Data ruling may force vulture funds to reveal price they paid for mortgages

iomusicdublin

This could cause another financial meltdown.



A data-protection ruling involving State assets agency Nama could force vulture funds to tell homeowners how much they paid to buy their mortgages, one expert says.

Data Protection Commissioner Helen Dixon ruled this week that the agency had to provide builders Michael and John O’Flynn with personal information that it holds on the pair.

Solicitor Fred Logue, who specialises in data protection, believes Ms Dixon’s decision will allow homeowners whose mortgages are sold to vulture funds to find out how much the buyers paid for their debts.


https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/data-ruling-may-force-vulture-funds-to-reveal-price-they-paid-for-mortgages-1.3413133

srsly78

And....?? People still have to pay their ****ing mortgage.

facehugger99

iomusicdublin wrote: »

This could cause another financial meltdown.

[/url]

Doubt it.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Won't make much difference. They are defaulted mortgages and will always sell at a considerable discount.

Atlantic Dawn

srsly78 wrote: »

And....?? People still have to pay their ****ing mortgage.

Some don't, that's the reason for banks selling to vulture funds, evictions of even scrotes not paying a cent for 3 years plus gives them bad PR and often can't be done as the courts refuse it.

As a result we pay one of the highest mortgage rates in Europe as foreign banks are discouragesd from entering the Irish market with these lax regulations.

I don't know what people expect from the banks or these funds. If people aren't paying, the banks sell it off at a loss, so they at least get something for it. The fund then tries to get the full balance back or, in a properly functioning society, they get the house back and sell it for more than they paid (or rent it until they can make a profit selling it).

The banks can't just offer it to the non-paying people at the same rate because....... (drumroll)...... Every single mortgage holder on their books would stop paying their mortgage in the morning if they thought they would get a haircut on the debt.

It doesn't matter what they sold it for, you still owe whatever you signed up for. What we really need is for repossession to become the norm. There'd be loads of houses on the market. We could also do with having some sort of 'hand back the keys' arrangement, like in other countries.

iomusicdublin

Legally the banks may have to offer the same deal to the mortgage holder under contract law.

amcalester

iomusicdublin wrote: »

Legally the banks may have to offer the same deal to the mortgage holder under contract law.

Really? Can you expand on this please?

iomusicdublin

iomusicdublin wrote: »

Legally the banks may have to offer the same deal to the mortgage holder under contract law.

No way. They won’t pay.

_Kaiser_

What's pissed me off most over the last few years is how a percentage of mortgage holders haven't been paying, or bothering to engage - secure in the knowledge that it's almost impossible to turf them out.

Meanwhile those of us who didn't take the "free money" and over-extend ourselves in the Good Times (or who, in the case of the younger generation, don't have the chance to now) have been paying for it.. through higher taxation, bank charges etc and of course rents.

I've every sympathy for those who bought a reasonable family home and are struggling but who have engaged honestly with the bank to come to a deal.. but the rest, or those who thought they could become property magnates with buy-to-lets, should have the property seized AND be pursued for any outstanding amount (so as to discourage this recklessness in the future)

But the most important thing that needs to happen? We need to get the fook over this obsession with buying property and basing our entire economy on the idea of selling it to each other!

dudara

I don’t see how sharing the discounted price constitutes “personal data”. I think the purchasing entity would have grounds to decline to provide that on the basis that it was a commercial contract with commercial implications for their business. Would be interested to see how that plays out.

iomusicdublin

Constitutional rights

Article 40.5 of our Constitution provides that “the dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law”. Inviolable usually means “never to be broken, infringed or dishonoured”.



vulture funds are “dishonouring” citizen’s dwellings.


Henchy J in King v Attorney General remarked that “save in accordance with law” is to be interpreted “without stooping to methods which ignore the fundamental norms of the legal order postulated by the Constitution”.


It is arguable that the acts of these vulture funds are outside what is to be permitted by our Constitution.

The family home is enshrined in our Constitution

The inviolability of the family home is not only enshrined in our Constitution, but also in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Article 7 of the Charter provides that everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.


MK v Smart CAPITAL, the Court of Justice again reiterated that the loss of a family home places the family in a particularly vulnerable position. The Court went on to note that the loss of a home is one of the most serious breaches of the rights to respect for the home and that any person who risks being the victim of such a breach should be able to have the proportionality of this measure reviewed.

The contractual position


Up until now, the courts have largely focused on the contractual position. Is there a provision providing for possession to be granted to the mortgagor under the Mortgage Agreement in the event of default?


