Home Reposessed??

micbravo

Hi all...im currently way behind my mortgage payments (14 months) and kinda on my last chance with the bank...Realisticly il probably have my home reposessed in the next year..i am working but between all other bills and cost of just basicly living i cant afford my mortgage and by making deals with the bank i feel am just delaying the inevitable...SO i just thought id come up with this thread for people who have had their home reposessed and are waiting for,currently going through,or just finished all the legal stuff that follows reposession To share their stories/experiences to help others/myself who will or might have their home reposessed in the future....

donalg1

micbravo wrote: »

Hi all...im currently way behind my mortgage payments (14 months) and kinda on my last chance with the bank...Realisticly il probably have my home reposessed in the next year..i am working but between all other bills and cost of just basicly living i cant afford my mortgage and by making deals with the bank i feel am just delaying the inevitable...SO i just thought id come up with this thread for people who have had their home reposessed and are waiting for,currently going through,or just finished all the legal stuff that follows reposession To share their stories/experiences to help others/myself who will or might have their home reposessed in the future....

Sad to hear micbravo chin up.

youtube!

Very sorry to hear this OP, for what its worth I know 3 different couples (well two couples one singleton) and they are in the same boat. I didnt want to pry but I know for certain that one of the couples were many months behind and were paying nothing to the bank, however the last thing the bank wanted was to repossess so they came up with a mutual payment plan where they pay only as much as they can afford, in their case it is literally only 20% of the full mortgage payment and it is on a rolling basis reviewed every 3-6months,now this is way below even the interest portion of the loan and I was very surprised to hear the Bank have accepted it but apparently they will work with you if you are upfront with them. As for the other couple they have just resigned themselves to the process and are completely ignoring the bank,in a way though I can see why because they have emigrated so they just dont care about their house or credit rating in Ireland. The single girl I know of is also just paying what she can afford (I dont know how much that is to be honest) but she is way behind,no move from the bank on her as yet. My advice is if you have any interest in your home is to talk to the bank,the last thing they want is your house.

juanbob

hi just wondering about home repo im going through a very rough time here with my family we know the house is going to be reposessed,but when is the question a fella came to the door yesterday and new my name and the wifes name and was looking to see was the house occupied or vacant said he was from the bank is this a part of the reposession stage

Milk & Honey

juanbob wrote: »

hi just wondering about home repo im going through a very rough time here with my family we know the house is going to be reposessed,but when is the question a fella came to the door yesterday and new my name and the wifes name and was looking to see was the house occupied or vacant said he was from the bank is this a part of the reposession stage

Quite likely. If they are preparing for court they will have to swear an affidavit stating who is in the house.

D3PO

sorry ro hear that op but i must ask.why you are prioritiaing other bills over your mortgage ? im.pretty sure mabs and anybody else u contact will advise u to pay mortgage first and other bills after.

mickm86

does anyone know what exactly is involved in the repossesion process if both bank and home owner are in agreement?? thanks.

Procrastastudy

mickm86 wrote: »

does anyone know what exactly is involved in the repossesion process if both bank and home owner are in agreement?? thanks.

Bank sell you get nice big debt and no house. Speak to a solicitor before taking any action. You'll have to anyway in all likelihood due to requirements of independent advice.

cookie1977

Contact

http://www.newbeginning.ie/

ASAP and ask them to help. They're very busy but they prioritise cases depending on circumstances.

who_ru

there have been little or no repos thus far so why would anybody bother to make up arrears - i mean seriously why would you bother?

cookie1977

The IMF is applying pressure on the government to allow for more repossessions. They see it as a way of sorting out the economy and finally drawing a line under the banks bad loans. I would not ignore the situation but rather look at the options and see what's best for you. If going to the UK to live and declare bankruptcy is the best option then so be it but dont ignore the situation. seek advice.
Q2 2012

A total of 146 properties were taken into possession by lenders during the quarter, of which 44 were repossessed on foot of a Court Order, while the remaining 102 were voluntarily surrendered or abandoned.

