return of the old land league

Spiritoftheseventies

Came across this morning. Very encouraged that people are now taking on the banks here in a peaceful manner.

A LAND League-style lobby group has been set up to represent Irish householders and families impacted by the financial fallout from the banking crisis and the creation of the government 'bad bank', Nama.

The new lobby group, Nama-Beag -- the brainchild of solicitor Andrew Dillon -- was officially unveiled in Co Cork and its task will be to protect families, pensioners and small savers from home repossessions or sanctions by banks because of outstanding debts and mortgages.

Nama-Beag will initially compile a database of people facing action by banks over outstanding debts -- and will co-ordinate an advisory service with direct intervention with the financial institution on behalf of the householder if necessary.

"Unfortunately, our own Government and its developer pals have simply replaced the historical British landlord, aided and abetted by the criminal bankers. For bankers read bailiff," Mr Dillon said. "Now it is the bankers who will evict you from your home for non-payment of an iniquitous mortgage.

"One person on his own will find it virtually impossible to find the funds or to countenance taking on or defending a legal action against a large and powerful financial institution. But 10,000 people working together will, on the other hand, put the fear of God into the bank.

"Thirty thousand people working together and with their friends will bring down a government. That is strength in numbers," Mr Dillon added.

The new organisation aims to provide help for financially hit householders, and offer an advisory service for people facing action by banks over debt problems.

They also aim to support householders and taxpayers to fight unfair debt penalties or foreclosures.

Meanwhile, Jerry Beades, the controversial Fianna Fail activist who is chairman of Friends of Banking Ireland lobby group, has spoken unofficially to the the new Financial Regulator Matthew Elderfield. He said the reception he got in an off-the-cuff meeting was "very different from his predecessor Patrick Neary".

In November 2008 Mr Beades asked Mr Neary outside the Dail Committee rooms why he was not investigating the overcharging of customers and the theft of money from customers' accounts. Mr Neary's reaction was to click his fingers and call security to have Mr Beades removed.

Mr Beades, three weeks ago, also had a meeting with the new governor of the Central Bank. The main issue Friends of Banking has been pursuing is the fact that the regulator, when he is given a complaint, cannot come back and report the findings of his investigations, or if he has investigated it at all.

Friends of Banking regard this issue as unconstitutional, as the banks are protected with secrecy, yet the customer has to go to court and expose themselves to huge costs and also to have their private affairs put into the court process and out into the public domain

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/namabeag-set-up-to-represent-indebted-families-2142574.html

topper75

A fanciful comparison.

Those people evicted in the 19th C. didn't bite off more than they could chew, did they?

Eliot Rosewater

"Unfortunately, our own Government and its developer pals have simply replaced the historical British landlord, aided and abetted by the criminal bankers. For bankers read bailiff," Mr Dillon said. "Now it is the bankers who will evict you from your home for non-payment of an iniquitous mortgage.

Because, you know, the bankers and developers came along with weapons and an army and forced the people to take out huge mortgages and buy into the housing boom.

Looks like people are continuing this charade of blaming everyone - the government, the banks, the developers - everyone except themselves.

Spiritoftheseventies

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Because, you know, the bankers and developers came along with weapons and an army and forced the people to take out huge mortgages and buy into the housing boom.

Looks like people are continuing this charade of blaming everyone - the government, the banks, the developers - everyone except themselves.

Thats very harsh. There was a documentary on Prime Time were CEO at one of the big banks vigourously pursued customers whenever they defaulted on loans. And yet pushed through a loan for a politician without the paper work going through.
Again I think this Nama Beag is a very good idea

Flamed Diving

topper75 wrote: »

A fanciful comparison.

Those people evicted in the 19th C. didn't bite off more than they could chew, did they?

Exactly. They are trying to compare themselves to peasant sharecroppers. FFS.

Spiritoftheseventies

Do posters as a rule think this group is a good development overall?

Flamed Diving

Yeah, I guess, to a certain extent. But the majority of those in trouble today, are those who overreached to simply "Keep Up With The Joneses". It is this group who have the most to gain from joining a group like this (not the "little granny down the road"), and it is this group who least deserve the assistance.

topper75

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Do posters as a rule think this group is a good development overall?

