People power halts eviction

20Cent

jmayo wrote: »

So what do you suggest ?
That people who are not repaying their mortgages are allowed stay in their properties and the bank or lending institution just takes the hit ?

Basically you are talking about a "bailout" of all people who are in mortgage default.
Where do you draw the line ?
Would you only bailout those in normal family homes or would you include those who bought 6 bedroom, 6 bathroom mansions ?
After all it would still be someones home.

From memory over on Accomodation and Property were you a property investor/speculator and even a couple of years ago were telling us how it was a time to invest.
Didn't you also start a thread some time about debt forgiveness ?

You mentioned something about Bill Clinton saying mortgages defualts, repossessions would be inhibitor to economic growth.
Aren't you really saying that anything that may have detrimental effect on house prices will affect economic growth ?

Funny how some always sing the hymm that house prices are important to our economy. :rolleyes:

Thousands of people defaulting will be a big problem for us all.
Ignore the problem if you want.
Just like the bank debt was ignored until it became a crisis.

jmayo

jmayo wrote: »

So what do you suggest ?
That people who are not repaying their mortgages are allowed stay in their properties and the bank or lending institution just takes the hit ?

Basically you are talking about a "bailout" of all people who are in mortgage default.
Where do you draw the line ?
Would you only bailout those in normal family homes or would you include those who bought 6 bedroom, 6 bathroom mansions ?
After all it would still be someones home.

From memory over on Accomodation and Property were you a property investor/speculator and even a couple of years ago were telling us how it was a time to invest.
Didn't you also start a thread some time about debt forgiveness ?

You mentioned something about Bill Clinton saying mortgages defualts, repossessions would be inhibitor to economic growth.
Aren't you really saying that anything that may have detrimental effect on house prices will affect economic growth ?

Funny how some always sing the hymm that house prices are important to our economy. :rolleyes:

I recall some posts from our friend 20cent in A&P, myself. If I'm remembering correctly, replace 'debt forgiveness' with "buy as many houses as possible" and it's the same guy

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

See LostInKildares post above, not scaremongering.
Leaving problems until them become a crisis has not worked out to well for us recently.

Yes, you are scaremongering.

The article from 2011 said 15,000 to 20,000 repossessions would happen that year.

Read the Irish Times article. it was the man from New Beginnings, the crowd looking for business off those in trouble, Mr. Hall that said there were combined 12,000 final notices and legal proceedings. He is a scaremongerer as that is his business. You get a final notice if you fall behind, otherwise if you continue not to pay, the bank has a problem years down the road trying to get the money off you - that is why there are so many of them. It is a very very long road from final notice to repossession which makes his figure look very stupid indeed.

The actual number was much, much less, below 1,000 even if you accept the Central Bank estimate is too low. 1,000 is 5% of 20,000.

Hotblack Desiato

20Cent wrote: »

Thousands of people defaulting will be a big problem for us all.

Yes which is why anything that encourages people who can pay to stop paying is going to prove disastrous.

Zombrex

Banks make their money on the interest paid on mortgages, so it is not in their interest to perform a knee jerk repossession on a house or apartment, particularly when they will have to sell the property at a loss.

While it is difficult to comment on this individual case without the full details (for example has the owner been negotiating with the bank, what makes the bank think the owner will not be able to pay back the mortgage in the long run etc etc), these events again just highlight how much the country lost the run of itself in the boom times.

I have a mortgage, and in big letters in about twenty different places across all the paper work I signed and went through with my solicitor it says Your house may be at risk if you fail to keep up with payments (or something like that in more legalish speak). While I could have bought an apartment that would cost me a significant amount of my take home pay and would have required a very high percentage mortgage, I purposefully didn't. I rented until property prices went down (which of course they did) and bought when prices were much more affordable. I am much less concerned now if I lose my job as I could pay my mortgage for a significant amount of time with my savings.

People seemed to have gotten it into their heads that not only was it a good idea to get a mortgage 95% to 100% the value of the property (meaning even the smallest drop in house prices meant you were in negative equity) but that in fact there was no risk at all to owning property.

