repossessions, what happens then?

AltAccount

gaius c wrote: »

Because they would be feeding off a person's emotional attachement to the property they live in to make financial judgements that favour the bank and harm their own circumstances. And that person is unlikely to have independent advice to point out their options.

Why not? What are you basing this on?

Jose1

AltAccount wrote: »

The rest of your post is just an ill-informed rant which doesn't answer the OP's question whatsoever.

In much the same as the middle part of yours:rolleyes:

For the record, I initially answered the OP's question in the best way possible. I then went on to express my personal view, ie rant to you!

What is the harm in doing that?

In the free world it's called discussion in your world it is obviously called something else. Lighten up dude:o

AltAccount

Jose1 wrote: »

In much the same as the middle part of yours:rolleyes:

For the record, I initially answered the OP's question in the best way possible. I then went on to express my personal view, ie rant to you!

What is the harm in doing that?

In the free world it's called discussion in your world it is obviously called something else. Lighten up dude:o

That's all well and good, but the question wasn't "what do you think of banks?", but "what will happen to mortgage shortfalls?".

TBH, I'm all for a good discussion, but we only got as far as post 3 before it degenerated into "De Big Bad Bankers, Dey're EVIL Joe, EVIL!"

Jose1

AltAccount wrote: »

That's all well and good, but the question wasn't "what do you think of banks?", but "what will happen to mortgage shortfalls?".

TBH, I'm all for a good discussion, but we only got as far as post 3 before it degenerated into "De Big Bad Bankers, Dey're EVIL Joe, EVIL!"

A question for the Mods - Is this guy the forum police:rolleyes:

AltAccount

Jose1 wrote: »

A question for the Mods - Is this guy the forum police:rolleyes:

You asked me a direct question with your post, which I answered with my reasoning for my tone of reply.

I'm just trying to help the OP with replies based on facts/experience. You're trying to drag me into something else.

I'm done here.

gaius c

AltAccount wrote: »

Why not? What are you basing this on?

Well, they'll be short of cash and unlikely to afford such independent advice and various parties claiming to offer assistance (New Beggings, etc) may have agendas of their own.

Hopefully somebody like MABS will be resourced sufficiently to be able to help people who need a non-VI to go through their options with them.

Boskowski

bbsrs wrote: »

Off topic a bit but was discussing this earlier with friends and a question popped up no one had an answer for , maybe someone here can answer. If the bank sell a repossessed house could somebody buy the house and let the person that lost the house live in it.for instance if a wealthy parent bought the house for a fraction of the mortgage debt and left their son or daughter rent it from them , is that legally possible?
Edit, just to add eventually the house could be willed to the sor or daughter who by the then should be released from bankruptsy. Would that also be legally possible?

Theoretically yes I'd say but in practice it would smell like fraud.

First of all you'd have to be legitimately broke. Quite unlikely if you had generous parents who're only waiting to buy that house back for you at a discount price.

But on the surface it sounds technically possible.

gaius c

Not only could it happen, it already has happened.

nino1

to answer the op, you cannot get blood from a stone so there would be little point persuing the owner for the balance.
If they are in a bad enough situation that the house has to be repossessed then they would have no means of paying the shortfall.
And if they came into money in the future there are creative ways of not letting the bank know about it.

fliball123

nino1 wrote: »

to answer the op, you cannot get blood from a stone so there would be little point persuing the owner for the balance.
If they are in a bad enough situation that the house has to be repossessed then they would have no means of paying the shortfall.
And if they came into money in the future there are creative ways of not letting the bank know about it.

Sorry but there needs to be a move away from this debt forgiveness..These people bought the house its on them. Ireland has too much off a hand out society its time people learned that they must be accountable for their own actions and the money tree known as the tax payer which is constantly cherry picked to cover everything including unmarried mothers some of whom will never work and will never bother to chase the kids fathers, spongers on the dole some of whom will never work a day in their lives , a public sector some of which is grossly overpaid and some of which is not fit for purpose. The tax payers money tree has had all of its fruit picked, the branches plucked and the tree itself has been cut down for timber.. We can not afford to take on any one elses or anymore debt.

A sensible approach would be to organise a life insurance policy and mortgage repayment that sits at a % of the individuals income for the rest of their lives ..Such as 33%..

This gives them 67% of whatever thy earn to live and if they have a life insurance policy it means the bank gets the rest of their cash when this person dies.

if the person earns more they can pay more..

gaius c

nino1 wrote: »

to answer the op, you cannot get blood from a stone so there would be little point persuing the owner for the balance.
If they are in a bad enough situation that the house has to be repossessed then they would have no means of paying the shortfall.
And if they came into money in the future there are creative ways of not letting the bank know about it.

If it comes to that, they are better off going for PIP and getting the debt completely off their backs. Split mortgages and all these other creative solutions are designed to keep the debt with the debtor.

