Repossessions

pawnacide

jmayo wrote: »

Exactly.
What do people expect non Irish owned non Irish bailed out banks to do ?
Do some of the advocates of this sh**e want the British, Dutch and Danish taxpayers to cough up for them ?

Banks are in business to make money if a bank can make more money from selling a house, they will repossess and sell it. If a bank can make more money from writing down debt then it will write down the debt. The point was made previously that repossession figures are far higher in the Uk coz there's no government interference in the workings of the free market. But this is not comapring like with like. The foreign banks that repossess cannot sell the houses and even the subprime lenders are starting to deal with mortgage holders. Apart from the social arguments against mass repossessions there are very real and financially responsible arguments for writing down debt. IT"S GONNA HAPPEN sooner or later so probably best to get used to the idea.

Those controlling the write downs will not be the socially consciensous but rather the financially prudent with both eyes firmly fixed on profit and the balance sheet, therefore the suggestion that writedowns will be a blanket get of penury card for the financially imprudent is false and I dont think anyone here is arguing that it should be.

smallerthanyou

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/elderly-couple-evicted-from-home-on-millionaires-row-3085588.html

What does everyone think about this? I think it looks like they are starting repossessions by going for the people first that noone has sympathy for and then guaging opinion from there. I think repossessions in completely unsustainable cases are coming. This case was completely unsustainable so they had to go.

robd

smallerthanyou wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/elderly-couple-evicted-from-home-on-millionaires-row-3085588.html

What does everyone think about this? I think it looks like they are starting repossessions by going for the people first that noone has sympathy for and then guaging opinion from there. I think repossessions in completely unsustainable cases are coming. This case was completely unsustainable so they had to go.

The comments on the article are interesting. Have been following the comments on http://www.facebook.com/tigerrebornireland also.

Seems one extreme to the other. Lots of people ignore that this was a luxury house and just take the angle of the bad banks/gardai/government.

They appeared to be chancing their arm completely. Court orders for repossession granted 2 years ago. Other properties all leased. They'd ample time to come to an amenable arrangement which clearly didn't. This is defo a story with 2 sides and we're only hearing their side at present.

Personally I think it shows that we need to better define what a family home is and seek to protect that. i.e. A family home being an amount equal to the average 3 bed semi-d which the bank shouldn't be able to repossess. In the case of luxury homes your stake up to the equiv value should probably be protected.

Going forward I truly believe legislation should be brought in making all mortgages non recourse. Would make the banks more responsible. Interest rates would be higher put better piece of mind and sustainability all round. Also, higher interest rates would make property cheaper so should work out roughly the same monthly cost to person buying.

The_Honeybadger

smallerthanyou wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/elderly-couple-evicted-from-home-on-millionaires-row-3085588.html

What does everyone think about this? I think it looks like they are starting repossessions by going for the people first that noone has sympathy for and then guaging opinion from there. I think repossessions in completely unsustainable cases are coming. This case was completely unsustainable so they had to go.

Chancers hoping to piggyback on the negative sentiment towards banks. They own 10 other properties and live in a multi million euro home which they couldn't pay for, what did they expect. The bank gave them two years to sort themselves before calling in the bailiffs so no sympathy here. If they were a young family being evicted from a 3 bed semi without an extensive property portfolio to fall back on then I'd be outraged but this case is at the other end of the spectrum altogether.

who_ru

how many other properties have they got? and they were given notice 2 years ago.

i personally couldn't even imagine taking out a mortgage of 100,000 euro now aged 39. but this guy takes out a 2 million euro mortgage aged 69. For god's sake people need to live up to their responsibilities, it's always somebody else's fault in this country.

they are very comfortable, many other properties to fall back on.

Caribs

who_ru wrote: »

how many other properties have they got? and they were given notice 2 years ago.

i personally couldn't even imagine taking out a mortgage of 100,000 euro now aged 39. but this guy takes out a 2 million euro mortgage aged 69. For god's sake people need to live up to their responsibilities, it's always somebody else's fault in this country.

they are very comfortable, many other properties to fall back on.

Without having full visibility of the background I have to agree with the sentiment of questioning the logic of people taking out such a huge mortgage regardless of age. Aside from whether or not they are comfortable people do need to face up to their responsibilities and if they were not in a position to meet with repayments then the bank has the right to repossess. That is the hazard anyone with a mortgage takes. It doesn't sound like the banks were hasty in arriving at this decision. The banks are not exactly flavour of the month but think they are in the right in this instance.

daviddwyer

Havent read the thread but how in the name of god did a bank lend to this man in 2004... he would have been 64 years old. i thought all mortgages had to be paid in full by age 65. If this man had been a developer Nama would have came in and bailed him out.... different stokes for different folks?

who_ru

daviddwyer wrote: »

Havent read the thread but how in the name of god did a bank lend to this man in 2004... he would have been 64 years old. i thought all mortgages had to be paid in full by age 65. If this man had been a developer Nama would have came in and bailed him out.... different stokes for different folks?