I don't really understand what people were thinking, did they think property will always go up in value, or did they think that they would never lose their jobs, never have pay reduced, never be more stretched, that paying half your salary in a mortgage was a low risk adventure? The idea that the banks were stupid enough to let you get a 100% mortgage doesn't negate the fact that you were stupid enough to get one in the first place.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for groups and the government supporting people who are struggling, and for banks to be supported themselves so that they don't have to go chasing foreclosures (while we shouldn't have bailed out Anglo, we had to bail out the banking sector in general, an economy cannot function without banks).

What annoys me is that a lot of these anti-debt groups seem to be pushing the message that the home owners are innocent victims being manipulated by the big evil banks.

You signed the mortgage. You either understood the risks or didn't educate yourself to the risks. No one made you get that 95% mortgage, no one guaranteed you that property will never fall, or that you will never lose your job, or that you will never have other requirements that eat into your salary and the money for your mortgage.

I am very disappointed with the FF government for not stopping the property boom/bomb. A governments responsibility is to lead, and they are supposed to manage the over all economy. FF utterly messed this up, on purpose in order to keep a bubble economy going and anyone who voted for FF from 2004 onwards are idiots who have no one to blame but themselves.

But governments do not replace common sense and personal financial responsibility. It is a persons job to manage their own finances, to plan their savings and their debt, to understand that some things will be good and some things will be bad and you need to plan for both eventualities, or at least consider them.

The governments and banks should help people as much as possible, but this is not because the people are innocent victims. If your bank helps you out you should be grateful. If they eventually give up on you and require that you honor your contract you should accept that. It is the contract you signed. If you didn't understand it tough, why did you sign something you didn't understand. If you were stupid enough to think you would never be in financial trouble tough, why are you not seriously thinking about your life and your finances, do you expect someone else to?

Sorry for the long rant, this and people giving out about losing all their money in stocks and shares as if they had no idea share prices can fall, are two of my current bug bears. And don't get me started about the morons in Greece who think the country can go for 20 years not paying taxes while they survive on EU money and there will be no consequences.

walshb

I wouldn't at all blame the normal joe soap house buyer in the boom. Sure, the prices weren't going to continually rise, but also, who could have predicted a STOP and a big crash? Anyone who claims that they knew the prices would stop rising and then also crash dramatically is bull****ting! Hence I am empathetic and sympathetic to those who have suffered because of this crash.

Zombrex

walshb wrote: »

I wouldn't at all blame the normal joe soap house buyer in the boom. Sure, the prices weren't going to continually rise, but also, who could have predicted a STOP and a big crash?

Er, everyone. Or more specifically everyone who wasn't living in cloud cuckoo land. There has never been a housing bubble anywhere near as large as Irelands that had a soft landing, and economists had been warning about a hard landing for years before it happened.

Also you don't have to be an economist to know that a 95% mortgage on a property bought in a property boom (ie when prices are increasing rapidly, ie they eventually will have to decrease) is a terrible idea. You learn that basic stuff in Junior Cert business studies.

walshb wrote: »

Anyone who claims that they knew the prices would stop rising and then also crash dramatically is bull****ting!

Nonsense. Anyone who thought this would just go on for ever or though that we would have a soft landing is talking out their arse.

Show me any previous property boom as large as Irelands that had a soft landing. The only people saying their would be a soft landing were the government and the estate agents. Real estate bubbles hardly ever have soft landings, and never in the case as one so large as Ireland's.

Heck the Central Bank were warning in 2005 that we were up s**t creek, even Brian Cowen was trying to stress a need to be careful but was drowned out by Bertie (I can't decide is that is stupidity or negligence on Cowen's part). And this is before all the economists and professors screaming that we were in serious trouble.

How do I know this? Because I was there and I listened to them. If others didn't they can be annoyed at their own naivety or their own stupidity but they cannot claim they were mis-informed or that this was hidden from them. The information was there, but people decided to ignore it.