Bear in mind the age profile of those in trouble. Over 60% of the people talking to MABS are in the 41-65 age bracket. They don't have time on their sides to both repay the debt and make provisions for their retirements. A large proportion of them need to accept short term pain in exchange for longer term relief.

bbsrs

fliball123 wrote: »

A sensible approach would be to organise a life insurance policy and mortgage repayment that sits at a % of the individuals income for the rest of their lives ..Such as 33%..

This gives them 67% of whatever thy earn to live and if they have a life insurance policy it means the bank gets the rest of their cash when this person dies.

if the person earns more they can pay more..

That's not sensible , all that would do is take away what ever will anyone had to work and most people with mortgages are workers . Your sensible plan would just increase the amount of people on the dole and living in social housing long term.

fliball123

bbsrs wrote: »

That's not sensible , all that would do is take away what ever will anyone had to work and most people with mortgages are workers . Your sensible plan would just increase the amount of people on the dole and living in social housing long term.

How do you figure that out? Its their debt they give a % its up to them if they want to pay more. It also leaves them enough to live off and if they get work or more hours or a job that pays more then their standard of living goes up. So it actually incentivises you to earn more money as % stays the same regardless of how much you earn..and the better part is its not thrown onto the tax payer

bbsrs

fliball123 wrote: »

How do you figure that out? Its their debt they give a % its up to them if they want to pay more. It also leaves them enough to live off and if they get work or more hours or a job that pays more then their standard of living goes up. So it actually incentivises you to earn more money as % stays the same regardless of how much you earn..and the better part is its not thrown onto the tax payer

Someone lost their job and lost their house as a result, you want them to pay 33% of whatever they earn ,after tax i presume ,for the rest of their lives and live off the remaining 67% . So say the get a job paying €400 per week after deductions minus 33% leaves €277 I say they would be more likely to stay on the dole forever and get a social house at that rate especially if they have kids. Even if they got a job paying net €600 minus 33% they would still be more likely to stay on state support, there would be no sizeable financial incentive for them to work IMO.

fliball123

bbsrs wrote: »

Someone lost their job and lost their house as a result, you want them to pay 33% of whatever they earn ,after tax i presume ,for the rest of their lives and live off the remaining 67% . So say the get a job paying €400 per week after deductions minus 33% leaves €277 I say they would be more likely to stay on the dole forever and get a social house at that rate especially if they have kids. Even if they got a job paying net €600 minus 33% they would still be more likely to stay on state support, there would be no sizeable financial incentive for them to work IMO.

Yes I do, why should I have to forgo more and more in taxes and cuts in order to cover this persons loses, its getting to the point (and with nett 30 - 40k people leaving this country) that it is no longer worth while working in this country.

Well think about that situation..If they lost the house it has been sold so the debt is cut straight away and yeah if they get social housing so be it if they get the dole take 33% off for paying their debt.

You seem to forget that they had no problem paying the mortgage up until they lost the job and had no problems with the terms or conditions aswell as the length of time that they were on the hook for the property. As I say they made the choice and I didnt so why should my standard of living drop even further to cover this.

bbam

I have to laugh when the old nugget is thrown out that people took out mortgages and they have to carry the can now no matter what...

My sister works in the bank and worked there all through the "boom". She says that the pressure within the banks to get mortgages out to people was incredible. They were directed to "fluff" over earnings, exaggerate bonus etc.. They had agreed people who would go out and value a property at whatever was suggested by the bank in order to give out a mortgage. All this was in order to secure as much commission sales for the branch as possible... Now in my mind there were two parties involved in the dance regarding these mortgages, now that they are in trouble the bank has as much responsibility as the holders. And by extension the tax payer may have to cough up for the shortfall..

I can't understand why people are happy to see a developer have say a €20M debt written off... But the thoughts of 100 mortgage holders having €100,000 each written off is unpalatable to them.

fliball123

bbam wrote: »

I have to laugh when the old nugget is thrown out that people took out mortgages and they have to carry the can now no matter what...

My sister works in the bank and worked there all through the "boom". She says that the pressure within the banks to get mortgages out to people was incredible. They were directed to "fluff" over earnings, exaggerate bonus etc.. They had agreed people who would go out and value a property at whatever was suggested by the bank in order to give out a mortgage. All this was in order to secure as much commission sales for the branch as possible... Now in my mind there were two parties involved in the dance regarding these mortgages, now that they are in trouble the bank has as much responsibility as the holders. And by extension the tax payer may have to cough up for the shortfall..

I can't understand why people are happy to see a developer have say a €20M debt written off... But the thoughts of 100 mortgage holders having €100,000 each written off is unpalatable to them.

Sorry but I dont think you will find any who are happy to any developer off the hook but the fact is the tax payer cannot suffer any more debts that are not theirs

bbam

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry but I dont think you will find any who are happy to any developer off the hook but the fact is the tax payer cannot suffer any more debts that are not theirs

Well like it or not.
When we went gung ho into baling out the banks we became part and near full owners of the whole wasps nest. Debts and all.

fliball123

bbam wrote: »

Well like it or not.
When we went gung ho into baling out the banks we became part and near full owners of the whole wasps nest. Debts and all.

