Irish Mortgage Corp. "a deal with the devil".

donalg1

dj jarvis wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Put her into social housing so she can end up not paying her rent and up in arrears again then what. And what about the people on the housing list for ten years are you saying she should get a house before them because she made stupid decisions.

in fairness thats a fairly big assumption on your part - if she is still on the dole than she will get subsidized rent

as for jumping the q for housing - i would imagine the city would look at her situation and make a decision based on that
you would hope that a homeless woman with 3 children who have lost their father to suicide would get a sympathetic ear regardless of her previous financial mistakes

its funny but Sean FitzPatrick who nearly bankrupt us all is still living in his big house in greystones , tell ya what - kick that slimy little prick out on his ear and rent it out to this homeless family

if we had true justice in this banana republic the REAL people to blame for the majority of this mess would be breaking rocks with small hammers on spike island

If she is in social housing she will be on the differential rent scheme. And it's an assumption based on her past history in regard to paying for accommodation i.e. a shocking credit history. She got away with it once so why would she bother paying for accommodation now

dj jarvis

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But the money in the loan scenario is the product, analagous to the car or the watch. It's not the salesman's watch or car either - they belong to the company they are working for. So what's the difference?

but the chain does not work or go that way

because it is not the responsibility of the sales man or the company selling the product or the manufacturer of said product

they are not morally or legally obliged to care or do anything, if someone want to blow cash presented to them , once its legal tender then that is it , they should care not

but the person who should care is the owner of the cash , be it the saver or the bank via a loan

you will never be asked by anyone selling anything can you afford it , once you have the final asking price in legal tender then the sale goes ahead with no implications on the seller ( unless the buyer is a minor )

so i go back to the checks by the lender , if they do the right thing in all likelihood they will get paid back with interest

if they don't bother then tough **** on them is it not ?

a not paying attention tax

donalg1

dj jarvis wrote: »

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But the money in the loan scenario is the product, analagous to the car or the watch. It's not the salesman's watch or car either - they belong to the company they are working for. So what's the difference?

but the chain does not work or go that way

because it is not the responsibility of the sales man or the company selling the product or the manufacturer of said product

they are not morally or legally obliged to care or do anything, if someone want to blow cash presented to them , once its legal tender then that is it , they should care not

but the person who should care is the owner of the cash , be it the saver or the bank via a loan

you will never be asked by anyone selling anything can you afford it , once you have the final asking price in legal tender then the sale goes ahead with no implications on the seller ( unless the buyer is a minor )

so i go back to the checks by the lender , if they do the right thing in all likelihood they will get paid back with interest

if they don't bother then tough **** on them is it not ?

a not paying attention tax

So what your saying is if you can con someone into giving you money knowing your never gonna pay it back well that's their fault and it's OK to do that. Because to me that's no different than stealing.

dj jarvis

donalg1 wrote: »

If she is in social housing she will be on the differential rent scheme. And it's an assumption based on her past history in regard to paying for accommodation i.e. a shocking credit history. She got away with it once so why would she bother paying for accommodation now

i have to also make an assumption about you and say i think you dont have kids - because i would really find it hard to believe that a widower with 3 kids would consider being made homeless " getting away with it " ,

anyway the social pays the landlord directly so little chance of her " blowing it "
im really not getting the reason for the amount of hate towards this woman and her situation - not talking about poster but Christ read back some of the comments and ask yourself is it justified ?

we all make mistakes and take chances - some make stupid costly mistakes and i think this family have paid a costly price - no matter how much the adults in this were dicks we still have 3 small kids with a dead dad and the prospect of being homeless because of others decisions , and not just decision by their parents

dj jarvis

donalg1 wrote: »

So what your saying is if you can con someone into giving you money knowing your never gonna pay it back well that's their fault and it's OK to do that. Because to me that's no different than stealing.

i never said that or insinuated such

what i did say is if a bank who has staff employed to cover risk , check stories and review documents does not do its jobs and get stung for money then tough **** on them - being lazy cost them money , i would not condone stealing - the borrower should also be perused

but sympathy for a bank that does not bother its arse to do some SIMPLE checks then all i can say is haw haw

donalg1

dj jarvis wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

So what your saying is if you can con someone into giving you money knowing your never gonna pay it back well that's their fault and it's OK to do that. Because to me that's no different than stealing.

i never said that or insinuated such

what i did say is if a bank who has staff employed to cover risk , check stories and review documents does not do its jobs and get stung for money then tough **** on them - being lazy cost them money , i would not condone stealing - the borrower should also be perused

but sympathy for a bank that does not bother its arse to do some SIMPLE checks then all i can say is haw haw

So con someone out of money and you think tough **** on them.