PeadarCo

walshb wrote: »

I wouldn't at all blame the normal joe soap house buyer in the boom. Sure, the prices weren't going to continually rise, but also, who could have predicted a STOP and a big crash? Anyone who claims that they knew the prices would stop rising and then also crash dramatically is bull****ting! Hence I am empathetic and sympathetic to those who have suffered because of this crash.

Unfotunately there were people who predicted the bubble would burst in a big way including people on boards. Someone put a thread up about a thread that was on boards in 2006 where some people predicted much of what has happened including housing price collapse and bank failures. Scary reading in hindsight.

That said I can only imagine that repossession would only be a last resort for banks given the fall in house prices.

20Cent

So anyone who bought a house between 2005 and 2008 was greedy and or stupid?

jd

Zombrex wrote: »

While it is difficult to comment on this individual case without the full details (for example has the owner been negotiating with the bank, what makes the bank think the owner will not be able to pay back the mortgage in the long run etc etc),

From the judgement

http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B.nsf/0/C0E389B2AF58A93C8025797A0052EFF3?Open&Highlight=0,Wellstead,~language_en~

The applicant is also seeking leave to argue that Ulster Bank have no longer any entitlement to benefit from the order for possession because as part of some unspecified securitisation agreement the bank has sold the applicant’s mortgage, and is therefore no longer owed anything on foot of the mortgage herein.

His grounding affidavit characterises the action by Ulster Bank in seeking repossession in circumstances where it no longer owns the mortgage and has been repaid the money lent to the applicant is fraudulent, misleading and premeditated.


In relation to the last argument, Counsel for the bank has referred to clause 17 of the mortgage deed executed by the applicant and his former partner, which contains a consent by the mortgagors to such a disposal of the benefit of the mortgage to another party by way of a securitisation scheme or otherwise, and it is submitted that this is a point which it is simply not open to the applicant to argue, even if he was in time to do so, since he has consented to that occurring. I agree.

But there is another obstacle which faces the applicant, and which he has not addressed, and it is that there is nothing unusual or mysterious about a securitisation scheme. It happens all the time so that a bank can give itself added liquidity. It is typical of such securitisation schemes that the original lender will retain under the scheme, by agreement with the transferee, the obligation to enforce the security and account to the transferee in due course upon recovery from the mortgagors.

Zombrex

20Cent wrote: »

So anyone who bought a house between 2005 and 2008 was greedy and or stupid?

Anyone who bought a house between 2005 and 2008 with a ridiculously high loan to value ratio (probably because they had little to no savings to actually put towards the house) and a ridiculously high month re-payment with respect to their take home pay and who is now in trouble paying back their mortgage but thinks it is some how not their responsibility at all and is in fact the fault of the greedy banks who tricked them, or society who told them it was a good idea, or the government for not some how protecting them from themselves, was greedy and/or stupid.

Zombrex

jd wrote: »

From the judgement

http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B.nsf/0/C0E389B2AF58A93C8025797A0052EFF3?Open&Highlight=0,Wellstead,~language_en~

Reading that judgement it seems the court has bend over backwards to help this guy. I'm guessing he just has no money (he hasn't made a payment for over 2 years and he appears to be representing himself), so it is hardly unreasonable that Ulster Bank consider getting payment out of him unlikely.

K-9

I don't know where this idea of mass repossessions is coming from, despite the increase in accounts in arrears, repossessions actually showed a drop:

More mortgage holders in serious arrears but repossessions down - Property & Mortgages, Personal Finance - Independent.ie

It just isn't in a banks interest to repossess unless a last resort, particularly in this country.

southsiderosie

walshb wrote: »

I wouldn't at all blame the normal joe soap house buyer in the boom. Sure, the prices weren't going to continually rise, but also, who could have predicted a STOP and a big crash? Anyone who claims that they knew the prices would stop rising and then also crash dramatically is bull****ting! Hence I am empathetic and sympathetic to those who have suffered because of this crash.

But here is the thing: regardless of how fast property prices were moving up, if people bought a house in a scenario where : 1) they made a significant down payment, 2) they could afford the monthly repayments, and 3) they had enough money socked away to pay bills for at least 6 months in case they lost their job, the crash would still be bad, but it would not be financially ruinous. A lot of people bought houses that they could barely afford under the assumption that prices would go up forever, and that is not the case - ever.

