Evictions

What is your take on all the shenanigans going on with arrears and evictions?
Should people not paying be turfed out like renters are or are you one of the anti eviction brigade?

Some stuff
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland/nearly-100-000-mortgages-in-arrears-by-over-three-months-1.1503525

100,000 mortgages in arrears over 3 months (renters would be long kicked out at this stage)

http://www.centralbank.ie/press-area/press-releases/Pages/ResidentialMortgageArrearsandRepossessionsStatisticsQ22013.aspx

At end-June 2013, 57,163 PDH accounts, or 7.4 per cent of the total stock, were in arrears of over 360 days

Maybe these are the smarter people - go a year without payin your mortgage, save up and flee the country!! You could save alot of money. Imagine a year rent free/mortgage free

Gee Bag

This might sound crazy but maybe, just maybe, some people aren't paying their mortgage because they can't afford to pay

Retrovertigo

Crazy thing about it is homeowners don't rent.

Stuff like law and stuff.

Cookie_Monster

Gee Bag wrote: »

This might sound crazy but maybe, just maybe, some people aren't paying their mortgage because they can't afford to pay

some probably, but I reckon far more than people think are using it as an excuse.

dobman88

If they don't pay, kick them out. I can't afford to pay rent every week but I still do. Do you think my landlord would say ah your grand, you can't afford it. I don't need the money to pay bills or anything myself!! Kick them out!!!!

This might sound crazy but maybe, just maybe, some people aren't paying their mortgage because they can't afford to pay

LOL at that. If they can't afford it, that's their own problem, not the lenders.

Mr.Fred

dobman88 wrote: »

LOL at that. If they can't afford it, that's their own problem, not the lenders.

LOL at that (As you put it) The lenders have to cover the debt and then attempt to recover the debt if the borrower defaults.

A costly affair for a bank. Unless of course you're an Irish bank sure then we'll cover it.

dobman88

Mr.Fred wrote: »

LOL at that (As you put it) The lenders have to cover the debt and then attempt to recover the debt if the borrower defaults.

A costly affair for a bank. Unless of course you're an Irish bank sure then we'll cover it.

So you're saying if people don't pay their mortgage it's grand? They shouldn't be kicked out?

AudreyHepburn

Gee Bag wrote: »

This might sound crazy but maybe, just maybe, some people aren't paying their mortgage because they can't afford to pay

Of course, that's true. So you go to your bank/mortgage provider and try to work out a different arrangement.

You can't just refuse to pay. You made an agreement, you can't refuse point blank to honor it and hope the bank, who did not drag you kicking and screaming to make that agreement by the way, go away.

That said I do think more people are just using it as an excuse than genuinely can't afford it.

AnonoBoy

Remember in Monopoly you could mortgage houses? I never got that bit of the game at all when I was a kid. Still don't really.

In fact the whole game used to bore me. I'd hate at Christmas when the family would rope me into playing it.

So when this mortgage crisis started my initial reaction was just "Oh can't we pay Trivial Pursuits instead?"

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Gee Bag wrote: »

This might sound crazy but maybe, just maybe, some people aren't paying their mortgage because they can't afford to pay

Then they should get out of the house that they cant afford.
If I cant afford a holiday I don't get one, If I cant afford to eat in fine restaurants, I don't go there, yet these chancers think they have a right to live in a house they cannot afford and they expect the rest of us to pick up the tab.

NuckingFacker

I'm obviously out of touch as I didn't even know Big Brother was back on. New series is it?

kneemos

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Then they should get out of the house that they cant afford.
If I cant afford a holiday I don't get one, If I cant afford to eat in fine restaurants, I don't go there, yet these chancers think they have a right to live in a house they cannot afford and they expect the rest of us to pick up the tab.

You'll pay either way if they become homeless.
Its a community problem whichever way you look at it.

worded

Socialise my loses and privatise my profits.

We all know people who are chancing their arm on this one and more are jumping on the band wagon in the hope of a few 12 x mthly mortgages FOC and maybe a loss write down.


An intelligent fellow in the OH work announced he was stopping paying his mortgage with he in full employment 3 years ago. I thought he was mad and it turns out he will almost def be better off doing it.

Where does this all end with more and more people following suit ?

Irish companies are v slow to pay their debts dragging out credit terms when compared with other countries. Looks like the general public are following suit.

Kick the can down the road but where is this going to end?

Banjo String

As a bit left leaning this is a tough one.

They should really go in and establish the can't pays from the won't pays.

The first to go after initially would obviously be the landlords with multiple properties, those with buy to let gaffes that aren't performing etc.

The problem then being what to do with any possible families that are renting said properties? House them at the states expense?

Then there's ordinary decent single property owners, who bought a house as a home, not to add to a portfolio, or as something to flip later. Eviction here should be absolute last resort, if an option at all. Especially if they've merely fallen on hard times, lost jobs etc through no fault of their own.

