Explain evictions to me.

Straight Edge Punk

I have been wanting to ask this for a long time but never plucked up the courage to ask on facebook just incase the answer is staring me in the face.

People are being evicted from their homes, I understand that much. They are being evicted for not paying their mortgages, is this correct?

If that is correct then what is the issue here? You sign up for a mortgage and right there in your contract it states that your house may be repossessed if you fail to keep up with payments.

Why are people so up in arms over families being evicted? If you can't afford your mortgage then why should you get to live in the house?

strelok

because bankers, vaccines, fluoridated water, global imperial zionists, GMO crops, fracking, trump's a nazi, russia is only defending itself, the rich don't pay enough tax, etc etc


pick whichever hard left horse**** you feel applies best.

listermint

Straight Edge Punk wrote: »

I have been wanting to ask this for a long time but never plucked up the courage to ask on facebook just incase the answer is staring me in the face.

People are being evicted from their homes, I understand that much. They are being evicted for not paying their mortgages, is this correct?

If that is correct then what is the issue here? You sign up for a mortgage and right there in your contract it states that your house may be repossessed if you fail to keep up with payments.

Why are people so up in arms over families being evicted? If you can't afford your mortgage then why should you get to live in the house?

1) dont ask for answers on facebook

2) no people are being evicted from the tenancy agreements.

The reasons are too complex for facebook. But yes you might see all the nonsense on there the poster above as eluded to.

Jayop

It's a fair question and one lots of people would agree with (a lot of them silently). I guess it comes down to two separate things. If it's a case that someone simply can't afford to pay the full amount but makes every effort to pay what they can whilst trying to work with the bank then they shouldn't be evicted whereas people who won't pay or refuse to deal with the bank probably will. A lot of people's issues stem from the the banks getting bailed out when they got overstretched so they should be willing to help ordinary people in the same situation.

DrumSteve

Because according to the likes of RBB, everyone has the right to a home.

I also predict this thread will go on for about 900 pages.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I completely agree. If you stop paying your rent or mortgage, out you go. There's people completely on the poverty line who will still try meet their mortgage repayments, even if it's not the full amount, and people who don't. If you don't, you have no right to live in a free house.

Jayop

DrumSteve wrote: »

Because according to the likes of RBB, everyone has the right to a home.

I also predict this thread will go on for about 900 pages.

Everyone does have a right to a home. They don't have a right to own that home at other people's expense though.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

DrumSteve wrote: »

Because according to the likes of RBB, everyone has the right to a home.

I also predict this thread will go on for about 900 pages.

And with every right comes responsibility. In order to live in a house, one must pay for said home.

Straight Edge Punk

I know that if I just decided I couldn't pay my rent then my landlord would have me shipped out.

Why are these people different? Because they signed up for a mortgage when they clearly couldn't afford it during the boom?

DrumSteve

LexieOnRale wrote: »

And with every right comes responsibility. In order to live in a house, one must pay for said home.

I agree.

seamus

Because of the fallacy that the "little guy" is getting squeezed while the "big guy" lives it up with his ivory backscratchers.

What's ironic is that the same people who'll foam at the mouth about "bankers getting away with it", is the same guy who's screaming at the telly when TV3 are showing "dole cheats".

In other words, they're annoyed about perceived injustices to people like them, blind to the bare facts of the situation.

Nodin

Straight Edge Punk wrote: »

I have been wanting to ask this for a long time but never plucked up the courage to ask on facebook just incase the answer is staring me in the face.

People are being evicted from their homes, I understand that much. They are being evicted for not paying their mortgages, is this correct?

If that is correct then what is the issue here? You sign up for a mortgage and right there in your contract it states that your house may be repossessed if you fail to keep up with payments.

Why are people so up in arms over families being evicted? If you can't afford your mortgage then why should you get to live in the house?

There are many people being evicted for many different reasons. Some are being shafted, some aren't, some are just unlucky......

Flatzie_poo

Straight Edge Punk wrote: »

Why are these people different? Because they signed up for a mortgage when they clearly couldn't afford it during the boom?

