, or increasing the sub-prime mess with those in their 20's.

If ever there was an example of where FF's real priorities lie, then it's this current shambles. Their mates in the CFI and the building sector. Not with the vast majority of the population. Specifically those in their 20'-30's. Who are being screwed.

dude your my hero

i completely agree 1million %

what about banks wanting irish tax payers money to help bail them out ??? so they can lend and screw somebody else ??

or

why should the government help them out ??? as many say the bank is a business , like all business if u dont have money u go bust simple , if they help the bank then i think they have to help the homeowner

why do you think alot of younger people dont vote ??? because no matter who you elect in you get shafted , all back handing swines