I would say no because it seeks to reward those who bit off more than they could chew in the last decade. Not ethical. It is cynical to try to paint defaulters as unwitting victims of devious banks.

If some institutions have broken the law with regards to bed and breakfasting money to meet liquidity requirements or overcharging customers, it is a separate matter. It does not negate the right of those or other institutions to exercise the collateral clauses in loan contracts that were freely entered into by both parties.

How can finance work in the Ireland of the 2020s and 2030s when a government has interfered with the banks' right to access collateral in defaulted loans? NAMA critics like to think of the children but so do I.

dvpower

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Do posters as a rule think this group is a good development overall?

Depends. What exactly is this group going to do? The article is unclear.

I like this bit.

Nama-Beag will initially compile a database of people facing action by banks over outstanding debts -- and will co-ordinate an advisory service with direct intervention with the financial institution on behalf of the householder if necessary.

Who could object to debtors getting some good legal or financial advice or some professional representation.

But.

"Thirty thousand people working together and with their friends will bring down a government. That is strength in numbers," Mr Dillon added.

What's that about? How do they intend to bring down the government? Can we expect organised refusal to pay? Are they going to resist eviction orders with violence?

Spiritoftheseventies

dvpower wrote: »

Depends. What exactly is this group going to do? The article is unclear.

I like this bit.

Who could object to debtors getting some good legal or financial advice or some professional representation.

But.


What's that about? How do they intend to bring down the government? Can we expect organised refusal to pay? Are they going to resist eviction orders with violence?

I think what group is seeking to do is to go give familys being unfairly squeezed by banks proper legal representation. Will still be up to courts do decide whether banks have rights to reposess or not

dvpower

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

I think what group is seeking to do is to go give familys being unfairly squeezed by banks proper legal representation. Will still be up to courts do decide whether banks have rights to reposess or not

A kind of a MABS / FLAC body for people in trouble with their mortgage repayments; seems like a great idea.

Sleepy

Having once been charged with re-organising a warehouse of bad-debts files for a bank and also having grown up around Bank Branches, I can tell you that reposession is always a last recourse for a bank. It's an expensive process that rarely, if ever, recoups the value of the debt the bank are owed.

If you can't meet your mortgage, it's your problem. You were not forced to buy a house. You were not forced to borrow excessively. You were not forbidden from educating yourself before committing to a transaction with a value of almost a decade's after-tax earnings.

You may have been encouraged to do so but you've also been encouraged to 'Drink Coke', believe 'There's Nothing Quite Like a McDonalds', to eat 'a Mars a day' and if you're old enough, to smoke Marlboros.

Our society has a decent social safety net. We'll do our best to ensure that your bad luck or even your own stupidity shouldn't lead to you starving to death whilst shivering out in the cold but you have to accept responsibility for your own mistakes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

I think what group is seeking to do is to go give familys being unfairly squeezed by banks proper legal representation. Will still be up to courts do decide whether banks have rights to reposess or not

Define "unfairly squeezed". The residents entered into a voluntary arrangement with the bank, and now they can't live up to the contract. How is it unfair that the bank would look to collect the money it voluntarily gave them?

Spiritoftheseventies

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Define "unfairly squeezed". The residents entered into a voluntary arrangement with the bank, and now they can't live up to the contract. How is it unfair that the bank would look to collect the money it voluntarily gave them?

Given that the banks indirectly led to people losing people their jobs and that mortgages were offered when they knew damn well they couldnt afford them, Banks have some case to answer.
In any case, as i already mentioned, group is being set up to offer those in trouble legal assistance.
I see no problem with that.

Cookie_Monster

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Define "unfairly squeezed". The residents entered into a voluntary arrangement with the bank, and now they can't live up to the contract. How is it unfair that the bank would look to collect the money it voluntarily gave them?

I was just about to post exactly the same. There is nothing unfair about the situation those people are in. They signed the loans themselves and knew full well what amounts the were borrowing and what terms.