Council Directive 93/13/EC, which resulted in the European Communities (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts) Regulations 1995. This applies to contracts where the terms have not been individually negotiated. The majority of mortgages would be caught under this legislation.
Under this legislation an unfair term is a term which is

“contrary to the requirement of good faith…causes significant imbalance…to the detriment of the consumer taking into account the nature of the goods or services…and all circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and all other terms of the contract”.

European case law has determined that the court has a duty to assess whether a contractual term, falling within the scope of the directive, is fair. So, in mortgage proceedings, where the regulations apply, the court must decide whether the terms of the Mortgage Agreement comply with the regulations.


Some of the clauses in the Mortgage Agreement mean that even if one payment isn’t made, that is deemed to be a default justifying an application for possession by the mortgagor.
Is a clause like this fair? I don’t think so.



Jody Cantillon Solicitor

Specialun

iomusicdublin wrote: »

Legally the banks may have to offer the same deal to the mortgage holder under contract law.

walofs

Fiery mutant

Go advertise elsewhere Jody.

iomusicdublin

mods can this be moved to legal discussion please

iomusicdublin

iomusicdublin wrote: »

Legally the banks may have to offer the same deal to the mortgage holder under contract law.

My husbands mortgage started off with Irish nationwide, I think it was then transferred to Irish life, then to Anglo Irish (in liquidation or something like that).

He got a letter from Anglo saying that mortgages were being sold on and if they didn’t get an offer, they would be transferred to nama. So, we wrote a letter offering them x amount. They wrote back stating that they would only accept the total outstanding at that time.

I would really love to know what the mortgage was sold for. There were no arrears so I just think that we should have had as much opportunity to get a good deal as these vulture funds which it was eventually sold to.

2011

It amazes me how many people say the as a nation we need to get over our “obsession” with owning our own home. I have always suffered from this obsession. Why? Because like many others I found that paying a mortgage is actually far cheaper than paying rent, a mortgage also has the distinct advantage that it doesn’t last a lifetime.

dar100

dudara wrote: »

I don’t see how sharing the discounted price constitutes “personal data”. I think the purchasing entity would have grounds to decline to provide that on the basis that it was a commercial contract with commercial implications for their business. Would be interested to see how that plays out.

Knew GDPR states any structured file must be released in full. If said information is held in a structured file it will therefore need to be handed over.

However, as mortgages are usually bought as part of a portfolio, I can see there being a price for each individual property

BattleCorp

2011 wrote: »

It amazes me how many people say the as a nation we need to get over our “obsession” with owning our own home. I have always suffered from this obsession. Why? Because like many others I found that paying a mortgage is actually far cheaper than paying rent, a mortgage also has the distinct advantage that it doesn’t last a lifetime.

You are right. Nothing like the security of owning your own home. Especially when you get old. I wouldn't fancy being a pensioner with rent to pay.

professore

2011 wrote: »

It amazes me how many people say the as a nation we need to get over our “obsession” with owning our own home. I have always suffered from this obsession. Why? Because like many others I found that paying a mortgage is actually far cheaper than paying rent, a mortgage also has the distinct advantage that it doesn’t last a lifetime.

That's because of how unattractive it is both to rent and be a landlord in Ireland compared to continental Europe.

Cheerful Spring

2011 wrote: »

It amazes me how many people say the as a nation we need to get over our “obsession” with owning our own home. I have always suffered from this obsession. Why? Because like many others I found that paying a mortgage is actually far cheaper than paying rent, a mortgage also has the distinct advantage that it doesn’t last a lifetime.

Good point, still I never understood why rents are so high for people who rent. There is no monetary value at the end of it. I think rent caps should be introduced personally. End of the day a home is just a roof over your head. Some people do get obsessed with owning the biggest house on the block, road and street.

Clareman

dar100 wrote: »

Knew GDPR states any structured file must be released in full. If said information is held in a structured file it will therefore need to be handed over.

However, as mortgages are usually bought as part of a portfolio, I can see there being a price for each individual property

Nothing to do with GDPR as that's not in effect yet, this case would be personal data as it relates to a living person

What is Personal Data?

"personal data" means data relating to a living individual who is or can be identified either from the data or from the data in conjunction with other information that is in, or is likely to come into, the possession of the data controller;

I would assume that the data would contain name and address information so would need to be released.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

2011 wrote: »

It amazes me how many people say the as a nation we need to get over our “obsession” with owning our own home. I have always suffered from this obsession. Why? Because like many others I found that paying a mortgage is actually far cheaper than paying rent, a mortgage also has the distinct advantage that it doesn’t last a lifetime.

Agreed. I would never have had it any other way than to buy my home. The problem began when people bought homes they could not afford.

BattleCorp

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Good point, still I never understood why rents are so high for people who rent.

If I have a rental property with a €1000 pm mortgage and I charge €1300 pm rent, then I am effectively taking a loss as I will have to pay 50% in tax.