NAMA took bad & good property loans off the books of nationalised banks, this was done to allow those banks to lend money into the economy. you can of course argue that no such thing has happened, Brian Lenihan told us that developers would be chased to the ends of the earth in pursuit of those bad loans. you can again argue that this hasn't happened.

but the fact that some bank loaned this guy the money, which he voluntarily applied for, took the money and bought this property and subsequently couldn't repay is without doubt. he was given notice 2 years ago, he has had 2 years in this house without repayment, he could of organised his affairs, avoided all this publicity but he chose not to. he wanted this outcome it seems to me in order to engineer sympathy.

Snakeblood

who_ru wrote: »

NAMA took bad & good property loans off the books of nationalised banks, this was done to allow those banks to lend money into the economy. you can of course argue that no such thing has happened, Brian Lenihan told us that developers would be chased to the ends of the earth in pursuit of those bad loans. you can again argue that this hasn't happened.

but the fact that some bank loaned this guy the money, which he voluntarily applied for, took the money and bought this property and subsequently couldn't repay is without doubt. he was given notice 2 years ago, he has had 2 years in this house without repayment, he could of organised his affairs, avoided all this publicity but he chose not to. he wanted this outcome it seems to me in order to engineer sympathy.

He's had more than 2 years. Banks don't serve notice on someone unless they stop paying, and stop paying for a while. He's engendered a lot more disgust than sympathy.

votecounts

this guy and his wife deserve no sympathy and if the sale of the house does not meet the balance on the mortgage,they should be forced to sell their other houses to make this up. Another example of people wanting the tax payer to give them a free house.
BTW, developers, sean quinn, sean fitzpatrick, etc should be given the same treatment. This will not happen as Fine Gael and Labour won't do anything, not surprising as Olivia Mitchell got a corrupt payment and is still a member of FG.

votecounts

who_ru wrote: »

NAMA took bad & good property loans off the books of nationalised banks, this was done to allow those banks to lend money into the economy. you can of course argue that no such thing has happened, Brian Lenihan told us that developers would be chased to the ends of the earth in pursuit of those bad loans. you can again argue that this hasn't happened.

but the fact that some bank loaned this guy the money, which he voluntarily applied for, took the money and bought this property and subsequently couldn't repay is without doubt. he was given notice 2 years ago, he has had 2 years in this house without repayment, he could of organised his affairs, avoided all this publicity but he chose not to. he wanted this outcome it seems to me in order to engineer sympathy.

You believed that lying piece of xxxx

riclad

I have no sympathy for someone who bought a 2million euro house then just stayed there when they could not pay the mortgage,this cant be compared with the average couple in a 3bed semi d who are in negative equity.
ON the radio he sounded like he,s got various other propertys which are rented out ,maybe with loans from
other banks . th
HE must have been doing well to borrow 2million .I
think there ,ll be alot of info in the papers in the next week re his assets, and financial situation.

Zamboni

Repossession order two years ago.

You would think he might have not have renewed a lease on one of his other properties in the meantime and moved in there.

Zero sympathy.

May there be many more to follow.

Snakeblood

riclad wrote: »

I have no sympathy for someone who bought a 2million euro house then just stayed there when they could not pay the mortgage,this cant be compared with the average couple in a 3bed semi d who are in negative equity.
ON the radio he sounded like he,s got various other propertys which are rented out ,maybe with loans from
other banks . th
HE must have been doing well to borrow 2million .I
think there ,ll be alot of info in the papers in the next week re his assets, and financial situation.

He's got 21 other properties.

robd

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/eviction-help-not-for-landlords-3087669.html

Fairly reasonable response by Michael Noonan.

Legislation will protect struggling home owners not professional landlords with 21 properties.

Specifically he commented "We must distinguish between people who can't pay and people who won't pay", which I think is a fare comment. It's obvious they refused to deal with this matter and seem of the opinion that they were entitled to not have their home repossessed.

Also, he seems like exactly the kind of guy you wouldn't want as a landlord. Can only imagine trying to get a deposit back after giving notice and following correct procedure for vacating one of his rented properties. Met his type before.

Zamboni

robd wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/eviction-help-not-for-landlords-3087669.html

Fairly reasonable response by Michael Noonan.

Legislation will protect struggling home owners not professional landlords with 21 properties.

Specifically he commented "We must distinguish between people who can't pay and people who won't pay", which I think is a fare comment. It's obvious they refused to deal with this matter and seem of the opinion that they were entitled to not have their home repossessed.

Also, he seems like exactly the kind of guy you wouldn't want as a landlord. Can only imagine trying to get a deposit back after giving notice and following correct procedure for vacating one of his rented properties. Met his type before.

Meanwhile, Occupy Dame Street members have travelled to the Killiney mansion to pledge support for the Kellys. Campaigner John Rogers said the couple was removed from the property with brutal force, which was unacceptable.

"It doesn't matter how many properties they have in their portfolio," said Mr Rogers. "They are in negative equity like much of the country and the bank should have given them a chance to make smaller payments or come to some kind of arrangement. But to drag an old man from his home kicking and screaming is not right. If anyone in this country doesn't see that then they mustn't have a heart."