There is no point pumping billions into the bank to support them if they can't continue normal procedures afterwards, which is exactly what they are doing in this case.

An honestly how many of these people are really in trouble financially and how many are refusing to change their lifestyle to pay the bills required. I reckon it pretty much 50:50.

Sleepy

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Given that the banks indirectly led to people losing people their jobs and that mortgages were offered when they knew damn well they couldnt afford them, Banks have some case to answer.

And, through the errosion of the value of the banks - shares being worth a few percent of what they were only 3 years ago, large percentages of the banks being in state ownership, their losses on bad loans the banks have answered some of that case.

Eliot Rosewater

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Given that the banks indirectly led to people losing people their jobs

So, continuing this logic to its natural conclusion, the banks should also pay unemployment benefits for people out of work?

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

mortgages were offered when they knew damn well they couldnt afford them

But for some reason that's solely the bank's fault and not at all the individual's fault. Why can't people accept personal responsibility and the consequences of their actions?

Spiritoftheseventies

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

So, continuing this logic to its natural conclusion, the banks should also pay unemployment benefits for people out of work?



But for some reason that's solely the bank's fault and not at all the individual's fault. Why can't people accept personal responsibility and the consequences of their actions?

Again Elliot you are missing the point. This group has been set up to help individuals in terms of giving them legal assistance. If banks are intent on repossessing their homes without discussing the terms of the "contract" i think its a good idea.
I have heard on radio where some banks are prepared to the Mortgage payments by reducing the payments and extending the years over which they are paid.
Which seems fair enough. But dont think anyone is suggesting that people will simply be allowed to default on their loans but merely that they are dealt with in a fair manner.

Sleepy

The point I was making Spiritoftheseventies, is that there are very, very few circumstances in which the bank will reposess where an alternative exists. It's just as much in their interest to extend a mortgage period on lower repayments as it is in the borrowers. In my experience, in most cases where a repossession occurs, the borrowers have brought it on themselves.

Tea drinker

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I was just about to post exactly the same. There is nothing unfair about the situation those people are in. They signed the loans themselves and knew full well what amounts the were borrowing and what terms.

There is no point pumping billions into the bank to support them if they can't continue normal procedures afterwards, which is exactly what they are doing in this case.

An honestly how many of these people are really in trouble financially and how many are refusing to change their lifestyle to pay the bills required. I reckon it pretty much 50:50.

They made a private arrangement with the banks, neither side was forced.
The fact the people paid too much - not my problem and I feel no compunction to pay extra tax to compensate them.
No one forced the bank to take this business strategy, and I don't feel their debts should be assumed by myself either.

Both are private arrangements, but everyone thinks someone else should pay for their mistakes or misfortune. Of course I am not without sympathy for families in dire straits, and those difficulties should be managed in a humane manner. That doesn't mean transferring those debts to everyone else though. I would support ($$) a legal challenge to prevent the transfer of debts from private corporations to taxpayers.

Offy

Neither side was forced? Really? How do you know that?
The banks couldnt give loans out fast enough, they should be forced fo fire the fools that gave loans to those that couldnt keep up with the repayments. The banks messed up every bit as much as the people that took out loans they couldnt afford.
I dont think everyone else should 'pay for their mistakes or misfortune', I think they should pay. It takes two after all!

Tea drinker wrote: »

They made a private arrangement with the banks, neither side was forced.
The fact the people paid too much - not my problem and I feel no compunction to pay extra tax to compensate them.
No one forced the bank to take this business strategy, and I don't feel their debts should be assumed by myself either.

Both are private arrangements, but everyone thinks someone else should pay for their mistakes or misfortune. Of course I am not without sympathy for families in dire straits, and those difficulties should be managed in a humane manner. That doesn't mean transferring those debts to everyone else though. I would support ($$) a legal challenge to prevent the transfer of debts from private corporations to taxpayers.

topper75

Offy wrote: »

Neither side was forced? Really? How do you know that?
The banks couldnt give loans out fast enough, they should be forced fo fire the fools that gave loans to those that couldnt keep up with the repayments.