http://www.centralbank.ie/press-area/press-releases/pages/residentialmortgagearrearsandrepossessionsstatisticsq22012.aspx

Q3 2012

A total of 154 properties were taken into possession by lenders during the quarter, of which 47 were repossessed on foot of a Court Order, while the remaining 107 were voluntarily surrendered or abandoned.

http://www.centralbank.ie/press-area/press-releases/Pages/MortgageArrearsandRepossessionStatisticsQ32012.aspx

Senna

How many PPR have been repossessed when the arrears only started in 2007/2008? My guess would be none. Its not in the banks interest, the owners are still liable for the debt and (as said above) even 20% of the mortgage is better than none. Reposes the house and the family have to pay rent somewhere else.

If I was in this position, I would be making payments of €100/€200 per month and my priority would be providing for my family rather than making payments to the bank.

cookie1977

The above states are ppr and not btl. Thhey're separate but are broken down on the site. They don't breakdown how long people were in arrears before proceedings were taken as far as I can see but I think it comes down to ability to repay long term wise. Details of those numbers in arrears and for how long can be seen here:

http://www.centralbank.ie/polstats/stats/mortgagearrears/Pages/Data.aspx

who_ru

there's safety in numbers out there, i read last week that 65,700 mortgages were in arrears of 90 days or more. That's a lot of mortgages.

i think the strategy from the Govt/Banks/NAMA point of view is that if repos happen it will be buy to let only initially.

only when totally forced to do so by the IMF will the Govt/Banks begin the long drawn out process of repos on main residences, but there will be no fire sales as the illusion of stable property prices and therefore stable loan books of the nationalised banks must be maintained at all costs.

it's all a delicate house of cards, the IMF have spotted the high court 'oversight' of preventing repos on pre 2009 mortgages and this now threatens the house of cards.

so the banks may reposes but i reckon NAMA will take over the repoed properties like it has done with 10,000's of other properties and restrict supply to the market, thereb y giving the illusion of rising or stable property prices when in fact the game is rigged.

Look at rents in Dublin - why doesn't NAMA release the apts it has in Dublin to ease the demand for accommodation?

high rents must be maintained to allow banks to keep money rolling in on BTL gaffs.

Tigger

who_ru wrote: »

there's safety in numbers out there, i read last week that 65,700 mortgages were in arrears of 90 days or more. That's a lot of mortgages.

i think the strategy from the Govt/Banks/NAMA point of view is that if repos happen it will be buy to let only initially.

only when totally forced to do so by the IMF will the Govt/Banks begin the long drawn out process of repos on main residences, but there will be no fire sales as the illusion of stable property prices and therefore stable loan books of the nationalised banks must be maintained at all costs.

it's all a delicate house of cards, the IMF have spotted the high court 'oversight' of preventing repos on pre 2009 mortgages and this now threatens the house of cards.

so the banks may reposes but i reckon NAMA will take over the repoed properties like it has done with 10,000's of other properties and restrict supply to the market, thereb y giving the illusion of rising or stable property prices when in fact the game is rigged.

Look at rents in Dublin - why doesn't NAMA release the apts it has in Dublin to ease the demand for accommodation?

high rents must be maintained to allow banks to keep money rolling in on BTL gaffs.

Well written post
The same applies on commercial properties I can't get my rent down even tho there are tens of suitable premises within 200m of my current location

The reason is Nama will not drop apparent value by renting out these units and would rather they rot than let me pay 10 - 15 thousand a year into what is basically the exchequer

lima

It's all your own fault Irish people, you need to pay as much as you can back as it's what you owe and it's your duty. Then, once you are able to you should resume paying back the rest of your agreed debt. Even if it takes your whole lifetime. Anyone who refuses to pay and sticks their head in the sand should leave Ireland and never come back.

themadchef

lima wrote: »

It's all your own fault Irish people, you need to pay as much as you can back as it's what you owe and it's your duty. Then, once you are able to you should resume paying back the rest of your agreed debt. Even if it takes your whole lifetime. Anyone who refuses to pay and sticks their head in the sand should leave Ireland and never come back.