This bit made me laugh out loud!
John Rogers is a complete clown with his priorities arseways.
Guys like Brendan Kelly are very much part of what caused the issues we now have. And for idiotic unresearched fools from Occupy Dame Street to support him is utterly bizarre!
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Monty Burnz

"Brutal force"? Ridiculous. The old man repeatedly runs at the bailiffs, shouting a them to 'get away'. They finally get a hold of him and walk him off the property. Where was the brutality exactly? If anything, he was assaulting the men who were trying to stop him trespassing.

The Occupy crowd have lost a massive amount of credibility by getting themselves involved with this latest stunt.

cyberblade 918c

Zamboni wrote: »

Repossession order two years ago.

You would think he might have not have renewed a lease on one of his other properties in the meantime and moved in there.

Zero sympathy.

May there be many more to follow.

A man of his caliber in a normal house in a normal street ?? tut tut tut - he couldnt have that now !! - this couple have never known what it is like to go hungry or too see their kids go with out the basic essentials that people like this take for granted. No sympthy what so ever for them. wonder what car he drives. Probably parked the jag elsewhere for a few days while the media were awaiting the bailifs !!

shangri la

They protested against an eviction of a couple who have at least 19 properties and were given 2 years notice!

What the hell were they thinking!

Good move by the bank to start with the folks in the mansions so they can't be accused of picking on the poor young family with the new baby.

how many properties would you guess will be repossed this year?

bjak

The issue is really downplayed in todays Sindo who have been cheerleading the whole debt writeoff / forebearance bandwagon - I can only see one article "Evicted couple 'upset' at Ministers' comments"

Obviously the case doesn't suit their agenda any more

Duckjob

I think it would be a hoot if the ODS members decided to set themselves up outside the development and resolved to stay there until the Kellys were let back into "their" house.

I'd love to see just how far the neighbours loyalty to the Kellys would stretch having a tent village of smelly hippies camped outside their doors for months on end.

The_Conductor

Duckjob wrote: »

I think it would be a hoot if the ODS members decided to set themselves up outside the development and resolved to stay there until the Kellys were let back into "their" house.

I'd love to see just how far the neighbours loyalty to the Kellys would stretch having a tent village of smelly hippies camped outside their doors for months on end.

More likely they'd set up a squat in the property- like to see the Kelly's faces then

true

daviddwyer wrote: »

Havent read the thread but how in the name of god did a bank lend to this man in 2004... he would have been 64 years old.

Some ( but not all ) bankers made crazy lending decisions, in order to make the sale and get their bonus. I know of another case where they lent someone 50 times his annual income. Not surprisingly he is in the s**t now.
No wonder the banking system fell apart.

Monty Burnz

true wrote: »

Some ( but not all ) bankers made crazy lending decisions, in order to make the sale and get their bonus.

This is true. But for every crazy lending decision there was a crazy borrowing decision. Those ultimately responsible for the crazy borrowing decisions - the owners of the banks - have been severely punished. I don't see any particular reason why those who made bad borrowing decisions should be saved from their choice at the expense of the taxpayer.

riclad

HIS other propertys maybe in negative equity,ie he cant sell them, we only know half the story.
The banks may have lent him 2 million , on the basis of house value s in 2006 ,ie most houses are down 50 percent.ie it was a classic pyramid scheme, the bank would lend you more to buy a house, cos you had houses valued at x, ie people were buying based on capital appreciation in the future.ie many landlords made no profit,maybe the rent covered 90 per cent of the mortgage.ie in ten years time , ill sell up and take my profit.
makes no sense to borrow 150k, if the rental income is 1200 per month.

The_Conductor

riclad wrote: »

makes no sense to borrow 150k, if the rental income is 1200 per month.

Why not- thats a 9.6% gross ROI- a very decent rate of return (anything north of 7.5% makes the figures work as a generalisation). Even with the current reduction in mortgage interest as an allowable expense to 75%- providing there aren't any significant outgoings- this is still nicely in positive territory. The abolition of mortgage interest as an allowable expense would of course nuke this.

shangri la

Monty Burnz wrote: »

This is true. But for every crazy lending decision there was a crazy borrowing decision. Those ultimately responsible for the crazy borrowing decisions - the owners of the banks - have been severely punished. I don't see any particular reason why those who made bad borrowing decisions should be saved from their choice at the expense of the taxpayer.

how were the bankers severly punished?

Monty Burnz

shangri la wrote: »

how were the bankers severly punished?

I said the owners of the banks were severely punished.

shangri la

riclad wrote: »

HIS other propertys maybe in negative equity,ie he cant sell them, we only know half the story.
The banks may have lent him 2 million , on the basis of house value s in 2006 ,ie most houses are down 50 percent.ie it was a classic pyramid scheme, the bank would lend you more to buy a house, cos you had houses valued at x, ie people were buying based on capital appreciation in the future.ie many landlords made no profit,maybe the rent covered 90 per cent of the mortgage.ie in ten years time , ill sell up and take my profit.
makes no sense to borrow 150k, if the rental income is 1200 per month.

10.4% per annum.

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

the masses never learn.

golden lane

shangri la wrote: »

10.4% per annum.

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

the masses never learn.

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