Exactly, where on their head did their bank stick the gun?

You buy a car there's risk, you buy a bike there's risk.

No difference with property.

Volkswagon stock purchasers will refuse to pay their mortgage next.

Groups of people like this feel vindicated because of hindsight. They shift the blame.

Awful situation to be in but there are a lot more constructive ways to deal with that then non-payment.

Welcome to the Jerry Beades generation folks.

Dom84

There is also the issue that you still owe the bank once they evict you.
If you don't pay your mortgage you should be evicted but that should be the end of it.

listermint

Why are people continually referring to mortgages here ?


There are scant all mortgages involved in the latest issue this week.


So you should possibly look at the facts of the case, not that i agree or disagree with the evictions but you are talking nonsense.

Flatzie_poo

Dom84 wrote: »

There is also the issue that you still owe the bank once they evict you.
If you don't pay your mortgage you should be evicted but that should be the end of it.

You stop paying your mortgage Dec '14.

It's challenged, and the eviction gets through the courts Dec '15.

You want someone like in this example to be able to live free for a year?

Dom84

Dom84 wrote: »

There is also the issue that you still owe the bank once they evict you.
If you don't pay your mortgage you should be evicted but that should be the end of it.

But that's the deal the borrower signed up to.

And banks are dealing with the legacy debts, know a few who have managed to sell second homes at enormous write downs and have had the legacy debt all but wiped away or reduced to a fraction...while hanging on to their own homes. Not that I'd say the banks are great for that at all, presume they do it for their own reasons and to realise something from the mess.

Jayop

listermint wrote: »

Why are people continually referring to mortgages here ?


There are scant all mortgages involved in the latest issue this week.


So you should possibly look at the facts of the case, not that i agree or disagree with the evictions but you are talking nonsense.

The op clearly said it's something they've been wondering about for ages so it's not related to the evictions in the media this week.

Maybe you could read the op properly before accusing someone of talking nonsense.

listermint

Jayop wrote: »

The op clearly said it's something they've been wondering about for ages so it's not related to the evictions in the media this week.

Maybe you could read the op properly before accusing someone of talking nonsense.

The OP said this

Why are people so up in arms over families being evicted? If you can't afford your mortgage then why should you get to live in the house?

which suggest to be the question was spurned from the reports all over RTE last night.

I suspect my powers of deduction to be very accurate in this instance or would you not agree ?

Jayop

listermint wrote: »

The OP said this




which suggest to be the question was spurned from the reports all over RTE last night.

I suspect my powers of deduction to be very accurate in this instance or would you not agree ?

I wouldnt agree at all considering the first paragraph in the op explicitly stated he's been wondering for some time. Do unless you define some time as a day or two then you're clearly wrong.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

The OP said this




which suggest to be the question was spurned from the reports all over RTE last night.

I suspect my powers of deduction to be very accurate in this instance or would you not agree ?

Assume.
Ass.
Me.

kneemos

In nobodies interest to evict.The taxpayer becomes liable for their housing,the homeowner is living in a hotel or hostel, the bank gets grief and endless phone calls and paperwork to deal with.

HiGlo

listermint wrote: »

Why are people continually referring to mortgages here ?


There are scant all mortgages involved in the latest issue this week.


So you should possibly look at the facts of the case, not that i agree or disagree with the evictions but you are talking nonsense.

You have assumed that the OP is referring to the Tyrrellstown situation, but from my understanding of the original post it is not referencing that situation, just the occurrences of evictions in general.

Yes, the Tyrrellstown situation is different, but that's not what is being asked about here......

Straight Edge Punk

listermint wrote: »

The OP said this




which suggest to be the question was spurned from the reports all over RTE last night.

I suspect my powers of deduction to be very accurate in this instance or would you not agree ?

No you are wrong. This is something that I have been curious about for months. I don't watch RTE news so I have no idea what happened yesterday.

sbsquarepants

kneemos wrote: »

In nobodies interest to evict.The taxpayer becomes liable for their housing,the homeowner is living in a hotel or hostel, the bank gets grief and endless phone calls and paperwork to deal with.

