you could loose your home if you don't keep up payments on it

Andy From Sligo

so the mortgage adverts be like "You may loose your house if you dont keep up repayments on it" - do you think its the right way to go these days, to make people/family homeless if they dont/cant keep up mortgage repayments or do you think there is a more amicable/ sensible better thing mortgage companies can do if people cannot keep up their payments than turf people out? - thank god in my personal circumstances I am a renting our house, I'd hate to be saddled with a Mortgage these days and the uncertainty whether i could afford to keep up re-payments for 25 years or so!

If you don't pay for something, why should you be allowed keep it?
If that's the way we are going I'm gonna buy a brand new fab car on hp, & not bother paying for it.
I'll just keep it.

The Randy Riverbeast

It's up to the bank and its customers to work out. If a person signed the contract stating that the house can be taken away then the bank should be allowed to follow the contract. If they negotiate new terms its up to the bank. If a person doesn't like the idea of that then they shouldn't take out a mortgage or look to get one from a bank with terms they prefer.

Alf Stewart.

Hoots man there's juice. Loose. About this hoose!

Andy From Sligo

bubblypop wrote: »

If you don't pay for something, why should you be allowed keep it?
If that's the way we are going I'm gonna buy a brand new fab car on hp, & not bother paying for it.
I'll just keep it.

quite different. most people/families could survive without a car, but if they loose their house and get homeless ....

Alf Stewart.

bubblypop wrote: »

If you don't pay for something, why should you be allowed keep it?
If that's the way we are going I'm gonna buy a brand new fab car on hp, & not bother paying for it.
I'll just keep it.

Should've thrown a load of bankers out of their banks, seein as they struggled to pay for a load of shìt too, only for the taxpayers dollars!

The Backwards Man

The old woman who lived in the shoe could loose her home.

seamus

What do you mean "these days". It's the way it's always been. And yes, if you take out a loan to buy something why shouldn't you lose it if you don't keep repaying the loan?

In reality a failure to pay will take several years to become a repossession. You have to be properly ****ed for it to get that far, not just briefly down on your luck.

The thing that's wrong with our system is that you can't hand back the keys and walk away. The borrower takes all the risk and the bank takes none. Unless they're lending hundreds of millions to a greasy haired guy who calls himself a developer.

Fr_Dougal

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

quite different. most people/families could survive without a car, but if they loose their house and get homeless ....

What if they only loosen it a small bit?

Nate--IRL--

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

quite different. most people/families could survive without a car, but if they loose their house and get homeless ....

Why can't they rent?

Nate

Alf Stewart.

The Backwards Man wrote: »

The old woman who lived on n the shoe could loose her home.

She had that many children, loose like sleeve of wizard.

Andy From Sligo

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

quite different. most people/families could survive without a car, but if they loose their house and get homeless ....

There's plenty of houses to rent.
There is no right to own your own house, many thousands of people rent a home for their whole life.

JupiterKid

In reality very few houses have been repossessed by the banks. Borrowers in mortgage arrears usually make restructured repayment deals with the lender. Irish banks don't really do repossessions unless in extreme cases.

Andy From Sligo

bubblypop wrote: »

There's plenty of houses to rent.
There is no right to own your own house, many thousands of people rent a home for their whole life.

latest ive been hearing there is a shortage of rental properties available ...

Andy From Sligo

maybe they be better saying you could lose your property or face a prison sentence if you dont keep up your repayments ?

Andy From Sligo

so when these places do re-posses and the place is sitting empty for years and the financial people still dont get their mortgage payments.... who wins?

Miss Demeanour

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Hoots man there's juice. Loose. About this hoose!

Thanks for sending me to bed with this tune in my head.......

maudgonner

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

maybe they be better saying you could lose your property or face a prison sentence if you dont keep up your repayments ?

Why would you be facing a prison sentence? You'd have to have done a lot more than default on your mortgage payments.