Again, eviction leaves the state the responsibility of housing them, at a cost to the tax payers.

We the tax payers bailed out the banks after all. Now the bank wants to bail some of these people out of their homes. That's the unfair bit.

kneemos

kneemos wrote: »

You'll pay either way if they become homeless.
Its a community problem whichever way you look at it.

Yes its a community problem, the banks will need more money if the arrears continue to worsen (Japan had this problem from their bubble bursting in 1991 took over 10 years for the arrears to build up and cause the banks to need a second bail out).

Though if they were evicted they would likely be renting somewhere smaller freeing up the house for sale for people who can afford to pay for it.

100,000 mortgages is 100,000 properties held back from market redistribution. That in itself is a community issue, there has to be something unfair about someone who gets more than others without paying for it.

ArmaniJeanss

kneemos wrote: »

You'll pay either way if they become homeless.
Its a community problem whichever way you look at it.

True and no-one is suggesting people get turfed in the street.
However I resent paying for their large detached property in a salubrious area.
But am content to pay for their more functional corporation built terraced home in a cheaper area.

Crooked Jack

dobman88 wrote: »

If they don't pay, kick them out. I can't afford to pay rent every week but I still do. Do you think my landlord would say ah your grand, you can't afford it. I don't need the money to pay bills or anything myself!! Kick them out!!!!



LOL at that. If they can't afford it, that's their own problem, not the lenders.

Sounds like you can indeed afford to pay rent every week.

BeerWolf

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Sounds like you can indeed afford to pay rent every week.

Oxymoron much?

Crooked Jack

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Sounds like you can indeed afford to pay rent every week.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=86397627

not everyone can - where are the anti eviction crowd for renters?

nelly17

The evections would cause a problem in themselves if we end up having a ****load of properties hitting tha market in a short space of time - could destroy any green shoots of recovery.

chopper6

Gee Bag wrote: »

This might sound crazy but maybe, just maybe, some people aren't paying their mortgage because they can't afford to pay

Well they should never have bought if they cant afford to pay.

A mortage is probably the most significant loan anybody will ever draw down...you need to stress test your circumstances for teh next 25 years or so in order to see if it's affordable.

The fact is that most of these people in arrears didnt buy property to live in,they bought it to sell on at a profit and it typically irish way they no longer want to pay back what they consider to be a losing bet.


Pay up or get out...the bank owns the property until the day of the last payment and people have no right to think otherwise.

Banjo String

Banjo String wrote: »

We the tax payers bailed out the banks after all. Now the bank wants to bail some of these people out of their homes. That's the unfair bit.

The banks were bailed out because of bad debts or bad investments.
Insisting that mortgages be written off as further bad investments is going to lead to... more bail outs.
It has nothing to do with fairness. They shouldn't have been bailed out in the first place, but insisting they get deeper into debt and worse positions thereby possibly needing further bail outs (start as you mean to go on wha) makes absolutely no sense.

padraig.od

nelly17 wrote: »

The evections would cause a problem in themselves if we end up having a ****load of properties hitting tha market in a short space of time - could destroy any green shoots of recovery.

Why?

Cheaper housing leaves more disposable income, which can be spent in the general economy, rather than shoveled into banks.

Why is it, in the mind of the general public, that the high prices housing = GOOD, yet high price everything else = BAD. I don't get it.

nelly17

Further deepening the Negative equity crisis

chopper6

nelly17 wrote: »

Further deepening the Negative equity crisis

Negative equity is a chimera...it is only an issue if you're trying to sell.


If you could afford to pay 500k for a hovel five years ago then it doesnt matter what it's worth now,you still owe the balance of the 500k.

mad turnip

I'm looking forward to it, I'll be entering the property market soon and house prices are going to drop as soon as all these houses hit the market!

nelly17

Yes it will be a good think for those who were smart enough to hold off over the last few years.

the butcher

nelly17 wrote: »

The evections would cause a problem in themselves if we end up having a ****load of properties hitting tha market in a short space of time - could destroy any green shoots of recovery.

Disappointed to see someone passing 'Fianna Fail economics 101'.

nelly17

chopper6 wrote: »

Negative equity is a chimera...it is only an issue if you're trying to sell.


If you could afford to pay 500k for a hovel five years ago then it doesnt matter what it's worth now,you still owe the balance of the 500k.

True you still owe the balance but if you bought your first home not 5 but 8 or 9 years ago you are still most likely in negative equity and a lot of people are probably in a position where they now have families and would like to trade up but can not do so as while the banks have been given instructions to provide credit for First Time Buyers and people trading up, there is still a massive hole to fill as a result of the bubble that was created.