From 2004 - 2006, I worked in Florida and part of my job was to track new real estate developments, the number of units, and the price points. It was patently obvious that the market was going to crash: in a poor city of 200,000 people, there were something like 40,000 units slated to come online over a 5-year period, none of which started at less than $299,000. People knew it was outrageous and unsustainable, but everyone thought that the person behind them would get caught holding the bag...Or they were terrified that they would be left behind, as prices continued to rise and rise. So it is not bull**** that people couldn't see a crash coming, but I think the reality is that fear and folly drove people to make a huge financial commitment without rationally assessing the situation.

jd

Zombrex wrote: »

Reading that judgement it seems the court has bend over backwards to help this guy. I'm guessing he just has no money (he hasn't made a payment for over 2 years and he appears to be representing himself), so it is hardly unreasonable that Ulster Bank consider getting payment out of him unlikely.

Worse than that, he appears to be claiming that he really doesn't owe the money to the Ulster Bank at all!

20Cent

Zombrex wrote: »

Anyone who bought a house between 2005 and 2008 with a ridiculously high loan to value ratio (probably because they had little to no savings to actually put towards the house) and a ridiculously high month re-payment with respect to their take home pay and who is now in trouble paying back their mortgage but thinks it is some how not their responsibility at all and is in fact the fault of the greedy banks who tricked them, or society who told them it was a good idea, or the government for not some how protecting them from themselves, was greedy and/or stupid.

You don't think the banks have anything to answer for? Considering they are the supposed experts and sell mortgages all the time their wreckless lending caused massive damage.

Zombrex

southsiderosie wrote: »

But here is the thing: regardless of how fast property prices were moving up, if people bought a house in a scenario where : 1) they made a significant down payment, 2) they could afford the monthly repayments, and 3) they had enough money socked away to pay bills for at least 6 months in case they lost their job, the crash would still be bad, but it would not be financially ruinous. A lot of people bought houses that they could barely afford under the assumption that prices would go up forever, and that is not the case - ever.

From 2004 - 2006, I worked in Florida and part of my job was to track new real estate developments, the number of units, and the price points. It was patently obvious that the market was going to crash: in a poor city of 200,000 people, there were something like 40,000 units slated to come online over a 5-year period, none of which started at less than $299,000. People knew it was outrageous and unsustainable, but everyone thought that the person behind them would get caught holding the bag...Or they were terrified that they would be left behind, as prices continued to rise and rise. So it is not bull**** that people couldn't see a crash coming, but I think the reality is that fear and folly drove people to make a huge financial commitment without rationally assessing the situation.

True, I certainly know people who are kicking themselves now for being so naive but who would say that at the time they felt a pressure that they had to buy something, anything, in order to get on the rising tide.

Again I've sympathy for this, but it is the sympathy one feels for someone who did something stupid and now regrets it, and in fairness to most of my friends in this situation they know it was stupid and they aren't blaming anyone else.

20Cent

jd wrote: »

Worse than that, he appears to be claiming that he really doesn't owe the money to the Ulster Bank at all!

The securitisation thing is a huge problem in the US at the moment. Banks are losing cases when trying to forclose because they haven't got the proper paperwork or even the deeds. They were in such a hurry to give absolutely anyone a mortgage's in order to sell it on as bonds the paper trail is a mess.
Even people who were paying found themselves being forclosed on. Good article about it here:

Invasion of the Home Snatchers
Matt Taibbi on how foreclosure courts are helping big banks screw over homeowners
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-courts-helping-banks-screw-over-homeowners-20101110

Could something similar be possible here?
Wouldn't surprise me.

Zombrex

20Cent wrote: »

You don't think the banks have anything to answer for?

Sure. Both the banks and the government acted in a reckless irresponsible fashion.

But we elect governments, and we choose which bank to use and which services to sign up for. Governments can't put in place ridiculous economic policy unless we elect them in the first place (and they certainly cannot continue with such policies unless we re-elect them), and banks cannot sell ridiculous risky financial products unless we are around to buy them.