When is this lady going to be held accountable for her actions I mean the cheek of her to even moan about being given a mortgage I think she needs to take some responsibility for her actions and stop looking to blame everyone else for her poor decisions. Will never feel any sympathy for her she got herself into this mess let her get herself out. No way should the state pick up the tab but of course they will as they usually do.

donalg1

dj jarvis wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

If she is in social housing she will be on the differential rent scheme. And it's an assumption based on her past history in regard to paying for accommodation i.e. a shocking credit history. She got away with it once so why would she bother paying for accommodation now

i have to also make an assumption about you and say i think you dont have kids - because i would really find it hard to believe that a widower with 3 kids would consider being made homeless " getting away with it " ,

anyway the social pays the landlord directly so little chance of her " blowing it "
im really not getting the reason for the amount of hate towards this woman and her situation - not talking about poster but Christ read back some of the comments and ask yourself is it justified ?

we all make mistakes and take chances - some make stupid costly mistakes and i think this family have paid a costly price - no matter how much the adults in this were dicks we still have 3 small kids with a dead dad and the prospect of being homeless because of others decisions , and not just decision by their parents

How would she be made homeless she will get 280 per week from social welfare for her and three kids so that's plenty for her to find private rented accommodation so no need for the council to house her. And certainly no need to give her rent allowance. She will most likely be getting fis aswell so will actually be on more than 280

dj jarvis

donalg1 wrote: »

So con someone out of money and you think tough **** on them.

When is this lady going to be held accountable for her actions I mean the cheek of her to even moan about being given a mortgage I think she needs to take some responsibility for her actions and stop looking to blame everyone else for her poor decisions. Will never feel any sympathy for her she got herself into this mess let her get herself out. No way should the state pick up the tab but of course they will as they usually do.

i never said that - stop saying that i did - read my post again

i said if they are lazy then tough on them - BIG difference than condoning a con artist

as for your attitude to the family it saddens me greatly
lets hope you never make a mistake that needs state help to resolve

okiss

How could any bank lend €300,000 to a couple getting the dole and running a fruit stall. Then when the couple could not pay back this money the bank kept hounding them until the man ended his life.
In this case both the bank and the couple are to blame. The banks always wanted targets to be met and to be over target when ever possible.
Hit your target, get your bonus and get your better job was what all the banks wanted during the boom.

During the boom I saw people I worked with get loans of €200,000 plus on a salary of €22,000 - €30,000 with a deposit from there parents.
I know that one place I previous worked in let a lot of people go who were in the situation. The people I knew would be in trouble very quickly not only due to the house loan but the credit card, car loan and or credit union loan.
Hopefully going forward people will have learned a lesson to borrow only what you can afford to pay back.

donalg1

dj jarvis wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

So con someone out of money and you think tough **** on them.

When is this lady going to be held accountable for her actions I mean the cheek of her to even moan about being given a mortgage I think she needs to take some responsibility for her actions and stop looking to blame everyone else for her poor decisions. Will never feel any sympathy for her she got herself into this mess let her get herself out. No way should the state pick up the tab but of course they will as they usually do.

i never said that - stop saying that i did - read my post again

i said if they are lazy then tough on them - BIG difference than condoning a con artist

as for your attitude to the family it saddens me greatly
lets hope you never make a mistake that needs state help to resolve

You did say it you called a not paying attention tax just because its done to a bank doesn't make it right its no different than someone borrowing from you or I promising to pay it back then just deciding not to bother even trying and saying it's our fault for giving them the money

Monty Burnz

okiss wrote: »

Hopefully going forward people will have learned a lesson to borrow only what you can afford to pay back.

