Should people be evicted from houses they cant afford?

space_man

In light of the comments by the Department of Finance's Secretary General John Moran that many people are living in houses and are refusing to pay or are unable to pay the debt o/s, is he correct and should the banks get tougher on them?

Should they not be made to move to a more modest adode?
Will is cost us too much to evict them?
Where does your sympathy lie?

admiralofthefleet

taxpayers bail out the banks

the very same banks then crucify the taxpayers when they cant afford their mortages

Ireland

Richard Hillman

Yes but they should be bumped to the front of the queue for council housing.

COYVB

Banks should be legally obliged to renegotiate mortgage repayments with the people in question

admiralofthefleet

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Yes but they should be bumped to the front of the queue for council housing.

finish off the ghost estates around the country and give them on a rent to buy scheme

SEPT 23 1989

Taxpayer pays on the double

COYVB

Mr.S wrote: »

if the bank is willing

That shouldn't come into it these days. They should be forced, by law, to renegotiate it given the things that have gone on in the last few years

galwayrush

It will probably cost more to rehouse people in council houses. Wonder who picks up that bill?

Grayson

COYVB wrote: »

Banks should be legally obliged to renegotiate mortgage repayments with the people in question

yep. There are cases of people who have lost jobs etc who are unable to pay. Those guys I feel sorry for.

There are people who just over extended by getting a morgage too high on a house they couldn't really afford, that is now in negative equity. Not really feeling that sorry for those guys.

And then there's people with investment houses. No real sympathy for them at all.

But either way, all groups signed up to a legal agreement. So I think they should still be liable for the amount. the banks should just do their best to insure that they are given a chance to pay it.

FloatingVoter

I'd like a ten bed mansion with a seafront view and a heated indoor swimming pool. Damn, I can't afford it so its not to be. This is called reality.
If someone is in one and they can't afford it what makes them different to me.

Richard Hillman

galwayrush wrote: »

It will probably cost more to rehouse people in council houses. Wonder who picks up that bill?

The houses are already built. If we evicted problem families from estates more often then it would free up houses for people who cant afford their mortgages and it would increase the living standards in a lot of places.

Pilotdude5

Yes. Why should the rest of us pay for peoples houses? Because of their gamble to get on the "property ladder" other peoples lives have been destroyed.

Its not like everyone who bought property in the boom years were living in overcrowded squalor, and so moving to a new house was not a necessity. Just a luxury.

Madam_X

Not if they are paying as much as they can.

Ten-bed mansion with pool bla bla - at least use a realistic analogy. There are people who bought a three-bed modest semi-detached house in non expensive areas and they were in full-time employment and now their hours have been cut. This is likely the most common scenario. What relevance has "mansion" talk to them?

COYVB

FloatingVoter wrote: »

I'd like a ten bed mansion with a seafront view and a heated indoor swimming pool. Damn, I can't afford it so its not to be. This is called reality.
If someone is in one and they can't afford it what makes them different to me.

Perhaps they could afford it before the banks screwed the Irish people over, and now due to the cutbacks and austerity measures that were caused by said bank shenannigans, they're finding themselves unable to afford the repayments? In this case, there should be a fully means tested renegotiation on the mortgage to arrive at a figure they can afford, and one that's revisited again in 5 years. The bank took a calculated risk giving these people mortgages, then (however unintentionally) bent the country over and royally screwed it. They should be forced to suck it up and take a hit for a few years in certain cases.

Not in all however. If someone has 3 homes then any renegotiations should only be available for a single one and they should lose the others if they can't afford them. In fact renegotiations should ONLY be on the table if they agree to cut the others

COYVB

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

Why should the rest of us pay for peoples houses?

We shouldn't. The ones who caused the problems by handing out stupid mortgages should be the ones paying

Fr_Dougal

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Yes but they should be bumped to the front of the queue for council housing.

Why? What makes them more deserving?

Pilotdude5

COYVB wrote: »

We shouldn't. The ones who caused the problems by handing out stupid mortgages should be the ones paying

Yes the banks are definitely at fault too, no doubt about that.

But look at this young fella: (An actor I know, but represents a the youth of 5 years ago.)