How is the view from up there on that high horse of yours?

People in alot of countries are in alot of trouble, not just Ireland.

I love this recession for one reason. It has taught us the value of each other. The price we paid for bricks and mortar was high but the price of listening to people like you wag your finger for eternity is alot worse. We can never pay that back.

Probaby too young to get a mortgage and got away lucky...

I dont have a Celtic tiger mortage fwiw, but i pity those who do.

Back on your horse and stop picking over the bones of the aleredy broken.

Hope you have a lovely Christmas guys and dont let the begrudgers get yee down.

youtube!

I agree there will be no fire sales of distressed mortgages . Can you imagine if 67000 homes were repossessed? Property would be practically worthless and of course all these people also have to be rehoused if they are not in a position to buy another property due to the negative equity. Another massive bill the state can ill afford . It's not that the banks/government actually give a **** about your circumstance, it's simply about keeping some semblance of a housing market intact. If you are in trouble just play ball with your bank for as much as you are comfortable with , even if that is a token amount, it will give them a choice, and most likely that choice will involve you staying put.
If you have given up and want out then don't engage by all means but remember you still owe them if there is neg equity when you hand back your keys.
Think of it as a game if it makes it easier to comprehend , the banks must feel they are in control of the game , when you opt out they lose control, this is not what they want!
If you want to keep your family home you must engage!

youtube!

Mad chef, I am pretty sure Lima is taking the piss with his post ! He is not serious.

lima

youtube! wrote: »

Mad chef, I am pretty sure Lima is taking the piss with his post ! He is not serious.

I'm totally serious

who_ru

lima wrote: »

I'm totally serious

Find something better to do with your time.

lima

who_ru wrote: »

Find something better to do with your time.

Types like you destroyed the place in the first place.

People who took out mortgages were taking a risk. Risk works both ways - time for consequences. I'm sure you want the Quinns to pay back their debt so why not all you lot that inflated the country in the first place.

Repossessions need to happen. I'm on standby to buy my first home, hoping to get one of those repos, that's just the way the world works.

lima

who_ru wrote: »

there's safety in numbers out there, i read last week that 65,700 mortgages were in arrears of 90 days or more. That's a lot of mortgages.

i think the strategy from the Govt/Banks/NAMA point of view is that if repos happen it will be buy to let only initially.

only when totally forced to do so by the IMF will the Govt/Banks begin the long drawn out process of repos on main residences, but there will be no fire sales as the illusion of stable property prices and therefore stable loan books of the nationalised banks must be maintained at all costs.

it's all a delicate house of cards, the IMF have spotted the high court 'oversight' of preventing repos on pre 2009 mortgages and this now threatens the house of cards.

so the banks may reposes but i reckon NAMA will take over the repoed properties like it has done with 10,000's of other properties and restrict supply to the market, thereb y giving the illusion of rising or stable property prices when in fact the game is rigged.

Look at rents in Dublin - why doesn't NAMA release the apts it has in Dublin to ease the demand for accommodation?

high rents must be maintained to allow banks to keep money rolling in on BTL gaffs.

You are dead right, but the fact is this makes me sick to the stomach. It should function as normal capitalism and I should be able to get a big house for 70k. I want to buy now, but with restrictions like this it means that houses are artificially high, even at todays low low prices. Supply and demand needs to be normalised, not fixed.

youtube!

lima wrote: »

You are dead right, but the fact is this makes me sick to the stomach. It should function as normal capitalism and I should be able to get a big house for 70k. I want to buy now, but with restrictions like this it means that houses are artificially high, even at todays low low prices. Supply and demand needs to be normalised, not fixed.

Omg I thought you were doing your mario rosenstock impression with your quip!
People like you are scary! As a matter of interest where are you from? I wonder is it an east European country by any chance ?