It's in the interest of the owner - otherwise they wouldn't go to court to get it done.

People get all soppy and idiotic when it comes to things like housing. The evil bank is only interested in profit not housing my 6 kids, or landlords only care about the rent and I have a bad back - well fúcking duh. What business doesn't strive to make money? Why would banks or private landlords care about you and your family at the expense of their own - cop the fúck on people!

I understand the bank thing is slightly skewed by the fact that taxpayers bailed the fúckers out and so we should get a bit of leeway, but that means a bit of leeway not a free ride, at the end of the day YOU still need to pay YOUR debts, I don't want to pay them for you, why should I. And no, I didn't want to pay bondholders debts either , but just because I was forced to by a spineless government (who have thankfully now reaped what they've sown) doesn't mean I'm putting my hand up to pay everyone elses.
Pay up or get out, life is tough sometimes.

SarahMollie

To get back to the OPs question, I think there are a few things being confused, namely repossessions and evictions.

There are a number of ways in which a person can end up out of their home.

It can be repossessed if the mortgage is seriously in arrears.
- owner occupier can be evicted by the sheriff if a repossession order has been granted by the courts
- tennant can be evicted in similar circumstances, although I believe they have to give the tenant whatever notice they're entitld to, and may in some cases choose to keep the tenant in place for a period of time, ie until the housing market recovers and they could get a better sale price.

These processes are lead by the person who lent the money calling in the debt.

A person can be evicted by their landlord for the following reasons
- not paying rent
- causing damage to the property/antisocial behavior
- landlord of immediate family want to move into the property
- landlord wants to sell the property
- landlord chooses to not renew the lease for whatever reason

Obviously they have to give people notice relative to how long they've been in the property etc.

However, the evictions in the news (Tyrrelstown) are happening because of the following

- developer built estate for sale, and by the time it was complete in 2007/8, he found that he couldnt sell the last phase of the development as the property market was in freefall.
- developer decided to keep the houses and rent them out instead
- developer went under and loans went into NAMA
- NAMA sold loans to get some money back for the taxpayer, sold to private company
- private company sat on the properties as was for a number of years but have now decided to get out of the residential property market and are selling up.
- tenants are being given their legal notice periods, in some cases 6 months or more.

Nothing unlawful here that I can see. These properties are not going to be left vacant, they will be sold and other people will move in.

This sort of thing is only getting such press because of the numbers involved, but any landlord can give a tenant notice if they want to sell their property.

Its just bad timing for the tenants, who's rent hadnt been upped in years it seems, as now they're back on the rental market and according to the radio this morning, rents in Dublin are now higher than the previous peak in 2007.

kneemos

SarahMollie wrote: »

To get back to the OPs question, I think there are a few things being confused, namely repossessions and evictions.

There are a number of ways in which a person can end up out of their home.

It can be repossessed if the mortgage is seriously in arrears.
- owner occupier can be evicted by the sheriff if a repossession order has been granted by the courts
- tennant can be evicted in similar circumstances, although I believe they have to give the tenant whatever notice they're entitld to, and may in some cases choose to keep the tenant in place for a period of time, ie until the housing market recovers and they could get a better sale price.

These processes are lead by the person who lent the money calling in the debt.

A person can be evicted by their landlord for the following reasons
- not paying rent
- causing damage to the property/antisocial behavior
- landlord of immediate family want to move into the property
- landlord wants to sell the property
- landlord chooses to not renew the lease for whatever reason

Obviously they have to give people notice relative to how long they've been in the property etc.

However, the evictions in the news (Tyrrelstown) are happening because of the following

- developer built estate for sale, and by the time it was complete in 2007/8, he found that he couldnt sell the last phase of the development as the property market was in freefall.
- developer decided to keep the houses and rent them out instead
- developer went under and loans went into NAMA
- NAMA sold loans to get some money back for the taxpayer, sold to private company
- private company sat on the properties as was for a number of years but have now decided to get out of the residential property market and are selling up.
- tenants are being given their legal notice periods, in some cases 6 months or more.