This idea that if a bank tells you you can have a 100% mortgage then you have no responsibility to actually evaluate for yourself if that mortgage is a good idea or not, or if it is too risky an investment or not, is frankly moronic.

Zombrex

20Cent wrote: »

Could something similar be possible here?
Wouldn't surprise me.

According to the judgement there is no evidence this guy has made a payment in the nearly 3 years the proceedings have been taking place, and he has been representing himself suggesting that he cannot afford a solicitor. I would imagine he simply has no money, which is a shame but not a reason to simply ignore his mortgage commitment.

southsiderosie

When I was in Spain last year, the indignados were blocking evictions as well, and TBH I don't really agree with this strategy.

Both Spain and Ireland have draconian bankruptcy and foreclosure laws. There needs to be some kind of legal way for people to close the door on bad financial decisions, even if their credit takes a hit for 5-7 years. But in Spain, people can never discharge their mortgages, and in Ireland, IIRC, bankruptcy follows you for something like 12 years. If there was a more straightforward option where people could get back on a path towards making themselves financially whole again, I think that could go a long way towards addressing issues of foreclosure, debt, etc. I wish groups like the Indignados )and Occupy movements, etc) would have used their energy to push for more systematic reforms, rather than these ad-hoc street actions which only have individual (and often short-term) benefits.

K-9

southsiderosie wrote: »

When I was in Spain last year, the indignados were blocking evictions as well, and TBH I don't really agree with this strategy.

Both Spain and Ireland have draconian bankruptcy and foreclosure laws. There needs to be some kind of legal way for people to close the door on bad financial decisions, even if their credit takes a hit for 5-7 years. But in Spain, people can never discharge their mortgages, and in Ireland, IIRC, bankruptcy follows you for something like 12 years. If there was a more straightforward option where people could get back on a path towards making themselves financially whole again, I think that could go a long way towards addressing issues of foreclosure, debt, etc. I wish groups like the Indignados )and Occupy movements, etc) would have used their energy to push for more systematic reforms, rather than these ad-hoc street actions which only have individual (and often short-term) benefits.

There has to be a middle ground somewhere recognising the Government and Banks failure to exercise prudence and also the buyers lack of same.

There has to be culpability and penalty on the buyers side or else the whole thing will happen again, or well more accurately, laws have to be updated, as it will probably happen again given Ireland's emotional ties with property. The biggest property crash in Western Europe hasn't cut that tie, by the looks of it, thinking of property tax debates in particular!

jimmycrackcorm

The video showed nothing other than a deputy sherrif with no confidence to carry out a court order and a garda who got frightened when asked if he was there on his oath.

meglome

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The video showed nothing other than a deputy sherrif with no confidence to carry out a court order and a garda who got frightened when asked if he was there on his oath.

That's the way I read it too. They can see all the cameras and don't want to make asses out of themselves.

antoobrien

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The video showed nothing other than a deputy sherrif with no confidence to carry out a court order and a garda who got frightened when asked if he was there on his oath.

Excuse the ignorance of the question but what does it mean that a garda is "on his/her oath"?

clever_name

celticcrash wrote: »

Common law rules, thats not freeman stuff.

Maybe the guy in this clip should encourage more people to stick to common law, like getting the guy who contracted for a mortgage to not go five years without paying it.

clever_name

antoobrien wrote: »

Excuse the ignorance of the question but what does it mean that a garda is "on his/her oath"?

Not 100% sure but I think its something along the lines that the Garda has to be acting on his oath to God or he can be ignored. All men are created by God therefore all men are equal and no man may command another. Only God is above man.

AFAIK thats the type of utter offal that is used to support the freeman ideas.

jmayo

walshb wrote: »

I wouldn't at all blame the normal joe soap house buyer in the boom. Sure, the prices weren't going to continually rise, but also, who could have predicted a STOP and a big crash?

Just because you and others couldn't be bothered looking through history does not mean the rest of us are idiots.

walshb wrote: »

Anyone who claims that they knew the prices would stop rising and then also crash dramatically is bull****ting! Hence I am empathetic and sympathetic to those who have suffered because of this crash.