This would not have been the case in the past to quite the same extent.

nelly17

nelly17 wrote: »

The evections would cause a problem in themselves if we end up having a ****load of properties hitting tha market in a short space of time - could destroy any green shoots of recovery.

True, if we can put a floor under house prices, demolish some of the vacant housing (proposed demolistion of 200,000 properties has been suggested) then finally we can get some builders back to work solving the unemployment crisis and the economy will take off like a rocket

Retrovertigo

Deleted User wrote: »

100,000 mortgages is 100,000 properties held back from market redistribution. That in itself is a community issue.

What community has 100,000 houses?

hawkelady

chopper6 wrote: »

Well they should never have bought if they cant afford to pay.

A mortage is probably the most significant loan anybody will ever draw down...you need to stress test your circumstances for teh next 25 years or so in order to see if it's affordable.

The fact is that most of these people in arrears didnt buy property to live in,they bought it to sell on at a profit and it typically irish way they no longer want to pay back what they consider to be a losing bet.


Pay up or get out...the bank owns the property until the day of the last payment and people have no right to think otherwise.

Well the first sentence you spouted is completely flawed !!

If you believe what you just said then when anyone went for a mortgage the bank manager could have just asked if you can afford the house if you were earning €200 / week (dole)

People got mortgages on what they were earning at the time and they thought their jobs were secure!! No one expected the amount of jobs that were lost ..
So think before you type

Dravokivich

nelly17 wrote: »

The evections would cause a problem in themselves if we end up having a ****load of properties hitting tha market in a short space of time - could destroy any green shoots of recovery.

The property market was over valued 5 years ago and it still is today.

chopper6

hawkelady wrote: »

Well the first sentence you spouted is completely flawed !!

If you believe what you just said then when anyone went for a mortgage the bank manager could have just asked if you can afford the house if you were earning €200 / week (dole)

People got mortgages on what they were earning at the time and they thought their jobs were secure!! No one expected the amount of jobs that were lost ..
So think before you type

As my Old Dad used to say...

"You know what Thought did?...."Pissed in the bed and Thought you were sweating"

nelly17

The property market was over valued 10 years ago - but people still jumped in because they had to it was and still is either jump on or rent

Dravokivich

nelly17 wrote: »

The property market was over valued 10 years ago - but people still jumped in because they had to it was and still is either jump on or rent

So why do you seem to be in favour of maintaining it? Your earlier post seemed to be rather paniced and gave a doomsday feel to the idea of mass lots of property being placed onto the market.

Retrovertigo

Dravokivich wrote: »

The property market was over valued 5 years ago and it still is today.

5 years ago means nothing compared to now. Quite easy to buy a 3 bed semi detached in Dublin for less than 200k.

Compared to a 3 storey, 10 room Georgian building in the 90's for 40k.

Banjo String

chopper6 wrote: »

Well they should never have bought if they cant afford to pay.

A mortage is probably the most significant loan anybody will ever draw down...you need to stress test your circumstances for teh next 25 years or so in order to see if it's affordable.
.

If only everyone had a crystal ball eh?


If someone had every eventuality covered to insure that could pay the mortgage for the next 25 years or so, they'd probably need the price of the house in the bank/in a sock under the bed etc.

That post might just come across as a little bit condescending.

chopper6

Banjo String wrote: »

If only everyone had a crystal ball eh?


If someone had every eventuality covered to insure that could pay the mortgage for the next 25 years or so, they'd probably need the price of the house in the bank/in a sock under the bed etc.

That post might just come across as a little bit condescending.

I cant understand why people *didn't* cover every eventuality berfore they bought or borrowed...ffs it's a 25-30 year bank loan for hundreds of thousands of quid...what did they think it would be okay if they lost their jobs,they could flip the property for a profit?

keeponhurling

Could it be a solution to allow banks to repossess any house that is in arrears for, say over 3 months with this condition? -

the condition is that they must provide alternative, basic alternative accomodation. Therefore they can sell off expensive saleable houses to people who are working and can afford it.

For instance, I don't see any problem with the bank removing a family of 4 with no income from a 5-bedroom house in Blackrock, to a 3-bedroom house in Wicklow. Even ghost estate could be considered.
The family doesn't stay in the place they cannot afford. Similarly they are still provided with a place to stay, that they cannot afford, but the bank loses less.

That may free up some properties and prices may fall somewhat from the current artificial high.

keeponhurling

chopper6 wrote: »

what did they think it would be okay if they lost their jobs,they could flip the property for a profit?

Sadly yes.
Remember the phrase "Property Ladder"?

shruikan2553

I thought when you choose to take out a mortgage you make an agreement with the bank that they will give you the money and you pay it back plus interest over a time period. If you fail to do this the property may be taken away from you.