FortySeven

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

latest ive been hearing there is a shortage of rental properties available ...

For every family turfed out there is another house on the market. Circle of life.

Birneybau

Don't care if I'm banned or what.

It's lose, Lose, LOSE!

For Forks Sake

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

latest ive been hearing there is a shortage of rental properties available ...

In certain areas, mostly dublin, yes, but there's plenty of properties to rent all around the country, even oversupply in some areas:

DAFT: 3341 properties to rent

MyHome: 1170 properties

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

maybe they be better saying you could lose your property or face a prison sentence if you dont keep up your repayments ?

Not unless you've burnt the house down. The consequence for non-payment is reposesion, as you agree to when you sign for the mortgage in the first place

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

so when these places do re-posses and the place is sitting empty for years and the financial people still dont get their mortgage payments.... who wins?

They're sold on by the institution. An empty property is no good for a banks balance sheet.

Allinall

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

so when these places do re-posses and the place is sitting empty for years and the financial people still dont get their mortgage payments.... who wins?

Why would you think it would be empty for years?

The bank will sell it to recoup their money.

That's why it's called a mortgage, and not jyst a loan.

People that take out mortgages should really know what they're doing.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

Jack Killian

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

It's up to the bank and its customers to work out. If a person signed the contract stating that the house can be taken away then the bank should be allowed to follow the contract. If they negotiate new terms its up to the bank. If a person doesn't like the idea of that then they shouldn't take out a mortgage or look to get one from a bank with terms they prefer.

True, and in normal circumstances I'd agree 110%.

But moral hazard was subverted when said banks wouldn't still be in business without our cash being used to prop them up; you couldn't have a contract with a company that doesn't exist, and a loan couldn't be called in early.

So at least some recognition of that wouldn't go astray, with banks showing some gratitude and goodwill - say for example knocking 1% off the loan rate for 5 years or adding 1% to deposit interest rates for those without mortgages.

Instead banks upped fees and didn't pass on rate reductions, gouging and screwing those without whom they wouldn't exist.

Pinch Flat

I'm a mortgage holder, I'm amazed how many people (anecdotally) see the mortgage as not their problem if they can't pay it due to job loss, rising interest rates etc. It seems to be deeply ingrained culture here.

If you borrow money for something and can't afford to pay it back, then you've no right to keep it - this goes for a house, a car or anything else paid for in this manner.

Speedwell

I'd rather rent modestly for 25 years and save enough to pay for my home outright or mostly so.

In fact I have actually done this! I'm in no hurry to buy a home at the moment though; in our current situation (I work from home, so I could theoretically work anywhere with a good enough Internet connection, and my husband is looking for work in his field; we don't have kids) it doesn't make sense to be locked down. It was nice to not have to sell a home before I immigrated to be with my husband here, too.

I wonder how long it would have taken me to pay off a mortgage equivalent to my savings, and how it would compare to the amount of time it actually took me to save the money.

the evasion_kid

I'd be sick as a homeowner getting turfed out by the banks while simultaneously bailing the bas!ards out...

maudgonner

the evasion_kid wrote: »

I'd be sick as a homeowner getting turfed out by the banks while simultaneously bailing the bas!ards out...

How about being someone who never bought because they couldn't afford to, or thought that prices were overinflated. But still has to bail the banks out even though you did nothing to contribute to the crash.

everlast75

OP - you lost me at "be like..."

The Sidewards Man

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

so when these places do re-posses and the place is sitting empty for years and the financial people still dont get their mortgage payments.... who wins?

They wont be sitting for years empty, we have a housing crisis and are due a shipment of refugees.

the evasion_kid

maudgonner wrote: »

How about being someone who never bought because they couldn't afford to, or thought that prices were overinflated. But still has to bail the banks out even though you did nothing to contribute to the crash.

I know I'm still waiting on an invoice from them to show my part in the crash...I can guarantee I know the figure on the end of it...