Did he need a 100% mortgage just to "have a place he can call his own"? And thus consider himself "successful" while looking down on others who continued to rent?

Zamboni

COYVB wrote: »

We shouldn't. The ones who caused the problems by handing out stupid mortgages should be the ones paying

Why? - Were they forced to sign the contracts and accept the money under duress?

COYVB

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

Did he need a 100% mortgage just to "have a place he can call his own"?

He certainly did not, but the banks did their damnedest to make everyone in the country feel like that was the case

Gatling

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Yes but they should be bumped to the front of the queue for council housing.

So what people who actually couldn't afford a real house ,and didn't play keeping up with the Jones by paying stuiply over inflated prices on a house ,shouldnt be punished by been bumped own the list for peoples Who get evicted for not paying the mortgage ,some people probably can't but there are some holding out for a debt write down or the new insolvency laws ,
They want on the housing list they apply and go to the bottom where everyone else has to go when they apply for housing

COYVB

Zamboni wrote: »

Why? - Were they forced to sign the contracts and accept the money under duress?

See this post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83595215&postcount=15

Zamboni

COYVB wrote: »

See this post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83595215&postcount=15

I did. It doesn't answer the question.

COYVB

Zamboni wrote: »

I did. It doesn't answer the question.

It does actually. Nobody forced anyone to sign, no more than they forced the banks to offer mortgages. Both sides took a risk, one side crippled the country ensuring that the majority of the country now earns less than they did 5 years ago. That side should be forced to take a temporary hit for their actions and renegotiate mortgages with people who are unable to afford the previously agreed ones because of the other party's actions. It's quite simple. The banks have been supported an astronomical amount by the taxpayer, time for them to return the favour - at least temporarily

Grayson

COYVB wrote: »

Perhaps they could afford it before the banks screwed the Irish people over, and now due to the cutbacks and austerity measures that were caused by said bank shenannigans, they're finding themselves unable to afford the repayments? In this case, there should be a fully means tested renegotiation on the mortgage to arrive at a figure they can afford, and one that's revisited again in 5 years. The bank took a calculated risk giving these people mortgages, then (however unintentionally) bent the country over and royally screwed it. They should be forced to suck it up and take a hit for a few years in certain cases.

Not in all however. If someone has 3 homes then any renegotiations should only be available for a single one and they should lose the others if they can't afford them. In fact renegotiations should ONLY be on the table if they agree to cut the others

I'm actually ok with this. the only thing i don't like seeing (not that you said it) is when i see that government money should be used.

If a renegotiation takes place, and the buyer is still paying back the full amount, I'm ok with that.

Herb Powell

Madam_X wrote: »

Not if they are paying as much as they can.

Ten-bed mansion with pool bla bla - at least use a realistic analogy. There are people who bought a three-bed modest detached house in non expensive areas and they were in full-time employment and now their hours have been cut. What relevance is "mansion" talk here?

People love to talk tough and smug.

I say renegotiate the mortgages. There's so many people in the same boat, it's just silly to evict people on prinicple.

Grayson

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

Yes the banks are definitely at fault too, no doubt about that.

But look at this young fella: (An actor I know, but represents a the youth of 5 years ago.)

Did he need a 100% mortgage just to "have a place he can call his own"? And thus consider himself "successful" while looking down on others who continued to rent?

he's unemployed in it too. Shure anyone can get a morgage.

Zamboni

COYVB wrote: »

It does actually. Nobody forced anyone to sign, no more than they forced the banks to offer mortgages. Both sides took a risk, one side crippled the country ensuring that the majority of the country now earns less than they did 5 years ago. That side should be forced to take a temporary hit for their actions and renegotiate mortgages with people who are unable to afford the previously agreed ones because of the other party's actions. It's quite simple. The banks have been supported an astronomical amount by the taxpayer, time for them to return the favour - at least temporarily

But you don't want them to return the favour to the taxpayer - you want them to give it to mortgage holders.
In this great scheme of yours - what about the renting taxpayers - do they get their tax back too?

COYVB

Grayson wrote: »

If a renegotiation takes place, and the buyer is still paying back the full amount, I'm ok with that.