Zamboni

I keep hearing this argument about the state will have to house all these evictees and it will cost a fortune blah, blah, blah but I've yet to see anyone put comprehensive figures on the scenario that would back it up.
Just because a mortgagee cannot afford mortgage repayments on celtic tiger houses does not equate to them not being able to afford rental payments.
Even if they take the negative equity with them, no court in this country will jail a single soul for non-payment of left over debt from a repossessed property.

There are unemployed people sitting in beautiful houses in locations in South East Dublin, that should really be sitting in apartments or corpo gafs west of the M50.
It sounds awful, but that is natural course of life.
The repossession moratorium is probably the worst economical decision made by a govt since the bank guarantee.

who_ru

Zamboni wrote: »

There are unemployed people sitting in beautiful houses in locations in South East Dublin, that should really be sitting in apartments or corpo gafs west of the M50.
It sounds awful, but that is natural course of life.
The repossession moratorium is probably the worst economical decision made by a govt since the bank guarantee.

it would happen almost everywhere else in the world. people must accept the reality of their new situation and that 'owning' something that cannot be paid for is not how things should work.

but this is Ireland, politicians are defined by cowardice and self interest.

khards

Zamboni wrote: »

I keep hearing this argument about the state will have to house all these evictees and it will cost a fortune blah, blah, blah but I've yet to see anyone put comprehensive figures on the scenario that would back it up.

Think of it like this. As long as the state does not get involved and transferrs the repossessed properties to NAMA then the supply of empty (newly repossessed) houses would match the rental demand on an almost 1 to 1 basis.
I can therefore conclude that property and rental prices would be brought down to a true market value which would be much cheaper than today.
If Rent Supplement was abolished at the same time then you might even end up saving the state money.
The only problem with the above is that it would more than likely collapse the banks, therefore the best time to enact a plan like this would be on the breakup of the currency.

lima

youtube! wrote: »

Omg I thought you were doing your mario rosenstock impression with your quip!
People like you are scary! As a matter of interest where are you from? I wonder is it an east European country by any chance ?

I am 100% from Dublin. I assure you this is my opinion. Recently returned to this island from living abroad most of the time you all thought you were rich. Like it or not you bought in a game and lost the game. Now I may have to help bail you out? I remember everyone in 2005 sneering at me because I wasn't interested in 'getting on the ladder'. Time to pay your debts people and let nature take its course.

Mrs OBumble

I wouldn't phrase it quite the same way, but I actually agree with Iima on a number of points.

Everything here seems to be someone else's fault - foreigners, culchies, politicians, the government, the church, the banks, the English, the Vikings, whoever.

Almost no one is expected to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions or decisions. And the bigger gombeen someone is, the more likely they will be elected to something.

Banks did not force anyone to sign mortgages. They offered excessive loan amounts and idiots took them. Non-idiots didn't (and yes, I've met more than a few people who tell of taking a far smaller amount than they were offered.)

Actions have consequences.

who_ru

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I wouldn't phrase it quite the same way, but I actually agree with Iima on a number of points.

Everything here seems to be someone else's fault - foreigners, culchies, politicians, the government, the church, the banks, the English, the Vikings, whoever.

Almost no one is expected to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions or decisions. And the bigger gombeen someone is, the more likely they will be elected to something.

Banks did not force anyone to sign mortgages. They offered excessive loan amounts and idiots took them. Non-idiots didn't (and yes, I've met more than a few people who tell of taking a far smaller amount than they were offered.)

Actions have consequences.

the reason this economy is in dire straits is mainly because of the deficit in current spending, the Govt is spending approx 1 billion euro more per month than is being collected in taxes. That over spend is going to pay many things, amongst them large public sector pay & pensions. If we had a deal on the promissory notes on Anglo/INBS we would still have a massive debt problem as a country and personnel debt levels would still be very high. Austerity wouldn't end because of a deal on bank debt.

