Protest against Sherry FitzGerald

Fabi05

I was reading on the Anti-Eviction Taskforce Facebook page about a protest in Portlaoise. Sherry Fitzgerald are selling a Repossessed family home. The family were evicted by Ulster Bank.

http://www.sherryfitz.ie/resi/buy/3-bed-Detached-House-For-Sale-by-Private-Treaty-Mountrath-Knockanina-Mountrath-Co.-Laois-propertydetail.aspx?id=316686&ST=1&pc=1

This is a family home. Shame on Sherry Fitzgerald.It's a scandal.

christmas2012

sickening

Islander13

Nothing wrong with this in my opinion. If the family couldnt afford their repayments then unfortunately this is the consequence. Sad from a personal point of view I accept but debts need to be repaid

christmas2012

If they werent tempted with insane 100 % loans then people would be able to realistically pay off their mortagages but the banks got greedy and were pushed by their superiors to do the 100 % sales

mattjack

Was this a 100% per loan ?
I know someone who got one.

christmas2012

They were handing them out like candy in the late nineties and 2000's even after the crash bertie said everything was fine,and those who thought it wasnt should go kill themselves,his words exactly on rte news..100% loans were very common another thing that was common was shared loaning with the county council there are repossesions under this scheme too..

Manoffeeling

How about those who are paying their way?

ResearchWill

christmas2012 wrote: »

sickening

If you feel so strong about, you could always buy the house and let the family live in it rent free.

christmas2012

yeah ive no problem with those who are fortunate enough to pay their way on a 100 % level loan,those who cant i pity them,as they might have lost their job,taken a involuntary redundancy that wont last long,its sad really that 100 % loans were given out no questions asked,and yet they expect everybody to pay them back regardless of circumstance,im not saying they shouldnt pay them back,but look at the morality of giving out 100 % loans no questions asked..how could they not know some people just would not be able to make up such re payments..

ResearchWill

Fabi05 wrote: »

I was reading on the Anti-Eviction Taskforce Facebook page about a protest in Portlaoise. Sherry Fitzgerald are selling a Repossessed family home. The family were evicted by Ulster Bank.

http://www.sherryfitz.ie/resi/buy/3-bed-Detached-House-For-Sale-by-Private-Treaty-Mountrath-Knockanina-Mountrath-Co.-Laois-propertydetail.aspx?id=316686&ST=1&pc=1

This is a family home. Shame on Sherry Fitzgerald.It's a scandal.

If 9,500 people turn up and each give ten euro each they can afford to buy the house and give it to the family.

Dotsie~tmp

Fabi05 wrote: »

I was reading on the Anti-Eviction Taskforce Facebook page about a protest in Portlaoise. Sherry Fitzgerald are selling a Repossessed family home. The family were evicted by Ulster Bank.

http://www.sherryfitz.ie/resi/buy/3-bed-Detached-House-For-Sale-by-Private-Treaty-Mountrath-Knockanina-Mountrath-Co.-Laois-propertydetail.aspx?id=316686&ST=1&pc=1

This is a family home. Shame on Sherry Fitzgerald.It's a scandal.

Its a scandal alright. 95 grand. I'll bid 80 and no more.

mattjack

Christmas was there a 100% loan on that house ?

cgarrad

No one knocked on my door in the last 10 years offering mortgages.

You have to go into the bank to get one.

People need to be responsible for their decisions and not blame others.

christmas2012

yeah i know the people werent acting responsible but back then the banks were giving out 100 % loans,to anyone and everyone,they should have excericised responsibility too..are you of the opinion the banks did no wrong?and didnt have any hand in bankrupting the nation?back in the 2000's in my house leaflets were coming through the door of loan offers which was ridiculous..

ResearchWill

christmas2012 wrote: »

yeah i know the people werent acting responsible but back then the banks were giving out 100 % loans,to anyone and everyone,they should have excericised responsibility too..are you of the opinion the banks did no wrong?and didnt have any hand in bankrupting the nation?back in the 2000's in my house leaflets were coming through the door of loan offers which was ridiculous..

If the banks did not give the loan, then the house would not have been bought, then there would have been no house to reposses. So it would end in the same place.

mattjack

Christmas , the first 100% mortgages were issued in 2005.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1014/1224305758309.html

The Irish Times - Friday, October 14, 2011

During 2005, a number of banks and building societies introduced 100 per cent mortgages.

http://mortgages.blogs.ie/2007/07/15/getting-a-100-mortgage/

take a look at the criteria for 100% mortgage.