Andy From Sligo

everlast75 wrote: »

OP - you lost me at "be like..."

its a good job i didnt say "do be like" ....

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

FizzleSticks wrote: »

With renting you could be turfed out of your home for reasons other than being in arrears.

Such as? I'd like to know, so I can destroy your theory

The law is very much in favour of tenants. Even if you stopped paying rent, it's still difficult to get an eviction.

whatismyname

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

so the mortgage adverts be like "You may loose your house if you dont keep up repayments on it" - do you think its the right way to go these days, to make people/family homeless if they dont/cant keep up mortgage repayments or do you think there is a more amicable/ sensible better thing mortgage companies can do if people cannot keep up their payments than turf people out? - thank god in my personal circumstances I am a renting our house, I'd hate to be saddled with a Mortgage these days and the uncertainty whether i could afford to keep up re-payments for 25 years or so!

Well my first issue would be with their poor spelling of 'lose' in the mortgage adverts :P

JupiterKid

Speedwell wrote: »

I'd rather rent modestly for 25 years and save enough to pay for my home outright or mostly so.

In fact I have actually done this! I'm in no hurry to buy a home at the moment though; in our current situation (I work from home, so I could theoretically work anywhere with a good enough Internet connection, and my husband is looking for work in his field; we don't have kids) it doesn't make sense to be locked down. It was nice to not have to sell a home before I immigrated to be with my husband here, too.

I wonder how long it would have taken me to pay off a mortgage equivalent to my savings, and how it would compare to the amount of time it actually took me to save the money.

That's what a lot of people do in Continental European countries - rent whilst bringing up a family inthe city and then buy - with cash -a small place in the country after the kids have flown the nest. Very common in Germany and France, for instance.

endacl

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

so the mortgage adverts be like "You may loose your house if you dont keep up repayments on it"

You can loose it all you like. It's not going anywhere. It's a house. Houses are noted for their extraordinary ability to remain in situ. Even if you stop paying.

Andy From Sligo

imagine loosing your house "I know I left it here somewhere, pretty sure of it!" - it be like loosing your car keys. what is it with people loosing car keys? - you'd swear they have legs or something

ahnowbrowncow

the evasion_kid wrote: »

I'd be sick as a homeowner getting turfed out by the banks while simultaneously bailing the bas!ards out...

They weren't bailed out so people who can't or don't want to pay their mortgage get a free house.

endacl

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

imagine loosing your house "I know I left it here somewhere, pretty sure of it!" - it be like loosing your car keys. what is it with people loosing car keys? - you'd swear they have legs or something

Whooooooosh....?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Its the self entitled attitude like that is what's wrong with this country. Peoples right to buy houses they can't afford and expect to keep them and pass the buck (or not, as the case may be) to the bank "it's not my fault! You gave the money".

You borrow it, you pay it back. You don't pay it back, you don't own it and out you go

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

the evasion_kid

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

They weren't bailed out so people who can't or don't want to pay their mortgage get a free house.

Yet they will probably being paying for that bail out the rest of their lives and their kids lives...if they can afford them

Ave Sodalis

You do have to wonder though, at what point in repayments should you get to say "now wait just a second"... when you have 50% paid? 70%? 90%?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

sup_dude wrote: »

You do have to wonder though, at what point in repayments should you get to say "now wait just a second"... when you have 50% paid? 70%? 90%?

100%, when you pay back the last cent of what you owe

deco nate

Tis funny all the people given out about those that can't pay their mortgage, saying blaa blaa blaa. Yet you are paying more money because of nama selling off property for pennys to the pound to overseas investors, and yet it's the miss sold mortgage that are being blamed here. Yea the same people that were told by the banks that it was within there means.... Ah sure **** it. Those that never learn....gonna happen sooner than later again. Crazy talk.

Nama.... Selling out stuff for pennys with disregard for any Irish people, all the while paying the developers a good bloody wage.