If you agreed to this then you cant complain. The most you can expect is the bank may let you pay less each month for longer but if you just stop payments and decide **** it then you should just be thrown out, if you dont try to deal with the bank why should they try to deal with you.

BlackWizard

Indecision is costing

super_furry

What do people want here really? Is there the expectation that they be given a house for free?

SafeSurfer

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That said I do think more people are just using it as an excuse than genuinely can't afford it.

Do you honestly think that the majority of people in mortgage arrears can afford to make their mortgage payments but have decided not to?

Have you any basis for this belief? Even the banks analysis estimates strategic defaulters at around 20%.

Banjo String

chopper6 wrote: »

I cant understand why people *didn't* cover every eventuality berfore they bought or borrowed...ffs it's a 25-30 year bank loan for hundreds of thousands of quid...what did they think it would be okay if they lost their jobs,they could flip the property for a profit?

Chopper this might come as a shock to you, so you might want to sit down and prepare yourself.

Just maybe they didn't envisage ever losing their jobs?

Your original post stated that people taking out a mortgage should make provisions for something maybe down the line, they can't see coming. Mortgage insurance?

What is wrong with them leaving the house and renting somewhere else, a mortgage that you are not paying does not entitle you to stay in a house without having to pay for it. What`s wrong with throwing them out on their ear and injecting some personal responsibility back into Irish society?

Some people bought tiny apartments/unsuitable crappy houses for over half a million euros. They neutered themselves and willingly crippled their disposable income for their working lifetime. Darwinism in action. Weeding out the idiots.

whiskeyman

super_furry wrote: »

What do people want here really? Is there the expectation that they be given a house for free?

Obviously people really didnt think they'd lose one or both jobs in the household, so repayment is neigh on impossible.
The situation in Kanturk mentioned they offered to pay €400 pm but the bank refused - I find this hard to believe and surely the bank should compromise in this situation. The banks got enough support from the Government, so this support has to come back around. You'd hope that when (if!) the employment situation picks up, the household income will increase and more repayments can be made.
If it's found that the people are making zero attempt to pay / are recklessly spending elsewhere, these are the ones who should be turfed out.
Apparently there's many high incomes earners who are well able to pay their mortgages but are tactically refusing for various reasons.

jester77

Banjo String wrote: »

If only everyone had a crystal ball eh?


If someone had every eventuality covered to insure that could pay the mortgage for the next 25 years or so, they'd probably need the price of the house in the bank/in a sock under the bed etc.

That post might just come across as a little bit condescending.

That's BS. For most people, buying a home is the biggest financial undertaking they will make in their lifetime. And for most people, this will be a long term undertaking, anything from 15 years plus to pay it back. Only a fool would not cover all possibilities in this instance, unemployment of one or both parties, death of one party, long-term sickness or injury, children, high interest rates like our parents had, etc.

If anyone thinks they can go 15 plus years without anything happening then they are very foolish and don't deserve sympathy.

whiskeyman

whiskeyman wrote: »

Obviously people really didnt think they'd lose one or both jobs in the household, so repayment is neigh on impossible.
The situation in Kanturk mentioned they offered to pay €400 pm but the bank refused - I find this hard to believe and surely the bank should compromise in this situation. The banks got enough support from the Government, so this support has to come back around. You'd hope that when (if!) the employment situation picks up, the household income will increase and more repayments can be made.
If it's found that the people are making zero attempt to pay / are recklessly spending elsewhere, these are the ones who should be turfed out.
Apparently there's many high incomes earners who are well able to pay their mortgages but are tactically refusing for various reasons.

The couple accept that they have not made mortgage repayments for about two years

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/couple-facing-eviction-vow-to-fight-back-244202.html

Give me a good reason why they shouldn`t be kicked out? 2 years no payments at all. A renter wouldn`t last a few weeks. If they had 400 to put towards it a month then they have around 10k saved up. If they were refused welfare payments it was because they failed the means test, i.e they have means.

Meanwhile in Kanturk we have a crowd to block the eviction


http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/09/24/meanwhile-in-kanturk-2/

Banjo String

jester77 wrote: »

That's BS. For most people, buying a home is the biggest financial undertaking they will make in their lifetime. And for most people, this will be a long term undertaking, anything from 15 years plus to pay it back. Only a fool would not cover all possibilities in this instance, unemployment of one or both parties, death of one party, long-term sickness or injury, children, high interest rates like our parents had, etc.

If anyone thinks they can go 15 plus years without anything happening then they are very foolish and don't deserve sympathy.

Mortgage applications are decided upon a person's circumstances at the time of applying.

Income, savings, credit history etc etc. Jobs that used to be jobs for life in this country are no longer jobs for life. Things change, mostly beyond the mortgage applicants control.

Please tell me how someone makes plans to pay a mortgage in 25/15/10 years time bar putting a safety net like insurance in place?