You're derailing a thread completely.

christmas2012

ya i said that was in the 2000's they were giving them out,they had brochures coming through the door every month nearly advertising for them..

ResearchWill

christmas2012 wrote: »

ya i said that was in the 2000's they were giving them out,they had brochures coming through the door every month nearly advertising for them..

This case involves a loan given by Ulster Bank, a bank that has received no funds from this country. They lent the money, who cares if it's 50% or 150% of the value of the home at that time, the person did not repay the money, so it's no longer their house. If you really care for this family buy the house and give it them.

mattjack

christmas2012 wrote: »

They were handing them out like candy in the late nineties and 2000's even after the crash bertie said everything was fine,and those who thought it wasnt should go kill themselves,his words exactly on rte news..100% loans were very common another thing that was common was shared loaning with the county council there are repossesions under this scheme too..

christmas2012 wrote: »

ya i said that was in the 2000's they were giving them out,they had brochures coming through the door every month nearly advertising for them..

Do you even read what you post ?

Fabi05

cgarrad wrote: »

No one knocked on my door in the last 10 years offering mortgages.

You have to go into the bank to get one.

People need to be responsible for their decisions and not blame others.

The banks have got paid for these mortgages.

Fabi05

ResearchWill wrote: »

This case involves a loan given by Ulster Bank, a bank that has received no funds from this country. They lent the money, who cares if it's 50% or 150% of the value of the home at that time, the person did not repay the money, so it's no longer their house. If you really care for this family buy the house and give it them.

It's not the banks house.It is a family home. Ulster Bank evicted this family. One of the children has special needs. Now, Sherry Fitz are seeking to make a quick buck from this.Disgusting.

Fabi05

Islander13 wrote: »

Nothing wrong with this in my opinion. If the family couldnt afford their repayments then unfortunately this is the consequence. Sad from a personal point of view I accept but debts need to be repaid

There is alot wrong with it. There is every possibility the banks sold on this mortgage.

ResearchWill

Fabi05 wrote: »

It's not the banks house.It is a family home. Ulster Bank evicted this family. One of the children has special needs. Now, Sherry Fitz are seeking to make a quick buck from this.Disgusting.

If you feel so disgusted then buy the house and give it to the family. It is ulster banks property, they lent money and took as security the title to the property.

While I feel for the family, what have you done to assist them, Ulster Bank are a lender not a charity.

ResearchWill

Fabi05 wrote: »

There is alot wrong with it. There is every possibility the banks sold on this mortgage.

The selling on of home loans was mostly done in the US, I know of no examples in Ireland, if you have an example or proof that this loan was sold off please post it. Even if the loan was sold on it does not take away from the fact that the money is owed.

Fabi05

Relevant to the discussion, Ulster Bank did admit to Securitisation.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/ulster-bank-reviews-securitised-mortgages-in-light-of-new-rules-3031363.html
Ulster Bank reviews 'securitised' mortgages in light of new rules

By Laura Noonan
Saturday February 25 2012
ULSTER Bank has launched a review to find out if the €4.4bn of mortgages that it has 'securitised' in off-balance sheet arrangements are likely to be adversely impacted by new personal-insolvency rules.

CEO Jim Brown confirmed the review to the Irish Independent this week but said it was too early to predict the kind of difficulties that the new rules could create for existing and future securitisation.

The news comes as ratings agency Fitch warned this week that the impact of the new rules on securitised mortgage debt "remains highly uncertain".

Securitisation allows banks to put their mortgages in a special entity and then sell bonds in that entity to new investors.

The investors essentially assume the risk of non-payment, although banks often pay an agreed 'first loss'.

Ulster is the largest mainstream player in the market, with €4.4bn of loans securitised and therefore kept off its balance sheet.

The Government is proposing new measures that would allow struggling homeowners to write off some of their mortgage loans by striking agreements with their lenders.

Asked what kind of impact this could have on securitisations, Mr Brown said the bank was "working through any potential impact now" by "carrying out a review based on the draft legislation".

Legislation

He declined to speculate on whether the new measures could force the bank to take back some of the mortgages it had securitised out or whether they would make future securitisation deals more difficult.