That's why a lot of landlords have sky high rent. Not all, but a lot.

BattleCorp

Maddux Damp Sweater wrote: »

Agreed. I would never have had it any other way than to buy my home. The problem began when people bought homes they could not afford.

All mortgages are unaffordable if you lose your job or business during a recession.

andekwarhola

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

What's pissed me off most over the last few years is how a percentage of mortgage holders haven't been paying, or bothering to engage - secure in the knowledge that it's almost impossible to turf them out.

Meanwhile those of us who didn't take the "free money" and over-extend ourselves in the Good Times (or who, in the case of the younger generation, don't have the chance to now) have been paying for it.. through higher taxation, bank charges etc and of course rents.

I've every sympathy for those who bought a reasonable family home and are struggling but who have engaged honestly with the bank to come to a deal.. but the rest, or those who thought they could become property magnates with buy-to-lets, should have the property seized AND be pursued for any outstanding amount (so as to discourage this recklessness in the future)

But the most important thing that needs to happen? We need to get the fook over this obsession with buying property and basing our entire economy on the idea of selling it to each other!

I'll 'get the fook over it' when I don't have to face old age wondering what would happen to me in our dysfunctional rental sector.

Just because people were stupidly imprudent during the last property boom doesn't mean there isn't still sound reasons for owning your home.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

BattleCorp wrote: »

All mortgages are unaffordable if you lose your job or business during a recession.

The essence of the point is that many did not allow for any setback when taking on mortgages; but it's the mortgages where no attempt has been made to make payments or come to an arrangement that are defaulted. It's not black or white for sure but there is an element of responsibility incumbent on the borrower. Job losses are not a recent phenomenon and neither are mortgages but a reluctance to meet lenders even half way seems to be new.

paw patrol

iomusicdublin wrote: »

Legally the banks may have to offer the same deal to the mortgage holder under contract law.

This isn't quite true . The contract is the same on paper. But how they act can be a much different.
But they can act a lot harsher when people get into difficulty , they can hike the variable rates to as high as they like.

Which (if property goes much higher) may be more profitable for them to bankrupt people (yes technically incorrect but in terms of their ability to repay their loan) if they feel like it.
Public Relations back lash is irrelevant to them , they have no need of good PR , no new business to attract and no high street consumers who can leave in protest.

If these loans are sold at a discount - these funds are making killing. Why haven't the Irish citizen been offered their own home at a discount? The same citizens who bailed out these same banks and will carry that bill for generations.

It stinks.

Avatar MIA

BattleCorp wrote: »

If I have a rental property with a €1000 pm mortgage and I charge €1300 pm rent, then I am effectively taking a loss as I will have to pay 50% in tax.

That's why a lot of landlords have sky high rent. Not all, but a lot.

What?!

What loss are you talking about? You've a shortfall of approx. 350 a month in cash terms, but the €1,000 is also going to pay down the interest & CAPITAL of your mortgage. Eventually that will be paid off and you'll own the property and €650* monthly income from it.


* keeping it simple, avoiding time value of money and rent (relative increase or decrease)

Varik

BattleCorp wrote: »

If I have a rental property with a €1000 pm mortgage and I charge €1300 pm rent, then I am effectively taking a loss as I will have to pay 50% in tax.

That's why a lot of landlords have sky high rent. Not all, but a lot.

While Mortgage interest relief should be 100% imo, you can't think of the total repayments as a cost/loss as it isn't.

Arthur Daley

Just like insurance fraud, defaulting and then turning up with cash to 'purchase' the loan at a discount is anti social behaviour, and not a victimless crime.

People's pensions and deposits and taxpayers investments depend on having a functioning banking system.

BattleCorp

Avatar MIA wrote: »

What?!

What loss are you talking about? You've a shortfall of approx. 350 a month in cash terms, but the €1,000 is also going to pay down the interest & CAPITAL of your mortgage. Eventually that will be paid off and you'll own the property and €650* monthly income from it.

I have bills to pay in the here and now. I know the mortgage will eventually be paid and the asset is appreciating but in the meantime I have bills to pay and giving the government 50% is killing small time landlords.

My point is that the tax on rental houses is too high. Fcuking ridiculous giving the government 50%. It should be taxed like a business at 12.5% on the nett profit. That would ease rent pressure. As it stands it's 50% even if you make a loss.

Ninthlife

paw patrol wrote: »

This isn't quite true . The contract is the same on paper. But how they act can be a much different.
But they can act a lot harsher when people get into difficulty , they can hike the variable rates to as high as they like.

Which (if property goes much higher) may be more profitable for them to bankrupt people (yes technically incorrect but in terms of their ability to repay their loan) if they feel like it.
Public Relations back lash is irrelevant to them , they have no need of good PR , no new business to attract and no high street consumers who can leave in protest.

