Repossession of family home

handlemaster

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/its-an-awful-shock-after-27-years-exrte-journalist-evicted-from-home-over-mortgage-arrears-36072641.html

I thought the actions of the bank were fair. The issue of non payment was going on for seven years. Five letters in the end from the sheriffs office all ignored. It could hardly be seen as a surprise. I think this process of non payment by either home owners of tenants should be speeded up its no wonder the mortgage interest rates are so high in ireland with the lenght of repossession .

wordofwarning

I can see where someone who is in arrears is coming from. I imagine they would love to be able to move into a decent social house and no longer have to deal with the stress and pain associated with dealing with a bank when in arrears.

But this is Ireland. So if they leave without fighting, they could literally be homeless. There is no social housing for them to move into and it will be hard to find a rental property.

Repossessions should be a lot quicker in this state. But the state needs to provide vast amounts of housing/at least allow its development, so when someone has their house repossessed, that they aren't homeless.

The mortgage market works so well in Denmark, as repossessions are quite easy to do as you can easily move into social housing if your house is repossessed.

Kintarō Hattori

His difficulties stem from a €315,000 loan he obtained from KBC in 2005. He had purchased two properties in Kildare, and planned to turn one of them into the family's "dream home" and sell the Shankill house.

I don't mean to be harsh but, live within your means.

Varik

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I don't mean to be harsh but, live within your means.

Only governmental measure I agree with is the mortgage caps.

SteM

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I don't mean to be harsh but, live within your means.

Do you not remember 2005? Sure if you didn't own 2 properties in Ireland, one abroad and have mortgage approval for one more then you were a pauper.

If he inherited another house could that be taken too if the original didn't clear the debt?

Just an idle thought that popped into my head!

Xterminator

SteM wrote: »

Do you not remember 2005? Sure if you didn't own 2 properties in Ireland, one abroad and have mortgage approval for one more then you were a pauper.

thats just not true. most people did not engage in property speculation. The warning signs were there for years.
I have no problem with someone speculating, as long as they dont expect the taxpayer to pick up the losses tab.

Its sad when a family lose their home, and currentyl dangerous too with the housing market as it is.

Sam Kade

wordofwarning wrote: »

I can see where someone who is in arrears is coming from. I imagine they would love to be able to move into a decent social house and no longer have to deal with the stress and pain associated with dealing with a bank when in arrears.

But this is Ireland. So if they leave without fighting, they could literally be homeless. There is no social housing for them to move into and it will be hard to find a rental property.

Repossessions should be a lot quicker in this state. But the state needs to provide vast amounts of housing/at least allow its development, so when someone has their house repossessed, that they aren't homeless.

The mortgage market works so well in Denmark, as repossessions are quite easy to do as you can easily move into social housing if your house is repossessed.

Wouldn't that just encourage more people not to bother paying their mortgage?

super_furry

Going to be a lot more of these stories in the next few months. Banks have sat back and been loathe to get in and actually repossess properties but with the rising value of the houses and the fact that there are cases like this dragging on for close to a decade, they're going to start believing that the money they're losing will out-weight the bad press.

wordofwarning

Sam Kade wrote: »

Wouldn't that just encourage more people not to bother paying their mortgage?

Maybe it. But it would reduce people dragging onto their houses in arrears for years, as they know there is no alternative accommodation available to them.

What rational person who is falling behind on their mortgage is not going to try drag it on as long as possible?

Tow

His difficulties stem from a €315,000 loan he obtained from KBC in 2005. He had purchased two properties in Kildare, and planned to turn one of them into the family's "dream home" and sell the Shankill house. "But the crash happened and destroyed everybody," he said.

So he had 3 houses, in the scheme of things did not have a huge mortgage. But would have had a short term due to his age, so a high monthly repayment. He could have sold the Shankill house in 05, 06, some of 07 and it would have paid off the loan with enough extra to do up one of the other dream homes. What was the son doing to help, he must be in his 20~30s?

Sleeper12

Articles like this really annoy me. The guy is a journalist. I don't fault him too much for borrowing the money but when he said he never expected for the sheriff to arrive he comes across as a right thick.
When you get judgements against you and then you get demands from the sheriff or registered letters from the sheriff stating that you have to be out of the house by a certain date or he will forcibly take the house, what do you think is going to happen?
I expect a journalist to have more cop on than this

Wabbit Ears

had been meeting part of the €5,000 monthly repayments

It absolutly amazes me how 1) Any person of average intellligence would think thats sustainable and 2) How any bank ever agreed to this sort of monthly repayment..

Everyone is equally idiotic in these situations and everybody deserves what they get.

Turnipman

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

It absolutly amazes me how 1) Any person of average intellligence would think thats sustainable and 2) How any bank ever agreed to this sort of monthly repayment..

Everyone is equally idiotic in these situations and everybody deserves what they get.

While I completely agree with you, apparently it's not right to think like that nowadays.