Yup, when I say renegotiation, I'm not saying the value of the mortgage decreases, I'm saying that the monthly payment decreases, but the length increases

smileyj1987

Mr.S wrote: »

Yes.

If you can't afford it then you shouldn't be let live there. (Obviously the option of renegotiating the mortgage should happen first, if the bank is willing).

They should be made renegotiate the mortgage the people of this country bailed them out so they should be helping people who need it now .

COYVB

Zamboni wrote: »

But you don't want them to return the favour to the taxpayer - you want them to give it to mortgage holders.
In this great scheme of yours - what about the renting taxpayers - do they get their tax back too?

You seem to think I'm saying the home owners would have to pay back less money than the agreed sum - I'm not saying that at all. They'd have to pay back exactly what was agreed, but they'd be able to renegotiate monthly payments for extending the duration of the mortgage. Nobody gets anything back, or any reductions, they're just helped to make things manageable instead of making them homeless

Zamboni

COYVB wrote: »

You seem to think I'm saying the home owners would have to pay back less money than the agreed sum - I'm not saying that at all. They'd have to pay back exactly what was agreed, but they'd be able to renegotiate monthly payments for extending the duration of the mortgage. Nobody gets anything back, or any reductions, they're just helped to make things manageable instead of making them homeless

You do know what happens to interest when you extend a term, yes?
You are just kicking the can down the road.

COYVB

Zamboni wrote: »

You do know what happens to interest when you extend a term, yes?
You are just kicking the can down the road.

And again, that's why I said it would be a renegotiation revisited in 5 years. If you're assuming that things will never pick up again in Ireland, then that's fine, but the likelihood is that they will at some point. Do you not think what I'm suggesting is preferable to making countless families homeless, in turn putting even bigger strain on the state, rather than having the banks do a bit of legwork to reduce payments temporarily?

Boskowski

Of course they should be evicted.

I know we are in a poor economic climate and all that, but the reality is entering a mortgage contract always meant you have to pay for your house or else. Why should it be any different now?

I know there'll be a lot of people trotting out the 'no fault of their own', 'most vulnerable', 'bankers got bailed out' bladibla bull.
I really don't know how that makes a difference though. Losing your job would always have been a possibility, good economy or bad, and a lot of people not only didn't think of a fallback plan for that eventuality but actually stretched themselves to the max and beyond. I fail to see why my tax money should make up for their shortfall.

Plus a lot of people are just riding that train now cos they bought a house that was too expensive for them in the first place and they thought the expected value increase would make up for that. So now their houses haven't increased in value as they thought it would and they're thinking they're going to get away with the 'I have fallen on hard times' line. In reality they just don't want to pay whats now a sizable chunk of their income and they feel they should be entitled to buy a new car for that money instead.

Faolchu

I'd love a fireman red ferrari I can't aford it so I don't get it. I wanted a 4bed detached home I couldn't afford it I didn't get it.
I wanted a two week holiday in the bahamas, I could afort it so I settled for a week in majorca. If they can't keep up the payments then turf them out, they signed a legally binding contract and you'd nbe damn sure if the banks didn't keep up their side of the deal the home owner would want action so why shouldn't the bank be the same.

Also all these evictions all happen after the renegotiations have failed. In most instances the bank played ball and the homeowner didn't keep up their side of the deal. Fup 'em let them live on the street

earlyevening

COYVB wrote: »

Do you not think what I'm suggesting is preferable to making countless families homeless, in turn putting even bigger strain on the state, rather than having the banks do a bit of legwork to reduce payments temporarily?

Homeless? a strain on the state?

Why can't the vast majority of them just enter the private rented sector?

People aren't going to be on the streets if their houses are repossessed.

Homelessness is not defined by not owning a house.

Pilotdude5

Grayson wrote: »

he's unemployed in it too. Shure anyone can get a morgage.