The banks were also not forced to borrow the sums the did, the certainly didn't have the amount they loaned out on deposit. But they did quite deliberately over inflate the property market (100% mortgages, 10 x salary loans) etc to gain market share.

Now if you had a young family, stable job, required a home in 2002-2007 would you not have borrowed to buy a home. Answer is probably yes. Remember the vast majority of mortgages are not in arrears. The arrears crisis has got worse because the Govt/Banks refuse to address it.

so by taking out a mortgage it doesn't mean you are an idiot. Ireland still in 2012 has limited protection in law for renters. The rental sector here is dominated by amateur landlords who in the most part are clueless about the service they provide. Against that background the desire to own is understandable.

So many western countrries, Spain, Italy, UK, USA, Greece, Portugal, Belgium, France are experiencing the exact same thing as we are to a greater or lesser degree. We are not unique or alone. It's called capitalism and i don't know of an alternative that has worked yet.

yellowlabrador

I think one small thing can help bring rents down and also help landlords at the same time. If we move to the system seen in other parts of Europe, rentals are unfurnished. tenancies are for periods of 3 years, and renewable after that for either yearly or 3 yearly periods. The places are newly painted, often white, kitchens have a few presses and a sink, and are usually spotless. After that the tenant can redecorate to his taste and owns all furnishings. Landlords can then charge a lower rent and have lower expenses. The only thing that would stop that from happening is that the banks lose out.
When I lived abroad, I found that many people spent 10's of years in the same rental, it was home. Also you can downsize or upsize or move for your job, there are also no subsidies such as rent allowance. Rents are indexed and adjusted yearly. Landlords are in it for the long term.

Senna

One of the big advantages of renting, especially in the current job market, is renting leaves you highly mobile, allowing you to move with jobs. I think few people anywhere bar Dublin would want 3 year leases.

lima

themadchef wrote: »

Hope you have a lovely Christmas guys and dont let the begrudgers get yee down.

I'm not a begrudger by the way; I don't resent or envy all those stuck with NE, I'm just telling them they have a skewed sense of entitlement and took out loans entirely at their own will, on the pretense they would make money from it. And because bankers et al are cheating the system they feel they should cheat the system.

Sure there's big writing saying 'YOUR HOME IS AT RISK IF YOU DO NOT KEEP UP YOUR PAYMENTS' on your application forms... well folks, your home is now at risk, so if you stop paying your loans back then you deserve to get kicked out of your home and rent like people like me. It's the way the world works.

(Also, just so you know, I have mortgage approval, and a large deposit, so could buy if I wanted but I prefer to rent right now)

cookie1977

Good column today from McWilliams:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-mcwilliams/david-mcwilliams-mortgage-debt-deal-can-prevent-default-disease-from-spreading-3331455.html

Here's the deal. A large debt for equity swap needs to be done for the mortgages to prevent more arrears and defaults. If the ECB, which is proving itself much more inventive, can be convinced of the merits of this, we have a chance.

The banks take 50pc ownership of homes. These homes are sold in 20 years' time. The banks get paid then. In the meantime the people pay half the mortgage, which is affordable. They don't default now but get on with the business of living. The ECB takes as "collateral" the potential equity upside that banks are holding. In effect it gives the banks a price today on Irish houses which are not worth much today but will be in 20 years.

Jaysoose

lima wrote: »

I'm not a begrudger by the way; I don't resent or envy all those stuck with NE, I'm just telling them they have a skewed sense of entitlement and took out loans entirely at their own will, on the pretense they would make money from it. And because bankers et al are cheating the system they feel they should cheat the system.

Sure there's big writing saying 'YOUR HOME IS AT RISK IF YOU DO NOT KEEP UP YOUR PAYMENTS' on your application forms... well folks, your home is now at risk, so if you stop paying your loans back then you deserve to get kicked out of your home and rent like people like me. It's the way the world works.