The correct response is to criticise the banks and the government for their heartlessness and incompetence and to regard the mature adult involved as an innocent victim of circumstances. Somewhat ironically, in this case he's a former RTE current affairs researcher, so why on earth didn't he talk to George Lee before taking out that loan??

SteM

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

It absolutly amazes me how 1) Any person of average intellligence would think thats sustainable and 2) How any bank ever agreed to this sort of monthly repayment..

Everyone is equally idiotic in these situations and everybody deserves what they get.

It's a farce. He would have been in his mid-fifties and a freelance journalist - a job not known for it's stability - when the bank lent him the money. The whole lending industry was nuts at the time.

MOH

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Articles like this really annoy me. The guy is a journalist. I don't fault him too much for borrowing the money but when he said he never expected for the sheriff to arrive he comes across as a right thick.
When you get judgements against you and then you get demands from the sheriff or registered letters from the sheriff stating that you have to be out of the house by a certain date or he will forcibly take the house, what do you think is going to happen?
I expect a journalist to have more cop on than this

Yeah, it's a pretty pathetic piece of writing:
"Nothing prepared him for the shock of being woken at 6am last Thursday morning"
Next paragraph:
"He had been forewarned that they were coming - three notices from the Dublin County Sheriff's Office that a court order for possession was about to be enforced had come through his door in the last five weeks. "

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Stheno

Has he still got the two houses in Kildare?

SteM

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Where did I say otherwise?

seamus

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Articles like this really annoy me. The guy is a journalist. I don't fault him too much for borrowing the money but when he said he never expected for the sheriff to arrive he comes across as a right thick.
When you get judgements against you and then you get demands from the sheriff or registered letters from the sheriff stating that you have to be out of the house by a certain date or he will forcibly take the house, what do you think is going to happen?
I expect a journalist to have more cop on than this

Agreed, it drives me crazy. "I got a terrible shock when they arrived on my doorstep".

A terrible shock despite hundreds of pieces of correspondence about the issue landing on his mat over the last decade.

A sheriff arriving to take possession is probably about the least shocking thing that's happened to this guy in recent times, he was well informed that it was happening, he just chose to ignore it.

I've a former neighbour in a similar situation. The bank have already taken a house from them, but are chasing for arrears on their family home. They should be declaring bankruptcy, but they're basically ignoring it and hoping some magical solution will appear from the ether.

I can see how people end up in these situations, but it's always because they allow it to happen through inaction. I don't understand why they do it.

rawn

Turnipman wrote:

The correct response is to criticise the banks and the government for their heartlessness and incompetence and to regard the mature adult involved - ironically, in this case he's a former RTE current affairs researcher, so why didn't he talk to George Lee before taking out that loan?? - as an innocent victim of circumstances.

I'm usually one of the first people to criticize the banks but it's very clear this man brought it all on himself.

"I am not for a moment saying that banks should not be repaid their debts. But breaking someone's door at 6am is not the way to go about it. Another way should be found to allow people to stay in their homes"

What did he expect to happen after all of his warnings? Idiot, through and through.

super_furry

"Another way should be found to allow people to stay in their homes"

Don't want to sound heartless but why would anyone pay their mortgage if that's the case?

whippet

Now he says he will set up a 'movement' .. he wants to be michael davitt !! Don't we have enough of these groups formed by people who won't accept their greed caused their demise and will offer advise to others.

exaisle

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I expect a journalist to have more cop on than this

I don't!

mloc123

5k a month... so he would need to clear about 10-11k a month after taxes to service that (based on the new guidelines etc..) which is 250k/year.

I would assume that in reality he did have the capacity to pay the mortgage to begin and was using it as some type of bridging loan for the house in Kildare.

Wreck less borrowing.. and lending all round. The house sale in Shankill will surely clear the outstanding debt tho... leaving him with two houses in Kildare still?

The_Conductor

Stheno wrote: »

Has he still got the two houses in Kildare?

Not clear from the article, whether or not he does- however, one could infer from the detail of how he is staying with relatives- that they aren't his any longer.

Sarn

The_Conductor wrote: »

Not clear from the article, whether or not he does- however, one could infer from the detail of how he is staying with relatives- that they aren't his any longer.

Or they are being rented out.

the_syco

Stheno wrote: »

Has he still got the two houses in Kildare?

Probably. Although can the bank gain possession of them as they are assets?

dev100

the_syco wrote:

Probably. Although can the bank gain possession of them as they are assets?

Probably mortgages on them ? That would mean they're not assets then ? How does that work if your 2 other properties are performing but you still have a mortgage but with different banks ?

smelly sock

How much arrears had built up?

mdebets

wordofwarning wrote: »

The mortgage market works so well in Denmark, as repossessions are quite easy to do as you can easily move into social housing if your house is repossessed.

But are you willing to pay more taxes for this service. In Denmark, you pay on average around 10000€ per year more taxes than in Ireland. I doubt many people would vote for a party taht would propose this.