If there are implications, they could also affect the state-supported banks. Bank of Ireland has €3.5bn of securitised mortgages (though this also includes some UK loans) and AIB has €890m through subsidiary EBS.

On Monday, BoI chief Richie Boucher said that the new regime could make it harder for the bank to raise money through future securitisations, since mortgages would look riskier.

A senior banking lawyer this week said it was hard to imagine that the new regime could force banks to take securitisations back onto their balance sheets, since banks were typically protected from that kind of unforeseen hit.

In its dispatch, Fitch said: "The precise impact of debt forgiveness on Irish RMBS (securitisation) transactions remains highly uncertain."

Fitch went on to warn that the new regime could change both "borrower and lender behaviour", adding: "Any resulting increase in losses affects the structural workings of transactions."

When the Personal Insolvency Bill is published at the end of April, Fitch will then "consider" if the reforms "have an impact above" the losses that it has already pencilled in.

- Laura Noonan

cgarrad

Tesco sell food.

They push cheap poor quality food at low prices.

ITS STILL YOUR FAULT IF YOU GET FAT.

Take responsibility for you actions you fools.

ResearchWill

Fabi05 wrote: »

Relevant to the discussion, Ulster Bank did admit to Securitisation.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/ulster-bank-reviews-securitised-mortgages-in-light-of-new-rules-3031363.html
Ulster Bank reviews 'securitised' mortgages in light of new rules

Thanks for that I had no idea there was almost 10 billion in Irish loans where this happened.

Daisy03

I see nothing wrong with this. Banks usually give a family time to sort their finances and come to some arrangement. They don't take the house if one months payment is missed so this must have been going on for a while.

Who, OP do you suggest bails out this family? Taxpayers, the bank? People need to take responsibility for their OWN actions!

ResearchWill

Daisy03 wrote: »

I see nothing wrong with this. Banks usually give a family time to sort their finances and come to some arrangement. They don't take the house if one months payment is missed so this must have been going on for a while.

Who, OP do you suggest bails out this family? Taxpayers, the bank? People need to take responsibility for their OWN actions!

I have been in court when such orders have been given. In all cases no repayments in years not months. In all cases i saw the court put at least six month stays to try and pay or time to arrange other accommodation.

You are correct if the person does not pay, then who does. I would quite happily take a free house if anyone is offering.

kizzyf

Family home or not they hadn't made a repayment in years and then some people get involved at the last minute with ludicrous plans/ideas which were of no benefit to the owners. What's wrong with Sherry Fitz advertising the property. If they find a buyer then the sale proceeds will be applied to outstanding mortgage. Hopefully they make a good price for it. The family, if they have no other options have probably been rehoused by the Council at this stage and don't have the stress of this over them.

Fabi05

Daisy03 wrote: »

I see nothing wrong with this. Banks usually give a family time to sort their finances and come to some arrangement. They don't take the house if one months payment is missed so this must have been going on for a while.

Who, OP do you suggest bails out this family? Taxpayers, the bank? People need to take responsibility for their OWN actions!

In this case the sheriff who signed the order is the county registrar. This was shown to be not lawful. The home owner broke no law.The Irish constitution was violated in this case. It's all documented here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odX-oTdjIeI

Fabi05

kizzyf wrote: »

Family home or not they hadn't made a repayment in years and then some people get involved at the last minute with ludicrous plans/ideas which were of no benefit to the owners. What's wrong with Sherry Fitz advertising the property. If they find a buyer then the sale proceeds will be applied to outstanding mortgage. Hopefully they make a good price for it. The family, if they have no other options have probably been rehoused by the Council at this stage and don't have the stress of this over them.

Already potential buyers have turned away from buying it and SherryFitz and others will be hesitant to sell repossessed family homes. If you are happy with the Royal Bank of Scotland evicting Irish families shame on you.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

ResearchWill

Fabi05 wrote: »

In this case the sheriff who signed the order is the county registrar. This was shown to be not lawful. The home owner broke no law.The Irish constitution was violated in this case. It's all documented here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odX-oTdjIeI

There was no violation of the constitution in that case, the house was later repossessed, while I feel sorry for any person in that position, http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0317/1224313472769.html

These guys who give false hope to people with bad law and bad logic are either mad or bad.