Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Are people fooled by this.

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    No they are not even if that is what you wish to believe. There are people out there who knew post the 2011 decision that their home couldn't be repossessed and thus chose to take a punt that if they didn't repay their mortgage in full they would get some kind of debt relief.
    The new conveyancing act having been well signposted, and the decisions in Moran v AIB, McEnery v Sheahan etc already diminished the import of Gunn. So that's not credible.

    And if I am wrong and that were credible, then we should expect the arrears problem as mentioned to be almost completely addressed, therefore a non issue. And those who can afford it will just go back paying and strategic defaulters will disappear.

    But of course, I'm not wrong and that isn't going to happen

    The fact is there are people on interest only who have the mental capacity to recognize the impossibility of their situation and the pointlessness of paying interest on an unsustainable mortgage, regarding which a bank refuses to negotiate.

    They save their money and prepare for D Day. Or they hope for a miracle. Or whatever. Who cares. As the legal positivists will remind us ad nauseum, banks, although nationalized or mostly nationalized, are entitled to maintain their private corporate identity and exercise their legal rights.

    It is only correct and proper that mortgagees - including those who no longer wish to honour their debts, such as the SBP lady - make sensible, and calculated decisions in kind.


  • Options
    #63
    Roger_007
    Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    No they are not even if that is what you wish to believe. There are people out there who knew post the 2011 decision that their home couldn't be repossessed and thus chose to take a punt that if they didn't repay their mortgage in full they would get some kind of debt relief.

    The banks have appointed thousands of rent receivers in the buy-to-let market, and a rent receiver suggests in the majority of cases that strategic default was happening, otherwise why incur the costs of appointing the receiver?

    Rents were being diverted, offshore in the case of one landlord interviewed in the SBP a couple of weeks back, because she thought she might get away with it for a while and was ultimately resigned to the fact her buy-to-lets would be sold off.

    Yes, the majority of cases are hard cases, yes the majority of cases should be dealt with in good faith, but to pretend that there is no one out there dealing with the banks in bad faith is just not true. They may be a minority but the certainly do exist.
    One of the factors that is preventing any rational debate about this issue is in using terms like 'eviction' and 'being left homeless' conjure up images of families being thrown on the side of the road with their meagre possessions. This image goes back to the great famine and is very emotive for Irish people.
    The truth is that nobody will be left homeless. There is more than enough houses in the country to house everyone and the housing supports available will ensure that everyone has a decent place to live.
    Some people may lose what they perceive to be 'ownership' of the homes they now live in. In fact they don't really own these houses at all if they cannot comply with the terms of their mortgages. They agreed when they took out their mortgages that in the event of defaulting on the loan the asset, (against which the loan was secured), would pass to the ownership of the lender.
    If it becomes an established principle that the 'family home', (another unfortunate term), effectively cannot be used as an asset against which a loan is secured, then the whole lending landscape will change. Any loan to buy a 'family home' will be have to be an unsecured loan which will have interest rate far in excess of any current mortgage rate.
    This will have a devastating effect on the next generation of borrowers. The clamour for debt-forgiveness and write-offs etc. is very popular in the short term, but is anyone thinking of the longer term?


  • Options
    #64
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    It is only correct and proper that mortgagees - including those who no longer wish to honour their debts, such as the SBP lady - make sensible, and calculated decisions in kind.

    I cannot categorize refusing to pay debts that you can afford to pay as only correct and proper. Our morality and view of legal obligations differs widely here when there are people selling everything they can, downsizing, scrimping and saving and working long hours to pay down the loans that they took out while others hope for a free ride.


  • Options
    #65
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    I cannot categorize refusing to pay debts that you can afford to pay as only correct and proper. Our morality and view of legal obligations differs widely here when there are people selling everything they can, downsizing, scrimping and saving and working long hours to pay down the loans that they took out while others hope for a free ride.
    I would agree there is a general moral obligation to pay their debts.

    But that obligation is contingent upon some process by which a creditor will engage when a debt is unsustainable.

    I stated at the outset that my problem is with the unrealistic approach being taken by the banks whereby banks are not engaging with customers on write downs. Write downs are, and ought to be, a normal feature of the commercial landscape.

    The idea that householders and families in their homes ought to be less eligible for debt renegotiation than firms is a view that derives, in part, from the householder's relative vulnerability to pursuit.

    If the banks are willing to make legal hay out of the householder's position, the householder is left with little option but to exercise and promote and aggressively promote his rights to the letter of the law.

    People can't have it both ways. You can't argue for the banks pursuing debtors using every legal/regulatory route available to them, and simultaneously press the householder on his morals.


  • Options
    #66
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    People can't have it both ways. You can't argue for the banks pursuing debtors using every legal/regulatory route available to them, and simultaneously press the householder on his morals.

    I'm not, I'm fully in favor of split mortgages for people in difficulty repaying, I am just against people choosing not to pay.