Sorry we dont own all of the banks..We own a small % of BOI and a larger one of AIB ... As I say regardless the mortgages should be taken on an individual basis and the person who signed on the dotted line ultimately made the decision to buy..

I guarantee you if the tax payer had turned and told the home owner during the boom that sorry you made 100k on selling that house we want part of the profit there would of been outrage..

I understand people seeing banks and others in the higher echelons being let off and there needs to be a push on that aswell...But letting everyone who cant or does not want to pay their mortgage of the hook is simple taking debts from one section in society and passing it to others...My solution is simple they pay a % and it incentivises the person to earn more..


I hope that no one gets debt forgiveness in this country as if they do in 10/20 years times the mistakes that were made will be made again

bbsrs

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry we dont own all of the banks..We own a small % of BOI and a larger one of AIB ... As I say regardless the mortgages should be taken on an individual basis and the person who signed on the dotted line ultimately made the decision to buy..

I guarantee you if the tax payer had turned and told the home owner during the boom that sorry you made 100k on selling that house we want part of the profit there would of been outrage..

I understand people seeing banks and others in the higher echelons being let off and there needs to be a push on that aswell...But letting everyone who cant or does not want to pay their mortgage of the hook is simple taking debts from one section in society and passing it to others...My solution is simple they pay a % and it incentivises the person to earn more..


I hope that no one gets debt forgiveness in this country as if they do in 10/20 years times the mistakes that were made will be made again

No one who took out a mortgage signed anything saying if the failed to meet repayments the tax payer would have to foot the bill. Your gripe should be with the government who decided the people pick up the tab for the banks wrecklessness.

hmmm

bbam wrote: »

But the thoughts of 100 mortgage holders having €100,000 each written off is unpalatable to them.

Sure, but why are people who bought property special? When we're finished paying off their debts we should compensate people who bought shares in "blue chip" companies. And anyone with a pension that has lost money. Then we should compensate the Quinns with a few billion. And what about the people who lost their jobs? They deserve to have the salaries they would have earned paid to them as a big lump sum. Naturally anyone whose salary is cut is going to get a payoff too.

When we're finished doling out the few hundred billion on people who lost out in the aftermath of the boom, if there's anything left over we can spend it on schools and hospitals.

realitykeeper

Obviously repossessions are good and necessary. Only then can the houses be sold at their true value to those who were sensible by saving their money as opposed to rewarding irresponsible people who over borrowed. The failure of repossessing properties is a form of protectionism and it will only make a bad situation worse in the long term. For example, people who are buying houses now think they are buying at the bottom of the market which is tragic because when the double dip comes (and it will) they too will find themselves in negative equity. Those who were prudent enough to save during the celtic tiger years are now falling for part 2 of the house price scam.

fliball123

bbsrs wrote: »

No one who took out a mortgage signed anything saying if the failed to meet repayments the tax payer would have to foot the bill. Your gripe should be with the government who decided the people pick up the tab for the banks wrecklessness.

Regardless of this with the way things have panned out that is the effective result of allowing people away with mortgage debt. I agree I am angry the government are using the tax payer as a stop gap and I would like them to turn debts back to where they belong..to the people who got some value for the money that they got a loan off... It wasnt just the banks who were reckless. In all of the arguments the mortgage holders are blaming the banks, the banks are blaming the mortgage holders and the fecking tax payer is the poor fecker in the middle waiting for the bill..This should not be the case

Mr.Micro

hmmm wrote: »

Sure, but why are people who bought property special? When we're finished paying off their debts we should compensate people who bought shares in "blue chip" companies. And anyone with a pension that has lost money. Then we should compensate the Quinns with a few billion. And what about the people who lost their jobs? They deserve to have the salaries they would have earned paid to them as a big lump sum. Naturally anyone whose salary is cut is going to get a payoff too.

When we're finished doling out the few hundred billion on people who lost out in the aftermath of the boom, if there's anything left over we can spend it on schools and hospitals.

Indeed. I bought an older rural property, had to, and had to put a load of my own cash into getting it reasonable....it will never be a new house. I did not borrow, but I, like many others now pay the price for the excess of others, in that the value of my house has plummeted. I am sick hearing about those with a mortgage who think it is only them who lost/ are losing out and still expect to keep the house and get debt forgiveness.

gaius c

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Indeed. I bought an older rural property, had to, and had to put a load of my own cash into getting it reasonable....it will never be a new house. I did not borrow, but I, like many others now pay the price for the excess of others, in that the value of my house has plummeted. I am sick hearing about those with a mortgage who think it is only them who lost/ are losing out and still expect to keep the house and get debt forgiveness.

Have a read of this. She doesn't seem too concerned about losing the properties. She just doesn't want to pay the debt and is stockpiling the rent elsewhere.