Anyone with a modicum of common sense knew that prices could not go increasing forever.
there were huge warnign signs there, signs that were ignored by the vested interests and the ones who believe everything they are fed by the former group.

And as history had shown those of us who bothered to look, after a huge bubble comes a huge crash.

You know what, you sounding annoyingly like our ex taoiseach, you know the one that told people who warned about his glorious bubble to go away and commit suicide.

southsiderosie wrote: »

...
From 2004 - 2006, I worked in Florida and part of my job was to track new real estate developments, the number of units, and the price points. It was patently obvious that the market was going to crash: in a poor city of 200,000 people, there were something like 40,000 units slated to come online over a 5-year period, none of which started at less than $299,000. People knew it was outrageous and unsustainable, but everyone thought that the person behind them would get caught holding the bag...

Ah the glory of flipping.
Ever come across any of the famous Irish organisations flying people out to pressure sell to them ?
BTW are we allowed mention the most famous of these, you know the one run by the owner of an English football club ?
I know it was yet another thing not allowed over on AAM.:(

20Cent wrote: »

You don't think the banks have anything to answer for? Considering they are the supposed experts and sell mortgages all the time their wreckless lending caused massive damage.

Yes they bare responsibility for lots of things and that is why some of them should have been left go bust.
But then again most of these mortgages are with the two major banks, the smaller players in the mess such as PTSB, EBS and the foreign owned banks.

Now the Irish owned banks are really owned by the taxpayers so are you saying we should now screw the taxpayers further ?

BTW to paraphrase Homer Simpson.
It takes to borrow, one to borrow and one to lend.

20Cent wrote: »

The securitisation thing is a huge problem in the US at the moment. Banks are losing cases when trying to forclose because they haven't got the proper paperwork or even the deeds. They were in such a hurry to give absolutely anyone a mortgage's in order to sell it on as bonds the paper trail is a mess.
Even people who were paying found themselves being forclosed on. Good article about it here:

Invasion of the Home Snatchers
Matt Taibbi on how foreclosure courts are helping big banks screw over homeowners
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-courts-helping-banks-screw-over-homeowners-20101110

Could something similar be possible here?
Wouldn't surprise me.

Ah looking for yet another way to welch on your debts and dump them on the taxpayers. :rolleyes:
What would society do without you.

Zombrex wrote: »

Sure. Both the banks and the government acted in a reckless irresponsible fashion.
...
This idea that if a bank tells you you can have a 100% mortgage then you have no responsibility to actually evaluate for yourself if that mortgage is a good idea or not, or if it is too risky an investment or not, is frankly moronic.

Shure who would want such an inconvenient thing as personal responsibility. :rolleyes:

Nowadays it this same sh**e that is wheelled out everytime somebody is up in court for a crime.
Shure they are not responsible for bluddeoning the old person to death, they come from a disadvantaged area/background.
They are the ones that need saving.

Fook that for a game of cowboys. :mad:

20Cent

Warnings were given re the housing bubble. Now some of the same people are warning about an upcoming mortgage crisis as well. Should we just ignore them again like last time? Worked out well then.

I know feeling smug and calling people stupid is fun for some but isn't it time to prepare and put something in place to head off this problem or should we wait until it becomes a crisis again?

southsiderosie

20Cent wrote: »

The securitisation thing is a huge problem in the US at the moment. Banks are losing cases when trying to forclose because they haven't got the proper paperwork or even the deeds. They were in such a hurry to give absolutely anyone a mortgage's in order to sell it on as bonds the paper trail is a mess.

jmayo wrote: »

Ah looking for yet another way to welch on your debts and dump them on the taxpayers. :rolleyes:
What would society do without you.

I have to agree with 20Cent here. The foreclosure issue isn't about dumping on taxpayers, it is about rule of law. Just as buyers were trying to make extra money by flipping houses, lenders were trying to make money by bundling and selling mortgages. Only the mortgage holder has the right to foreclose on a home - if you can't prove who actually holds the mortgage, then how can you kick someone out of their house?