(Also, just so you know, I have mortgage approval, and a large deposit, so could buy if I wanted but I prefer to rent right now)

Well are'nt you just great.

lima

Jaysoose wrote: »

Well are'nt you just great.

aren't, mate.

faceman

lima wrote: »

I'm not a begrudger by the way; I don't resent or envy all those stuck with NE, I'm just telling them they have a skewed sense of entitlement and took out loans entirely at their own will, on the pretense they would make money from it. And because bankers et al are cheating the system they feel they should cheat the system.

Sure there's big writing saying 'YOUR HOME IS AT RISK IF YOU DO NOT KEEP UP YOUR PAYMENTS' on your application forms... well folks, your home is now at risk, so if you stop paying your loans back then you deserve to get kicked out of your home and rent like people like me. It's the way the world works.

That's exactly what begrudgery is

There are big signs on the side of packets of cigarettes saying how smoking will kill you but that doesn't stop tax money being spent caring for people sick due to smoking related illnesses in hospital being cared for

As a nation we need to move away from that time of opinion of you got what was coming to you. We're human, we have only a few years in this world. People shouldn't be punished for mistakes indefinitely.

lima

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/begrudgery

Definitions
noun

(Irish, informal) resentment of any person who has achieved success or wealth

I think those people with massive debts would be begrudging me.

I do not envy their situation, I just feel that life is life and tough luck, we all make mistakes, but I don't want to pay for your mistake.

Ipso

faceman wrote: »

People shouldn't be punished for mistakes indefinitely.

But other people will be, any action not taken on reposessions and none payments to banks cost the taxpayer and its money diverted from other areas.

nacimroc

faceman wrote: »

That's exactly what begrudgery is

As a nation we need to move away from that time of opinion of you got what was coming to you. We're human, we have only a few years in this world. People shouldn't be punished for mistakes indefinitely.

But as well as the moral hazard of writing off debt or letting people live in houses for free, why would everyone else continue to struggle with their mortgage when others are being written down/off. I can see your point, but the alternative is a lot worse.

The principle of NAMA and drip feeding the property market is a good one, but nothing is happening. This inevitable disaster has to be dealt with. The banks need to repo more, NAMA needs to pick up the pace and stop holding too much back etc etc.

BUT..the public are the mortgage holders in question, the politicians are elected by these people and the people who would ordinarily force the government to deal with it (young mortgage free people) are gone. Nothing will happen until it all goes belly up!

faceman

Ipso wrote: »

But other people will be, any action not taken on reposessions and none payments to banks cost the taxpayer and its money diverted from other areas.

The banks have already written down the debtor assets on their books.

nacimroc wrote: »

But as well as the moral hazard of writing off debt or letting people live in houses for free, why would everyone else continue to struggle with their mortgage when others are being written down/off. I can see your point, but the alternative is a lot worse.

The principle of NAMA and drip feeding the property market is a good one, but nothing is happening. This inevitable disaster has to be dealt with. The banks need to repo more, NAMA needs to pick up the pace and stop holding too much back etc etc.

BUT..the public are the mortgage holders in question, the politicians are elected by these people and the people who would ordinarily force the government to deal with it (young mortgage free people) are gone. Nothing will happen until it all goes belly up!

Herein lies the issue. IMO there is greater moral hazard with doing nothing. We all pay insurance levys, health levys and our tax money goes towards services that most of us will hopefully, never need. However that doesnt justify removing that facility for those that need it, be it through someone accidentally or deliberately ending up in that position. We dont begrudge lung cancer treatment to smokers in the public health system.

Its in the government interest for Joe Public to turn on one another. We saw it with the whole public vs private sector debate and we are seeing it again now over the debt crisis. For as long as we quabble with one another over it, it detracts from the real issue and solutions

lima

nacimroc wrote: »

the people who would ordinarily force the government to deal with it (young mortgage free people) are gone. Nothing will happen until it all goes belly up!