Nothing unlawful here that I can see. These properties are not going to be left vacant, they will be sold and other people will move in.

This sort of thing is only getting such press because of the numbers involved, but any landlord can give a tenant notice if they want to sell their property.

A lot of the Tyrrelstown residents have negotiated a price to buy their houses I believe.

sheesh

Straight Edge Punk wrote: »

No you are wrong. This is something that I have been curious about for months. I don't watch RTE news so I have no idea what happened yesterday.

all the houses in tyrells town were sold as a block by nama to a group of investors a while ago
the investors think now is a good time to sell
the investors want to sell with no tenants in the houses
the tenants have been given their statutory notice to quit

I have just heard the investor group is granting the tenants first refusal for the houses (RTE NEWS)

CruelCoin

Dom84 wrote: »

There is also the issue that you still owe the bank once they evict you.
If you don't pay your mortgage you should be evicted but that should be the end of it.

No, you didn't borrow the house.....You borrowed the money.

You cannot take 200k of someone elses money, then get lump them with something worth 100k and walk away scot free.

endacl

listermint wrote: »

which suggest to be the question was spurned from the reports all over RTE last night.

If it was spurned from the reports nobody would have heard of it and this discussion wouldn't be taking place.

SarahMollie

kneemos wrote: »

A lot of the Tyrrelstown residents have negotiated a price to buy their houses I believe.

That would be really good news for them then. With 200 houses coming on the market in a small area, they probably got a good deal.

CruelCoin

kneemos wrote: »

In nobodies interest to evict.The taxpayer becomes liable for their housing,the homeowner is living in a hotel or hostel, the bank gets grief and endless phone calls and paperwork to deal with.

Well that's ok then. Just leave them in, shure yer grand, have yer free house.

The reality is were you to welch on your mortgage and be allowed to stay in the house the person who pays for that is me, and everyone else who continues to pay what they owe.

If the house is repossessed, then at least the bank can recoup some of the value.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I wonder if people calling for no evictions would be happy to set aside 25 euro a week out of their dole/wages and pay it into a pot to pay these peoples rent and mortgage

SarahMollie

sheesh wrote: »

all the houses in tyrells town were sold as a block by nama to a group of investors a while ago
the investors think now is a good time to sell
the investors want to sell with no tenants in the houses
the tenants have been given their statutory notice to quit

I have just heard the investor group is granting the tenants first refusal for the houses (RTE NEWS)

This bit is actually critical. If they'd left the tenants in situ, they they could only sell to another big property investor/a few groups of property investors.

For people wanting to buy a family home with a mortgage, the banks will demand that the properties are vacant before they pay out the funds.

maudgonner

kneemos wrote: »

In nobodies interest to evict.The taxpayer becomes liable for their housing,the homeowner is living in a hotel or hostel, the bank gets grief and endless phone calls and paperwork to deal with.

The house goes back onto the market and gets bought by people who have saved hard for a deposit, can and will pay their mortgage. The bank recoups some or all of their money, the new owners get a house.

ThisRegard

SarahMollie wrote: »

However, the evictions in the news (Tyrrelstown) are happening because of the following

- developer went under and loans went into NAMA
- NAMA sold loans to get some money back for the taxpayer, sold to private company
- private company sat on the properties as was for a number of years but have now decided to get out of the residential property market and are selling up.

sheesh wrote: »

all the houses in tyrells town were sold as a block by nama to a group of investors a while ago

This is all wrong, developer never went under and the loans never went to NAMA. NAMA have had nothing at all to do with this.

And technically they're not evictions, just leases not being renewed when they expire, there's a fine difference, but a difference nonetheless. Evictions is an emotive word in Ireland and purposely being used in this case for political reasons I believe.

SarahMollie

ThisRegard wrote: »

This is all wrong, developer never went under and the loans never went to NAMA.

And technically they're not evictions, just leases not being renewed when they expire, there's a fine difference, but a difference nonetheless. Evictions is an emotive word in Ireland and purposely being used in this case for political reasons I believe.