Need a place to get laid? Buy a house!

beefstew

The banks need to talk to these people in debt and renegotiate the terms of the mortgage. If someone can't afford to pay all their mortgage, they should be forced to pay what they can and review it every year until their situation improves. A little money is better than no money, what are the banks going to do if they start repossessing houses. There's so many out there, they won't be able to sell them. I can't understand why they won't do this, it seems very simple perhaps.

galwayrush

Faolchu wrote: »

I'd love a fireman red ferrari I can't aford it so I don't get it. I wanted a 4bed detached home I couldn't afford it I didn't get it.
I wanted a two week holiday in the bahamas, I could afort it so I settled for a week in majorca. If they can't keep up the payments then turf them out, they signed a legally binding contract and you'd nbe damn sure if the banks didn't keep up their side of the deal the home owner would want action so why shouldn't the bank be the same.

Also all these evictions all happen after the renegotiations have failed. In most instances the bank played ball and the homeowner didn't keep up their side of the deal. Fup 'em let them live on the street

What a noble sentiment.:rolleyes:

COYVB

Boskowski wrote: »

I fail to see why my tax money should make up for their shortfall.

It shouldn't. They should have to pay back everything they owe in the end

clairefontaine

Let's say they do evict people and reposess homes?

What the hell are they going to do with all of them? It's not like anyone can buy them?

Will there be a land grab by foreign investors?

COYVB

earlyevening wrote: »

Why can't the vast majority of them just enter the private rented sector?

Because rental prices have gone through the roof since nobody wants to buy

galwayrush

COYVB wrote: »

It shouldn't. They should have to pay back everything they owe in the end

They could go bankrupt in the UK , after one year and they don't legally owe anything anymore.

Boskowski

clairefontaine wrote: »

Let's say they do evict people and reposess homes?

What the hell are they going to do with all of them? It's not like anyone can buy them?

Will there be a land grab by foreign investors?

Someone will once the price is right. It's whats called the market adjusting itself. Only our government tries everything to prevent that from happening.

What's a 'landgrab' anyway? I always thought foreign investment is what everyone desperately wants for this country?

earlyevening

COYVB wrote: »

Because rental prices have gone through the roof since nobody wants to buy

Still lower than what the mortgage repayment was.

space_man

COYVB wrote: »

We shouldn't. The ones who caused the problems by handing out stupid mortgages should be the ones paying

yes but we (you, me and every taxpayer) now own those stupid banks!
shouldn't people take responsibility for their decisions however stupid:eek:

Boskowski

COYVB wrote: »

We shouldn't. The ones who caused the problems by handing out stupid mortgages should be the ones paying

And the ones seeking out stupid mortgage contracts have no responsibility at all? Were they all lemmings?

Legs.Eleven

This is what they've been doing here in Spain and there's been a couple of cases of suicide since. People have been protesting and the banks have put a freeze on evictions for the time being, which is great news and an example of how people power can really work.

I used to teach one of the head honchos in the credit dept of a large Spanish bank and he was completely heartless about the evictions - he didn't give even the slightest ****. I gave up that class as a result after having a go at him (it was preemptive, I probably would've got fired anyway). While I don't blame the banks 100%, a large proportion of the responsibility lies with them when they gave mortgages to people they knew couldn't afford them.

Provisions have to be made right now while times are tough for people - they can't just be thrown out onto the street. It's completely inhumane.

clairefontaine

Boskowski wrote: »

Someone will once the price is right. It's whats called the market adjusting itself. Only our government tries everything to prevent that from happening.

What's a 'landgrab' anyway? I always thought foreign investment is what everyone desperately wants for this country?

As far as I am aware, realtors and sellers are only accepting cash purchases. Even if banks are lending out mortgages, I'm not sure who would take them, so who is going to sell? How would the banks actually sell off all these houses?

Since there is hardly any lending in the country, and sellers want cash, obviously the only people who can buy are people outside the country.

landgrabbing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_grabbing

clairefontaine

If they are going to evict and reposess, they should reimburse all the money already paid by the home owner.

They need to take some responsibility for this financial horror.

COYVB

Boskowski wrote: »

And the ones seeking out stupid mortgage contracts have no responsibility at all? Were they all lemmings?

They have the responsibility to pay back every penny owed, which they would. It's just that they'd have the opportunity to restructure their mortgage temporarily to allow them to make ends meet in the meantime. They'd still pay back every penny owed, plus additional interest. I fail to see how evicting them is preferable to that

Gatling

So home owners should be absolved of any blame ,