And Dunnes couldn't give out toffeepop biscuits fast enough last night either, but none ended up in my trolley.

Are you aware of any instance where somebody was forced to take a mortgage out? Don't even post it here; negotiate yourself a fat fee with some journo for an exclusive instead.

dvpower

Sleepy wrote: »

The point I was making Spiritoftheseventies, is that there are very, very few circumstances in which the bank will reposess where an alternative exists. It's just as much in their interest to extend a mortgage period on lower repayments as it is in the borrowers. In my experience, in most cases where a repossession occurs, the borrowers have brought it on themselves.

One of the things that does happen is that people who can't afford to make their repayments are afraid to contact their bank with the problem, because the assume that the bank will not be receptive or because they don't feel that there are alternatives to their current repayments or they don't feel they have the ability to negotiate. They put their heads in the sand and wait for the end game.

If there is some third party they can go to that can advise them and represent them then this is a good thing both for them and for the bank.

Eliot Rosewater

dvpower wrote: »

If there is some third party they can go to that can advise them and represent them then this is a good thing both for them and for the bank.

Agreed. However I don't think this new group is stopping there. Their title, "Nama beag", suggests that they expect the government to bail them out in some way. Their talk of the "historical British landlord" suggests that they feel they have done nothing wrong in taking on such unsustainable deb and that the blame lies only with the bank.

Sleepy

dvpower wrote: »

One of the things that does happen is that people who can't afford to make their repayments are afraid to contact their bank with the problem, because the assume that the bank will not be receptive or because they don't feel that there are alternatives to their current repayments or they don't feel they have the ability to negotiate. They put their heads in the sand and wait for the end game.

If there is some third party they can go to that can advise them and represent them then this is a good thing both for them and for the bank.

Like MABS maybe?

Sand

Are these people who simply woke up one morning and decided "Well, I just dont feel like paying my mortgage anymore"?

Or are they people who have taken paycuts, lost their jobs or otherwise taken blows to their income that mean they cannot meet their obligations?

ei.sdraob

I find this whole thing hilarious

considering all the banks are either owned or mostly owned by "us the taxpayers"

that means that now the debt cant just disappear since the people of this country will pay either directly or/and indirectly for it one way or the other

this is just another lobby group similar to the Unions in their short-sighted manner, ignoring the big picture for short term gains (at higher long term expense)

Cookie_Monster

Sand wrote: »

Are these people who simply woke up one morning and decided "Well, I just dont feel like paying my mortgage anymore"?

Or are they people who have taken paycuts, lost their jobs or otherwise taken blows to their income that mean they cannot meet their obligations?

no, they are the people who woke up one morning and decided to get a 100% mortgage on a property worth 5-10 times its actual value and never questioned any part of it.

EcoWarrior2020

Look Guys, Its very simple. Every mortgage holder that is in trouble has a choice. Stay the course and slowly pay their loans off over many years or simply hand back the keys.

I get very surprised at the comments blaming the borrowers. Who are these people? As stated, everyone has choices.

When the banks handed out mortgages, there was a contract. In every contract there are responsibilities on both sides. The mortgagee is agreeing to pay back all loans and the bank is agreeing to value the property and make sure that the mortgagee can afford to pay each month.

The banks loaned out so much money to people who simply did not have ability to pay the money back, based on overstated valuations of houses.

If a bank does not complete the correct paperwork, the contract is broken, if the planning specifics are not followed, the contract is broken, if the bank mis-sold a mortgage product to someone unfit to pay, the contract is broken.

Anglo Irish Bank - Insolvent shares now worthless
AIB - Insolvent 90% of share price wiped out
IL & P - Insolvent worthless
BOI - Insolvent 90% of share price wiped out

If you are in negative equity or are being hassled by the bank, hand back the keys. You may feel completely attached to your lovely home, decide if the debt is worth paying, if not take the jump.
Its liberating. Head off to France or Spain for a few years.... good luck

Sleepy

For someone trying to cite contract, EcoWarrier2020, you seem to know very little about mortgages.