Rest assured, this will all be forgotten in 20 years. The British property crash occurred only 10 years or so before our bubble started, and it was on the news the whole time in the late 80s-early 90s. Yet almost nobody I talked to during the high-bubble years of the mid-2000s thought a property crash was possible in Ireland. Amnesia or stupidity?

dj jarvis

donalg1 wrote: »

How would she be made homeless she will get 280 per week from social welfare for her and three kids so that's plenty for her to find private rented accommodation so no need for the council to house her. And certainly no need to give her rent allowance. She will most likely be getting fis aswell so will actually be on more than 280

yea imagine 3 kids and 1 adult on 280 plus fis a week while paying private rent , man she will be living it up on that , giving us the finger

i give up - you really are a sad reflection on where we are as a people , your posts have been depressing, but i respect your opinion and right to air them

K-9

okiss wrote: »

During the boom I saw people I worked with get loans of €200,000 plus on a salary of €22,000 - €30,000 with a deposit from there parents.
I know that one place I previous worked in let a lot of people go who were in the situation. The people I knew would be in trouble very quickly not only due to the house loan but the credit card, car loan and or credit union loan.
Hopefully going forward people will have learned a lesson to borrow only what you can afford to pay back.

What would the payments be on a €200k mortgage? On a salary of 22-30k!

Rest assured, this will all be forgotten in 20 years. The British property crash occurred only 10 years or so before our bubble started, and it was on the news the whole time in the late 80s-early 90s. Yet almost nobody I talked to during the high-bubble years of the mid-2000s thought a property crash was possible in Ireland. Amnesia or stupidity?

I was chatting to an Irish lad who bought in England and suffered the late 80's property crash, took him years to break even.

Even he was starting to doubt himself near the end!

England still got itself into bother 20 years later, how dumb is that?

dj jarvis

donalg1 wrote: »

You did say it you called a not paying attention tax just because its done to a bank doesn't make it right its no different than someone borrowing from you or I promising to pay it back then just deciding not to bother even trying and saying it's our fault for giving them the money

yea but read the rest of the post - i also said that the borrower should be perused for the debt - please dont quote out of contexts

the not paying attention tax is a fair comment , if they dont bother doing the work and give cash out with out due diligence they i will repeat my comment - tough on ya - i know people whom i would never loan money - but if i did and they ripped me off then its my tough luck - should not have lent cash to a person who is known as a risk

donalg1

dj jarvis wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

How would she be made homeless she will get 280 per week from social welfare for her and three kids so that's plenty for her to find private rented accommodation so no need for the council to house her. And certainly no need to give her rent allowance. She will most likely be getting fis aswell so will actually be on more than 280

yea imagine 3 kids and 1 adult on 280 plus fis a week while paying private rent , man she will be living it up on that , giving us the finger

i give up - you really are a sad reflection on where we are as a people , your posts have been depressing, but i respect your opinion and right to air them

380 per week isn't enough to pay rent and feed yourself and 3 kids for a week? Its more than enough anything else is a luxury and shouldn't be attainable by those on social welfare but that's another story altogether.

Your the sad reflection I'm sorry to say. Yeah woo hoo borrow 300k don't bother paying it back just walk away and ask the state for handouts for the rest of your life. Thinking like this is the true sad reflection. She needs to be held accountable for her decisions end of story the days of a welfare state should be over immediately.

Make poor decisions then suffer the consequences like most decent sensible adults in the world.

lastlaugh

donalg1 wrote: »

380 per week isn't enough to pay rent and feed yourself and 3 kids for a week? Its more than enough anything else is a luxury and shouldn't be attainable by those on social welfare but that's another story altogether.

Your the sad reflection I'm sorry to say.
Yeah woo hoo borrow 300k don't bother paying it back just walk away and ask the state for handouts for the rest of your life. Thinking like this is the true sad reflection. She needs to be held accountable for her decisions end of story the days of a welfare state should be over immediately.

Make poor decisions then suffer the consequences like most decent sensible adults in the world.

She should never have been approved for the 350K loan in the first place, can you accept that?

donalg1

lastlaugh wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

380 per week isn't enough to pay rent and feed yourself and 3 kids for a week? Its more than enough anything else is a luxury and shouldn't be attainable by those on social welfare but that's another story altogether.