    The banks are now offering deals, the banks are now engaging (well, maybe one norther European owned bank aside) so this is no longer a suitable.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Murt10
    Registered Users Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Murt10


    I was thinking about these strategic defaulters with the money in the bank, refusing to pay their mortgage.

    I wonder are the bank telling the full story or are they hiding behind weasel words (and lies).

    In order to be considered for any type of a reprieve on what their mortgage, the borrowers are surely going to have to show that they cannot afford the repayments. If they have more than their arrears on deposit, they won't have a snowballs chance of doing this. It just wouldn't make sense.

    I wonder if it's Mammy and Daddy, who signed on as guarantor for Junior when s/he was taking out the mortgage, that are the ones with the money in the bank. Junior can no longer make the repayments, and the parents, despite the fact that they were coerced by Junior to sign as guarantor, and who promised them that it was only just signing a bit of paper and would never be used, do not feel that they should be liable for his debts.

    As guarantor they would be jointly liable with the borrower for the debt.

    The whole thing could be further complicated because Junior and his partner are no longer a couple.

    Bad enough to be asked to pay off your own childrens loans, but ex boyfriend/girlfriend. F*** That!


  • Options
    #68
    jamaamaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 956 ✭✭✭jamaamaj


    Valetta wrote: »
    Going to college is a privilege, not a right.

    Paying your mortgage is an obligation, not a choice.

    And also banks taking money from the average joe over mortgag's is a obligation in this state (even thought we own the banks)
    How did we get in this situation? oh yeah the banks playing god.


  • Options
    #69
    Dogdaysareover
    Closed Accounts Posts: 48 ✭Dogdaysareover


    techdiver wrote: »
    Then you should surrender the asset that you are not paying for and cut your cloth to suit your means.

    If I stopped paying rent to save for college fees, I would be out on my ear pretty quick. Why should "home owners*" be treated any different?


    * Home owners are not "owners" until their last mortgage payment is received and the deeds handed over by the bank.

    It's amazing the amount of bottom feeders that represent the banks but pretend to be ordinary citizens that frequent boards.....I'm amazed it's allowed to be honest???


  • Options
    #70
    Dogdaysareover
    Closed Accounts Posts: 48 ✭Dogdaysareover


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    As long as you understand that every euro not paid back comes out of everyone else's pocket one way or the other.:(

    As long as its Richie Bouchers pocket that's ok....that scumbag can afford it....as can Duffy as can the rest of the "Bankers" that we heard from during the week....


  • Options
    #71
    techdiver
    Registered Users Posts: 3,089 ✭✭✭techdiver


    Dogdaysareover wrote: »
    It's amazing the amount of bottom feeders that represent the banks but pretend to be ordinary citizens that frequent boards.....I'm amazed it's allowed to be honest???

    I've nothing to do with the banks except for my tax money being used to prop them up.

    I just didn't over extend myself and expect to retain an asset whilst not paying for it.

    As I said previously, if i stopped paying my rent, I'd be out on my ear.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Dogdaysareover wrote: »
    It's amazing the amount of bottom feeders that represent the banks but pretend to be ordinary citizens that frequent boards.....I'm amazed it's allowed to be honest???

    It's amazing how many people just can't imagine anyone disagreeing with them unless they're being paid to do so.

    Noting your accusations of shilling and use of 'scumbag', it's also amazing how many people apparently don't bother to read the forum charter before posting. Please do so.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #73
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    I'm not, I'm fully in favor of split mortgages for people in difficulty repaying, I am just against people choosing not to pay.
    And what about banks that won't offer a split mortgage?

    Do you think there are rakes of householders in arrears refusing banks pleas to accept split mortgages or something?

    Come on. If someone is being offered interest only, for a debt they cannot repay, and who fears the bank is just biding its time to repossess, what do you suggest that person does?

    Keeps paying interest with no security whatsoever?

    Can people grow up please? This is gone beyond a farce. Very often, strategic default seems like the only sensible option.


  • Options
    #74
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »


    It is only correct and proper that mortgagees - including those who no longer wish to honour their debts, such as the SBP lady - make sensible, and calculated decisions in kind.


    In other words, they make arrangements to hide money from the taxpayer-owned banks and therefore increase the burden on the ordinary taxpayer in order to enrich themselves.


  • Options
    #75
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Come on. If someone is being offered interest only, for a debt they cannot repay, and who fears the bank is just biding its time to repossess, what do you suggest that person does?

    Keeps paying interest with no security whatsoever?

    Isn't the insolvency process there to deal with such cases? If so, the person concerned can make their case and seek to resolve their situation.


  • Options
    #76
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Godge wrote: »
    In other words, they make arrangements to hide money from the taxpayer-owned banks and therefore increase the burden on the ordinary taxpayer in order to enrich themselves.
    The people that I am talking about are "hiding" nothing from the bank; David Duffy raised the issue of householders placing their money in full view of the banks.

    I am talking about people who recognize that they cannot pay the outstanding capital due on their mortgages. Fine. They now wish to undergo the normal legal arrangements in relation to their contracts.