Handing back the keys to the bank does not relieve one of the debt they owe on the mortgage. You are legally responsible to pay the full amount of the mortgage to the bank, regardless of the value of the asset on which the mortgage was based.

Handing back the keys will lead to the bank selling your house for whatever they can get for it (i.e. a fire-sale which would probably get less for the property than normal market value) and you are still responsible for the remainder of the mortgage plus any costs the bank had in carrying out the sale. They'd have no problem chasing you down in France or Spain to collect on the rest of the debt.

ei.sdraob

“Your home is at risk if you do not keep up repayments on a mortgage or other loan secured on it”.

the above is usually in large bold letters close to where people sign

no sympathy at all for any idiots who dug themselves into a grave

Taxipete29

Sleepy wrote: »

For someone trying to cite contract, EcoWarrier2020, you seem to know very little about mortgages.

Handing back the keys to the bank does not relieve one of the debt they owe on the mortgage. You are legally responsible to pay the full amount of the mortgage to the bank, regardless of the value of the asset on which the mortgage was based.

Handing back the keys will lead to the bank selling your house for whatever they can get for it (i.e. a fire-sale which would probably get less for the property than normal market value) and you are still responsible for the remainder of the mortgage plus any costs the bank had in carrying out the sale. They'd have no problem chasing you down in France or Spain to collect on the rest of the debt.

I was under the impression that the bank was not allowed to sell a property way below market value so to offer some protection to the person whose home has been re-possessed or handed back??? Maybe someone can clarify this.

This organisation from reading that article is not trying to free people from their debt but rather stopping people being made homeless or people being burdened with unfair penalties. Where is the problem??

While I do agree that people should take reponsibility for the debt they have plunged themselves into, the banks equally have to take responsibility for lending to people they probably never should of lent to in the first place. Yet the bank will get its money one way or another or the debt will follow a person till they die. The bank makes all the money and take little risk.

EcoWarrior2020

As stated in my post, the banks are finished.
Mis-selling of mortgages went on for years. If a mortgage is missold the contract signed is null and void.

For 20 years in UK, Banks sold endownment mortgages to people who specifically wanted a capital and repayment loan. Every one of these loans were wiped out as the banks mis sold their products.

Every bank broke the rules when handing out mortgages. Thats why they are now broke. If any bank make one error in the mortgage application or qualification, then you can screw them.

I really dont understand this country. Why do people not stand up for themselves and for others.

My friend's bank took his mortgage and put it in a business loan without his permission. He has now renegotiated his debt down by over 70%.

Do you know how he did this? He showed the bank that he had balls and that he was not to be walked over.

Our banks are nothing more than poor quality debt collectors.

By the way. The debt outstanding will hold for 7 years.
If you hand back the keys now, you will be able to start again in 7 years time.

Our banks have no money to lend so there will be no credit for at least another 5 years.

If you have a house that you cannot afford, you do have choices.
This is my main point, everyone has a choice.

I hope that everyone out there in trouble, gets good advice. Do not ask your bank. They are idiots. Ask a debt mediator to negotiate with the bank. You will be surprised at the response. But you do need a professional. If you go in, they will bully you.

An example : I know a developer who was asked by his bank to buy further land as he did not have much debt. The bank and the auctioneer pinpointed land he should buy and €500K was put into his bank account. No paperwork. Just like that.
This developer protested that the land had no planning attached but was assured by his bank that this would be sorted, nudge, nudge wink , wink.

3 moths ago this land was resold for €50K and the bank was given the choice, €50K or nothing, as the paperwork did not stack up, they took the €50K.

The paperwork completed by banks, solicitors and auctioneers over the last ten years have been haphazzard and downright negligent.

Find a hole in the paperwork and you have got them by the nuts.

By the way your solicitor is as liable as the bank.

The law society of Ireland never want to see Michael Lynn again as every deal he completed needed other dodgy solicitors. check out www.ratemysolictor.com

Fight back and fight back hard. You only have about 30 years left on this earth, enjoy them!

Flamed Diving

How dare those banks force people to borrow money.

Executive Steve

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not very often I'd "thank" one of your posts, but you're bang on the money here.