You have basically 3 ways to deal with this, as people have to live somewhere after they being evicted.
1) let society pay for it, like Denmark does. So you have substabtially higher taxes to pay, but you know people can be evicted from the house you are letting out swiftly and they can move into social housing without much problems.
2) You let the people pay for it, that have the longterm benefit of the house. After all, they used it to generate income before (rent, mortage interest), they will do so in the future and they own an asset they can sell if they need to. This may lead to short term (relatively) cash flow problems for people, but everyone pays lower taxes nd you can"t be evicted swiftly. That's the solution Ireland goes for.
3) Of course you could also say **** the people who can't afford rent or mortage payments, and let them live on the street. But I think most people would be quick to complaint when the first tents are erreted in the middle of O'Connell street.

jca

SteM wrote: »

Do you not remember 2005? Sure if you didn't own 2 properties in Ireland, one abroad and have mortgage approval for one more then you were a pauper.

I like being a pauper if that's why defines being a pauper. ( I know you're being sarcastic) god there was some scary **** going on in those years.

smelly sock

We need to be careful with family home repossessions.

This guy is a bit different than your average young family who simply cannot pay.

Lest we forget that it wasn't the average PAYE worker who got us into this mess in the first place.

The house would fetch more than he owes if he had sold it, not all that much more but if he still has the houses in Kildare ( not clear from the article ) he could have moved there.

In other words he could have extradited himself and his family form the situation and has a small amount of money left if he has acted sooner.

Cuddlesworth

Since the status of the two houses in Kildare was so obviously omitted I think its fair to say he probably still has them and is not quite as homeless at it would seem.

the_syco

dev100 wrote: »

Probably mortgages on them ? That would mean they're not assets then ? How does that work if your 2 other properties are performing but you still have a mortgage but with different banks ?

From looking at it, I'm thinking he remortgaged his house to buy the two houses on the cheap, and thus if he loses this house, he still potentially has at least one house to move into, providing he kicks out the tenants if there are any there.

It'll be ironic if said tenants decided to overhold :pac:

The_Conductor

smelly sock wrote: »

Lest we forget that it wasn't the average PAYE worker who got us into this mess in the first place.

Plenty of average PAYE workers borrowed more than they should have, to buy properties they shouldn't have. I'm not saying it was all their fault- but the prudent folk out there- who didn't live beyond their means- are the very folk who have had to pick up the pieces.

Certainly- the manner in which the taxpayer was on the hock for poor lending by the banks- was particularly appalling- and there are tens of billions which will never be recovered.

As for NAMA- well, despite their continuous blowing of their own trumpet- its kind of difficult not to make a profit, when you buy assets at 40-50c in the Euro.

It wasn't just the developers who got us into the mess- there was a mass mania in the country- a small minority refused to get caught up in euphoria- and were mocked mercilessly for their prudence- yet- the average person who did take part- seems to have a very very short memory........

smelly sock

The_Conductor wrote: »

Plenty of average PAYE workers borrowed more than they should have, to buy properties they shouldn't have. I'm not saying it was all their fault- but the prudent folk out there- who didn't live beyond their means- are the very folk who have had to pick up the pieces.

Certainly- the manner in which the taxpayer was on the hock for poor lending by the banks- was particularly appalling- and there are tens of billions which will never be recovered.

As for NAMA- well, despite their continuous blowing of their own trumpet- its kind of difficult not to make a profit, when you buy assets at 40-50c in the Euro.

It wasn't just the developers who got us into the mess- there was a mass mania in the country- a small minority refused to get caught up in euphoria- and were mocked mercilessly for their prudence- yet- the average person who did take part- seems to have a very very short memory........

Oh I'd agree regarding buy to let properties. When it comes to family homes and primary residence I think it makes sense for everyone including the tax payer for the family to stay in that house.

If people are kicked out it's us who has to foot the bill to house them.

hidinginthebush

The_Conductor wrote: »

Plenty of average PAYE workers borrowed more than they should have, to buy properties they shouldn't have. I'm not saying it was all their fault- but the prudent folk out there- who didn't live beyond their means- are the very folk who have had to pick up the pieces.

Certainly- the manner in which the taxpayer was on the hock for poor lending by the banks- was particularly appalling- and there are tens of billions which will never be recovered.

As for NAMA- well, despite their continuous blowing of their own trumpet- its kind of difficult not to make a profit, when you buy assets at 40-50c in the Euro.

It wasn't just the developers who got us into the mess- there was a mass mania in the country- a small minority refused to get caught up in euphoria- and were mocked mercilessly for their prudence- yet- the average person who did take part- seems to have a very very short memory........

And don't forget they've made just €3bn profit on €70bn, over 8 years! So 4% profit in 8 years, on assets which were bought at below cost price, fairly poor return on investment to be fair.

exaisle

dev100 wrote: »

Probably mortgages on them ? That would mean they're not assets then ?

Eh...no....they're still assets. Whether there's a mortgage on them or not.

Lumen

exaisle wrote: »

Eh...no....they're still assets. Whether there's a mortgage on them or not.

I think the debts are the assets. The property is the security on those debts.