Your the sad reflection I'm sorry to say.
Yeah woo hoo borrow 300k don't bother paying it back just walk away and ask the state for handouts for the rest of your life. Thinking like this is the true sad reflection. She needs to be held accountable for her decisions end of story the days of a welfare state should be over immediately.

Make poor decisions then suffer the consequences like most decent sensible adults in the world.

She should never have been approved for the 350K loan in the first place, can you accept that?

Yes of course I can accept it. But she should never have applied for a mortgage in the first. And she certainly shouldn't gave agreed to a mortgage of 350k, can you accept that?

Nobody made her apply for a mortgage nobody made her borrow the Max amount available to her at the time.

I could've got more from the bank when I took out my mortgage but I didn't I borrowed what was affordable to me.

dj jarvis

donalg1 wrote: »

Yes of course I can accept it. But she should never have applied for a mortgage in the first. And she certainly shouldn't gave agreed to a mortgage of 350k, can you accept that?

Nobody made her apply for a mortgage nobody made her borrow the Max amount available to her at the time.

I could've got more from the bank when I took out my mortgage but I didn't I borrowed what was affordable to me.

so the children should suffer the failings of the parents ?
because that is what your are saying should happen , she has as much right to social housing as any other widower with 3 children - irregardless of her previous financial calamity
its a sign of our humanity to help her

you never made a mistake in your life ? have some compassion
after all its only money

lastlaugh

donalg1 wrote: »

Yes of course I can accept it. But she should never have applied for a mortgage in the first. And she certainly shouldn't gave agreed to a mortgage of 350k, can you accept that?.

Of course I can.

donalg1 wrote: »

Nobody made her apply for a mortgage nobody made her borrow the Max amount available to her at the time..

Why the F*CK was such an astromonical amount made 'available to her' if they were both on the scratch??

Therein lies the problem

donalg1 wrote: »

I could've got more from the bank when I took out my mortgage but I didn't I borrowed what was affordable to me.

Good for you.

donalg1

dj jarvis wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Yes of course I can accept it. But she should never have applied for a mortgage in the first. And she certainly shouldn't gave agreed to a mortgage of 350k, can you accept that?

Nobody made her apply for a mortgage nobody made her borrow the Max amount available to her at the time.

I could've got more from the bank when I took out my mortgage but I didn't I borrowed what was affordable to me.

so the children should suffer the failings of the parents ?
because that is what your are saying should happen , she has as much right to social housing as any other widower with 3 children - irregardless of her previous financial calamity
its a sign of our humanity to help her

you never made a mistake in your life ? have some compassion
after all its only money

Unfortunately the children will suffer in this case as a result of the parents poor decisions but that's the parents' fault nobody else's. I didn't say she isn't entitled to social housing but I did say she shouldnt get it ahead of someone waiting ten years who could also be a widower with 3 kids or could be single with no kids but has still applied and waited in the correct way

peteb2

i think the over-riding feeling throughout the thread is whilst people feel sorry for the people that took out mortgages and are now out of work, there is little sympathy for those who were stupid enough to over borrow.

Anyone over the age of 18 can sign a legal contract. They have to think about what they are doing and the ramifications of their actions. Regardless of what a broker/bank is prepared to lend you, its still up to you to stop and think whether you have the capacity to repay things in the long-term should something go wrong.

And its probably got a lot to do with people thinking why should people have been able to buy big back in the day whilst the rest of us were sensisble, and they want sympathy and to say they were victims of reckless lending. And walk away from their obligations. No. They were reckless borrowers!

The original post started with the woman saying she did a deal with the devil - she didnt sign under pressure! They didnt stand there and say "g'wan. g'wan. take the money or else". They had to have walked in said we'd like a mortgage please. So the first move was their own stupidity and no-one elses!

donalg1

lastlaugh wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Yes of course I can accept it. But she should never have applied for a mortgage in the first. And she certainly shouldn't gave agreed to a mortgage of 350k, can you accept that?.

Of course I can.

donalg1 wrote: »

Nobody made her apply for a mortgage nobody made her borrow the Max amount available to her at the time..

Why the F*CK was such an astromonical amount made 'available to her' if they were both on the scratch??