OK, just double checked and correct, nama were not involved in this case. Ulster Bank sold on the loans directly.

Regardless, it makes little difference;

Developer found it uneconomical to sell the homes at the time of completion
In the meantime, the funding behind the loans was sold to a 3rd Party (Goldman Sachs mostly)
GS now want to sell, and seem to be following the rules to do so.

And agree - they're not really evictions at all. They're just not renewing anyones lease.

ThisRegard

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with the rest, just pointing out that it has nothing to do with NAMA, they've been mentioned a few times on this story, and the fact the developer went bust, neither of which is true.

SarahMollie

ThisRegard wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with the rest, just pointing out that it has nothing to do with NAMA, they've been mentioned a few times on this story, and the fact the developer went bust, neither of which is true.

Fair enough - suppose I'm just so used to seeing them mentioned in stories like this.

Sounds like a developer became an accidental landlord and now wants to get out, as is their right once they give the required notice.

A non bust developer is actually a good thing - hopefully the proceeds of this sale will then go on to fund more development.

Plus this means 200 fairly affordable units will now be for sale over the coming year - this means some families who've been saving for deposits might be able to buy them.

ThisRegard

They said as much themselves. That particular phase was the last to be built and around completion time the bust was underway. People weren't getting mortgages or buying so they weren't selling, so they put them into fund type thing for rental. Now with the improved market, and their hand being force, they're selling.

seamus

SarahMollie wrote: »

Plus this means 200 fairly affordable units will now be for sale over the coming year - this means some families who've been saving for deposits might be able to buy them.

Fat-cat 1%-ers no doubt with money from their parents, displacing all of the honest and hardworking people who did the real work to get this country back on its feet and pay back the bondholders on debts they never borrowed.

Sorry, just channeling my inner lefty.

SarahMollie

seamus wrote: »

Fat-cat 1%-ers no doubt with money from their parents, displacing all of the honest and hardworking people who did the real work to get this country back on its feet and pay back the bondholders on debts they never borrowed.

Sorry, just channeling my inner lefty.

Pretty sure there aren't too many 1%ers wanting to buy in Tyrrelstown :pac:

stoplooklisten

Because i had my head up my ass, is a valid excuse in Ireland and should be rewarded

smash

SarahMollie wrote: »

OK, just double checked and correct, nama were not involved in this case. Ulster Bank sold on the loans directly.

It seems that there's a lot of misinformation about this case. I initially thought it was NAMA, then people mentioned Ulser Bank. Ulster bank sold the loans but it's EPF who are selling the properties...

"According to Twinlite, the construction company which built the estate and is now managing the rentals, the houses were sold in 2008 to a company called the European Property Fund (EPF), which then rented them out.

EPF’s loans linked to the development were purchased by a Goldman Sachs vulture fund, Beltany Property Finance, for a reported €89m.

EPF has since decided to sell on the properties and as a result is not renewing leases on the rentals."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0314/774762-tyrrelstown-properties-eviction/

SarahMollie

smash wrote: »

It seems that there's a lot of misinformation about this case. I initially thought it was NAMA, then people mentioned Ulser Bank. Ulster bank sold the loans but it's EPF who are selling the properties...

"According to Twinlite, the construction company which built the estate and is now managing the rentals, the houses were sold in 2008 to a company called the European Property Fund (EPF), which then rented them out.

EPF’s loans linked to the development were purchased by a Goldman Sachs vulture fund, Beltany Property Finance, for a reported €89m.

EPF has since decided to sell on the properties and as a result is not renewing leases on the rentals."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0314/774762-tyrrelstown-properties-eviction/

Still means Ulster Bank sold the loans to Beltany, but the developer was still on board under a different name. I don't find it that strange that they would set up a new company to manage rentals if the original company only ever intended to build and sell.

SarahMollie

SarahMollie wrote: »

OK, just double checked and correct, nama were not involved in this case. Ulster Bank sold on the loans directly.