Del2005

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

so the mortgage adverts be like "You may loose your house if you dont keep up repayments on it" - do you think its the right way to go these days, to make people/family homeless if they dont/cant keep up mortgage repayments or do you think there is a more amicable/ sensible better thing mortgage companies can do if people cannot keep up their payments than turf people out? - thank god in my personal circumstances I am a renting our house, I'd hate to be saddled with a Mortgage these days and the uncertainty whether i could afford to keep up re-payments for 25 years or so!

When renting you can be homeless in 6 months if the LL wants to sell or move themselves or family in. Stop paying rent and you'll be out in about a year. Stop paying a mortgage and you've several years before the bank begins repossession proceedings and years again till you get turfed out and that's only if you completely ignore them any bit of contact or payment resets the clock.

end of the road

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

They weren't bailed out so people who can't or don't want to pay their mortgage get a free house.

yeah, they were bailed out because we were bullied into doing it. the banks lost all rights as far as i'm concerned when they were incompitent enough to need the tax payer to bail them out. if i had my way they would be paying back double what we gave them as punishment but we are where we are.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Its the self entitled attitude like that is what's wrong with this country. Peoples right to buy houses they can't afford and expect to keep them and pass the buck (or not, as the case may be) to the bank "it's not my fault! You gave the money".

You borrow it, you pay it back. You don't pay it back, you don't own it and out you go

wrong, the banks were thick and gave out mortgages to all and sundry so it is more their fault as they should know better) . the current situation is unique so your self righteousness doesn't apply and is invalid because of the unique situation. it would apply in an ideal world where banks would be responsible for their actions.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

100%, when the banks pay back the last cent of what theyowe

fixed that for you.

Andy From Sligo

anyone have a little bit of a smidgen against the banks dishing out the money like candy in the tiger times? - or do you lay blame totally with people who took out the mortgage/loan without knowing for 100% they could pay it back? - the ball was in the banks court, they were the ones dishing it out and they were also the ones who could hsave refused it if they really wanted to, the banks must have been brainy enough to know that even though the country was doing well and that everyone who went to them for a mortgage or loan who was in a job might not have been in a job should a crash happen , in fact more knowledgeable than the person going for the mortgage / loan .... yet they still dished out the money like that

deco nate

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

anyone have a little bit of a smidgen against the banks dishing out the money like candy in the tiger times? - or do you lay blame totally with people who took out the mortgage/loan without knowing for 100% they could pay it back? - the ball was in the banks court, they were the ones dishing it out and they were also the ones who could hsave refused it if they really wanted to, the banks must have been brainy enough to know that even though the country was doing well and that everyone who went to them for a mortgage or loan who was in a job might not have been in a job should a crash happen , in fact more knowledgeable than the person going for the mortgage / loan .... yet they still dished out the money like that

See my post above

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Don't fix my posts. Take a little bit of responsibility for your own messes. When the majority of people can get a mortgage and buy a house without having it repossessed, the problem seems to lie with a select few who thinks they're entitled to a free house they don't have to pay for. The majority of people aren't being hounded by banks, or weren't forced to take a mortgage that was beyond their means. Sure, some people did. But that's not anyone else's fault.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

end of the road wrote: »

yeah, they were bailed out because we were bullied into doing it. the banks lost all rights as far as i'm concerned when they were incompitent enough to need the tax payer to bail them out. if i had my way they would be paying back double what we gave them as punishment but we are where we are.



wrong, the banks were thick and gave out mortgages to all and sundry so it is more their fault as they should know better) . the current situation is unique so your self righteousness doesn't apply and is invalid because of the unique situation. it would apply in an ideal world where banks would be responsible for their actions.



fixed that for you.

Simple question time.

Did you borrow money?
Did you buy a house with borrowed money?
Did you agree to pay it back?
Have you paid it back in full?
If not, how is this someone else's fault?