True and I guess this is where my frustration come into it. I'm one of those people, who is back, but living among these other types of people (the majority of voters?) who expect to be bailed out by me.

faceman

lima wrote: »

I do not envy their situation, I just feel that life is life and tough luck, we all make mistakes, but I don't want to pay for your mistake.

You're not paying for their mistake.

lima

faceman wrote: »

You're not paying for their mistake.

Through taxes, blah

Ipso

faceman wrote: »

You're not paying for their mistake.

How not?

faceman

lima wrote: »

Through taxes, blah

But you're still not paying for their mistake. Thats a myth.

The banks, aided by a government supportive of fueling the property bubble, made credit and risk decisions without making adequate provisions against bad debt that had them loans on the strength of other loans being classed as assets. As the loans turned sour, and adequate capital wasnt available to cushion the bad debts, the banks became insolvent. The government issued a bank guarantee which we still have the honour.

In any other industry if a business becomes insolvent, they liquidate or whatever.

But the troika were of the view that the impact to the markets of a banking going under is far too catastrophic hence the banks were bailed out.

A condition of the bailout was that the banks had to write down their debtor assets to reflect reality. Those write downs were not passed on to the consumer.

Poor negotiation and awful economic planning has resulted in the government using increased taxes as a measure to fund the bank bailout. But that's a separate issue.

Ipso

The crisis in Ireland was caused by a few things: lack of understanding of basic maths, confusing debt with wealth and the inability to elect capable leaders amongst them.
Failure to allocate blame correctly will only set the country up for more failure in future.

nacimroc

faceman wrote: »

Herein lies the issue. IMO there is greater moral hazard with doing nothing. We all pay insurance levys, health levys and our tax money goes towards services that most of us will hopefully, never need. However that doesnt justify removing that facility for those that need it, be it through someone accidentally or deliberately ending up in that position. We dont begrudge lung cancer treatment to smokers in the public health system.

Your not comparing like with like. Health service is for the greater good of everyone. Writing off investment debt only benefits the select few people who invested and failed and was discretionary spending. It is not their choice to gamble with our money. Making them debt free whilst the rest of us remain to struggle makes no sense.

To be honest, the "them versus us" is all their fault. I'm not attacking them out of spite as I do empathise, but the people in trouble act as if they are entitled to write offs etc. The "screw the f**kin banks" attitude is just screwing the taxpayer and makes us jump to the other side of the fence and resist any help we would give! We are generally a caring society, but when they put the banks on the other side of the ring they are alienating us.

lima

faceman wrote: »

But you're still not paying for their mistake. Thats a myth.

The banks, aided by a government supportive of fueling the property bubble, made credit and risk decisions without making adequate provisions against bad debt that had them loans on the strength of other loans being classed as assets. As the loans turned sour, and adequate capital wasnt available to cushion the bad debts, the banks became insolvent. The government issued a bank guarantee which we still have the honour.

In any other industry if a business becomes insolvent, they liquidate or whatever.

But the troika were of the view that the impact to the markets of a banking going under is far too catastrophic hence the banks were bailed out.

A condition of the bailout was that the banks had to write down their debtor assets to reflect reality. Those write downs were not passed on to the consumer.

Poor negotiation and awful economic planning has resulted in the government using increased taxes as a measure to fund the bank bailout. But that's a separate issue.

The banks are nationalised, they are owed money by people who are not paying their mortgages. The government loaned money to the banks, out of tax money. I pay tax.

faceman

nacimroc wrote: »

Your not comparing like with like. Health service is for the greater good of everyone. Writing off investment debt only benefits the select few people who invested and failed and was discretionary spending. It is not their choice to gamble with our money. Making them debt free whilst the rest of us remain to struggle makes no sense.

Fwiw, my view applies to those who purchased property as a home, the PPR. Investment property is a different matter

faceman

lima wrote: »

The banks are nationalised, they are owed money by people who are not paying their mortgages. The government loaned money to the banks, out of tax money. I pay tax.

We'll never see eye to eye on the issue but I respect your opinion on the matter.