    It is the height of stupidity to go above and beyond one's contractual obligations when the banks says it will not renegotiate a mortgage, and there is an eviction looming.

    If the banks do not have a moral duty to renegotiate debts beyond their contractual obligations, then I don't see that householders have any extra-contractual obligations of a moral nature.
    View wrote: »
    Isn't the insolvency process there to deal with such cases? If so, the person concerned can make their case and seek to resolve their situation.
    http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/latest-news/thousands-wont-be-able-to-afford-debt-deal-fees-29565771.html

    Also, some people misunderstand the personal insolvency and the role of the courts in protecting creditors, to the point where people have fallen into the mistaken view that there is some guarantee of settlement which does not depend on the banks opinion. Badly wrong. For PIAs, the insolvency arrangement mostly just formalize what already happens in rare cases.


  • Options
    #77
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    The people that I am talking about are "hiding" nothing from the bank; David Duffy raised the issue of householders placing their money in full view of the banks.

    I am talking about people who recognize that they cannot pay the outstanding capital due on their mortgages. Fine. They now wish to undergo the normal legal arrangements in relation to their contracts.

    It is the height of stupidity to go above and beyond one's contractual obligations when the banks says it will not renegotiate a mortgage, and there is an eviction looming.

    If the banks do not have a moral duty to renegotiate debts beyond their contractual obligations, then I don't see that householders have any extra-contractual obligations of a moral nature.


    In not paying their mortgage as contracted, they are in breach of their contract so how can you say that they are meeting their contractual obligations.


  • Options
    #78
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Godge wrote: »
    In not paying their mortgage as contracted, they are in breach of their contract so how can you say that they are meeting their contractual obligations.
    They are not. They cannot perform, therefore they await the normal legal processes as provided for in the contract and at statutory law.


  • Options
    #79
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    They are not. They cannot perform, therefore they await the normal legal processes as provided for in the contract and at statutory law.


    No, no, no, the primary contractual obligation is to pay the mortgage.

    There is provision to enforce the contract in the event of non-payment, that is not the same as saying they are in compliance with the contract.

    That is like a bank saying in respect of a deposit-holder who wishes to withdraw money from an account: "We acknowledge we have your money and that we owe it to you but you have to sue us to get it back".


  • Options
    #80
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Godge wrote: »
    No, no, no, the primary contractual obligation is to pay the mortgage.
    Yes, and when you can't perform (i.e. repay your debt), there are provisions for that eventuality laid down in the contract, constrained by statutory law.
    That is like a bank saying in respect of a deposit-holder who wishes to withdraw money from an account: "We acknowledge we have your money and that we owe it to you but you have to sue us to get it back".
    If a bank cannot or will not return the deposit in full, then yes, the depositor must sue or make a relevant insurance claim. He doesn't jump the counter.

    The depositor has no God given right to get his money back without going through these procedures. Likewise, when a mortgagee cannot or will not pay a mortgage, he and the bank have to go through the contractual and legal processes as established. Very easy.


  • Options
    #81
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Yes, and when you can't perform (i.e. repay your debt), there are provisions for that eventuality laid down in the contract, constrained by statutory law.
    .


    Can't or won't?

    If you are putting money away somewhere else, then you are not in the position of being unable to pay which is exactly the case we are talking about.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Godge wrote: »
    Can't or won't?

    If you are putting money away somewhere else, then you are not in the position of being unable to pay which is exactly the case we are talking about.

    I believe duffys point was they had (or could have) money set aside, possibly saved up while times were better.

    Not that they were purposely putting it away, rather than pay the arrears.

    So not exactly the case we're talking about. Im open to correction though.


  • Options
    #83
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Banjo String wrote: »
    I believe duffys point was they had (or could have) money set aside, possibly saved up while times were better.

    Not that they were purposely putting it away, rather than pay the arrears.

    So not exactly the case we're talking about. Im open to correction though.

    Doesn't matter, if they have arrears and money put away, they fit the category of won't pay rather than can't pay.

    The rest of us, those paying our mortgages having run down our savings and paying our taxes are subsidising the won't pay brigade.


  • Options
    #84
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    In respect of the people I am discussing, it tends to be both can't and won't.

    Can't pay a mortgage, can't negotiate a settlement, won't hand over interest payments for an un-payable debt.

    If anyone claims that they would continue paying interest payments on a mortgage as the sheriff loomed, they're either completely thick or dishonest.

    I suppose you'd ask the sheriff for a lift to the bank on his way back to town, so as you could hand over your latest installment as well?


  • Options
    #85
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    COYW wrote: »
    Plenty of people out there love this kind of guff OP. It absolves them of any wrong doing. It is also the brand of victim politics that SF excels in and have mastered over the past few decades in Northern Ireland.
    This.

    Many people are suffering financially, either through their own fault or not, and naturally would much rather not pay the money they owe. A politician giving them validation on how they're morally entitled not to is inevitably going to garner their support and, potentially, votes.

    Mystery solved.


Advertisement