Therein lies the problem

donalg1 wrote: »

I could've got more from the bank when I took out my mortgage but I didn't I borrowed what was affordable to me.

Good for you.

Yeah it is good for me thanks.

Who the f*** made her borrow that much when she is on the scratch she is solely responsible for the mess she is in so she can accept that and take responsibility for it and stop trying to blame everyone else time for her to grow up I think and stand on her own two feet and if she can't do that she should apply to have a full time carer

At the end of day it comes down to the fact its her signature on the mortgage agreement

lastlaugh

donalg1 wrote: »

Unfortunately the children will suffer in this case as a result of the parents poor decisions but that's the parents' fault nobody else's. I didn't say she isn't entitled to social housing but I did say she shouldnt get it ahead of someone waiting ten years who could also be a widower with 3 kids or could be single with no kids but has still applied and waited in the correct way

So, 350K is made available to two people on welfare @1.8K monthly repayments over 34yrs and the only people to blame are the people who took out the loan?!

This thread needs too be closed.

dj jarvis

donalg1 wrote: »

Unfortunately the children will suffer in this case as a result of the parents poor decisions but that's the parents' fault nobody else's. I didn't say she isn't entitled to social housing but I did say she shouldnt get it ahead of someone waiting ten years who could also be a widower with 3 kids or could be single with no kids but has still applied and waited in the correct way

you have no understanding of how housing is allocated
its on need - a widow with 3 children will be high on the list due to the need.
the housing list has single people with no kids on the very bottom of the list for a reason - they are least in need

they would got right to the top for a good reason ?
so with your reasoning she should walk the street and a single person should get a house ahead of her

its not her jumping the q , its how priority is seen - she would be a priority

dj jarvis

lastlaugh wrote: »

So, 350K is made available to two people on welfare @1.8K monthly repayments over 34yrs and the only people to blame are the people who took out the loan?!

This thread needs too be closed.

i second that - pointless this going on - everything that needed to be said has been said

donalg1

dj jarvis wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Unfortunately the children will suffer in this case as a result of the parents poor decisions but that's the parents' fault nobody else's. I didn't say she isn't entitled to social housing but I did say she shouldnt get it ahead of someone waiting ten years who could also be a widower with 3 kids or could be single with no kids but has still applied and waited in the correct way

you have no understanding of how housing is allocated
its on need - a widow with 3 children will be high on the list due to the need.
the housing list has single people with no kids on the very bottom of the list for a reason - they are least in need

they would got right to the top for a good reason ?
so with your reasoning she should walk the street and a single person should get a house ahead of her

its not her jumping the q , its how priority is seen - she would be a priority

She wouldn't walk the street she would go into private rented.

lastlaugh

donalg1 wrote: »

Yeah it is good for me thanks.

Who the f*** made her borrow that much when she is on the scratch she is solely responsible for the mess she is in so she can accept that and take responsibility for it and stop trying to blame everyone else time for her to grow up I think and stand on her own two feet and if she can't do that she should apply to have a full time carer

The question you should be asking is "Who the f*** approved her loan application to borrow that much when she is on the scratch?"

Don't you think?

donalg1

lastlaugh wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Unfortunately the children will suffer in this case as a result of the parents poor decisions but that's the parents' fault nobody else's. I didn't say she isn't entitled to social housing but I did say she shouldnt get it ahead of someone waiting ten years who could also be a widower with 3 kids or could be single with no kids but has still applied and waited in the correct way

So, 350K is made available to two people on welfare @1.8K monthly repayments over 34yrs and the only people to blame are the people who took out the loan?!

This thread needs too be closed.

Now your getting it

donalg1

lastlaugh wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Yeah it is good for me thanks.

Who the f*** made her borrow that much when she is on the scratch she is solely responsible for the mess she is in so she can accept that and take responsibility for it and stop trying to blame everyone else time for her to grow up I think and stand on her own two feet and if she can't do that she should apply to have a full time carer

The question you should be asking is "Who the f*** approved her loan application to borrow that much when she is on the scratch?"

Don't you think?

No its why did she think that's an acceptable amount to borrow while on social welfare. Would you borrow 350k if on the dole

lastlaugh

donalg1 wrote: »

Now your getting it

Oh I'm gettin it now.

You be Trollin Yo!