Regardless, it makes little difference;

Developer found it uneconomical to sell the homes at the time of completion
In the meantime, the funding behind the loans was sold to a 3rd Party (Goldman Sachs mostly)
GS now want to sell, and seem to be following the rules to do so.

And agree - they're not really evictions at all. They're just not renewing anyones lease.

Listening to the developer on the radio yesterday the bank isn't forcing a sale.
The developer wants to stick to developing and doesn't want to be a landlord anymore.

Dave_The_Sheep

I don't have a problem with evictions. Generally speaking, if you're not paying your mortgage or rent, then you should be turfed out after trying to work through it with your bank - and that getting nowhere.

What I do have a problem with is the bank then getting to chase you for money afterwards. If the market value of the house goes down, the bank can't sell it for as much as they loaned to you and you still owe them the rest. That's a load of bull****. It should be a case that you should be allowed walk away from a mortgage at any time, stop paying, hand them the house (the guarantee is the house usually) and that's that. Transaction complete.

I also have a problem with the bank being able to sell your mortgage to someone else (who can then do what they like with it). I signed my mortgage contract with this bank, I didn't sign it with anyone else. If you sell my mortgage, that contract should be void and I'm keeping the house and not paying another penny. To make this worse, vulture funds - eg. in the US - who might buy mortgages here aren't restricted by the same rules our lenders are over here. Exorbitant interest rates you say? No problem.

It's a rigged game from the start in this country when it comes to mortgages. Just so happens that it's the only realistic game in town when it comes to owning property for most people (and yes, before someone points it out - no one is holding a gun to my head forcing me to own property).

SarahMollie

Deleted User wrote: »

Listening to the developer on the radio yesterday the bank isn't forcing a sale.
The developer wants to stick to developing and doesn't want to be a landlord anymore.

Precisely - the fact that the loans were sold is neither here not there really. The developer, like many in this country became an accidental landlord, but market conditions have changed and they want to get back to purely building and selling.

smash

SarahMollie wrote: »

Still means Ulster Bank sold the loans to Beltany, but the developer was still on board under a different name. I don't find it that strange that they would set up a new company to manage rentals if the original company only ever intended to build and sell.

Twinlite built houses and sold them to EPF.
EPF's loan is with Ulster Bank.
Ulster Bank decided to sell the loan portfolio to Beltany.
EPF still own the properties but their loans are now with Beltany.
EPF are now selling their properties.

Neither Beltany or Goldman Sachs owns the properties.

ThisRegard

Deleted User wrote: »

Listening to the developer on the radio yesterday the bank isn't forcing a sale.
The developer wants to stick to developing and doesn't want to be a landlord anymore.

The bank have no say in it, what they want or do not want is irrelevant as they sold their bit on to the fund. It's the fund that want their money.

SarahMollie

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

I don't have a problem with evictions. Generally speaking, if you're not paying your mortgage or rent, then you should be turfed out after trying to work through it with your bank - and that getting nowhere.

What I do have a problem with is the bank then getting to chase you for money afterwards. If the market value of the house goes down, the bank can't sell it for as much as they loaned to you and you still owe them the rest. That's a load of bull****. It should be a case that you should be allowed walk away from a mortgage at any time, stop paying, hand them the house (the guarantee is the house usually) and that's that. Transaction complete.

I also have a problem with the bank being able to sell your mortgage to someone else (who can then do what they like with it). I signed my mortgage contract with this bank, I didn't sign it with anyone else. If you sell my mortgage, that contract should be void and I'm keeping the house and not paying another penny. To make this worse, vulture funds - eg. in the US - who might buy mortgages here aren't restricted by the same rules our lenders are over here. Exorbitant interest rates you say? No problem.

It's a rigged game from the start in this country when it comes to mortgages. Just so happens that it's the only realistic game in town when it comes to owning property for most people (and yes, before someone points it out - no one is holding a gun to my head forcing me to own property).

Your first point is tricky - who would pay the difference then? If enough people simply hand back the keys and the banks need bailing out, we know who ends up paying for that! This is how it works in America - and thats why their market also got into trouble and basically set in play the Global financil crisis of 2008.