If these loans are sold at a discount - these funds are making killing. Why haven't the Irish citizen been offered their own home at a discount? The same citizens who bailed out these same banks and will carry that bill for generations.

It stinks.

Not all mortgages sold to vulture funds are distressed loans or no way we wont pay gob****es.

My mortgage was with Irish Nationwide which went bang. My mortgage was then taken over by Anglo Irish Bank which also went. It was then transferred to again to IBRC who eventually sold it to a vulture fund.

I have nothing but a 100% payment record over the past 15 years. I pay and have paid in full on time everytime.IBRC before they sold me out asked me to make an offer which I did but it was rejected as were the majority of offers at the time.

Michael Noonan the then Dept of Finance minister allowed these sales go ahead on the basis the vulture fund follow Central Bank rules yet they arent legally bound to them.

The crowd who own my mortgage are awful to deal with and its pretty **** ive **** all protection from them either selling it or hiking interests rates.

Ive asked numerous times for the price they purchased my property only to be told I am not legally entitled to know.

There are 1,000's of performing loans being sold its not all dead beats some of us just got screwed by the bad decisions of banks.

Avatar MIA

BattleCorp wrote: »

As it stands it's 50% even if you make a loss.

Cashflow deficit does not equal loss.

And very few landlords pay 50% income tax - have a word with your accountant.

Avatar MIA

Ninthlife wrote: »

Not all mortgages sold to vulture funds are distressed loans or no way we wont pay gob****es.

Pretty much the same situation as you. When asked who my mortgage is with I know they are judging me when I tell them, but fook 'em.

And I sent a letter to Noonan at the time asking for him to intercede so we could purchase directly, he said he'd get back to me... still waiting.

paw patrol

Ninthlife wrote: »

Not all mortgages sold to vulture funds are distressed loans or no way we wont pay gob****es.

.

Fully agree. People who have never missed a payment are now subject to dealing with foreign based vulture funds , who aren't banks.
They are investment vehicles with no interest in customer service.

You have my full sympathy

BattleCorp

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Cashflow deficit does not equal loss.

It's a loss when it will take 25 years to pay off the mortgage. How many businesses can sustain a loss of x amount for 25 years before they turn a profit.

And very few landlords pay 50% income tax - have a word with your accountant.

Very few landlords with one house rented have accountants.

Yes, there are things you can do to write down your tax bill but they all involve spending money so in effect it's money gone out of your pocket eitherways.

Avatar MIA

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's a loss when it will take 25 years to pay off the mortgage. How many businesses can sustain a loss of x amount for 25 years before they turn a profit.

Okay, we're clearly not going to come to a consensus as to what profit is (I'll just rely on my 20 odd years of being a chartered accountant).

BattleCorp wrote: »

Yes, there are things you can do to write down your tax bill but they all involve spending money so in effect it's money gone out of your pocket eitherways.

At the very least you should be deducting your allowable interest. If you are doing that alone you're nowhere near paying 50% tax.

_Kaiser_

andekwarhola wrote: »

I'll 'get the fook over it' when I don't have to face old age wondering what would happen to me in our dysfunctional rental sector.

Just because people were stupidly imprudent during the last property boom doesn't mean there isn't still sound reasons for owning your home.

And if you can sustainably afford it then work away.

But this idea that every person should be entitled to own property (even property they can no longer afford) is a big part of the problem - and exactly why we have the dysfunctional rental sector you refer to.. because it's treated by all concerned as something you have to "put up with" on the glorious road to buying rather than what it SHOULD be; a viable long-term option in itself.

Ninthlife

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Pretty much the same situation as you. When asked who my mortgage is with I know they are judging me when I tell them, but fook 'em.

And I sent a letter to Noonan at the time asking for him to intercede so we could purchase directly, he said he'd get back to me... still waiting.

I also wrote to Noonanand I didnt get a reply either. I went to local TDs who told me i was protected as the Minister had a verbal agreement.

I had a solicitor contact the investment company requsting info he hit a wall and advised me unless i had alot of cash to spend on legal wrangling he wouldnt advise .e to pursue it instead he advised me to get out anyway possible ASAP unfortunately i cant get another mortgage as what was a 2 incone household is now 1 due to children etc.

What annoys me most about all this is the current political sympathy towards the non payers instead of helping the healthy loans

uptherebels

paw patrol wrote: »

This isn't quite true . The contract is the same on paper. But how they act can be a much different.
But they can act a lot harsher when people get into difficulty , they can hike the variable rates to as high as they like.

Which (if property goes much higher) may be more profitable for them to bankrupt people (yes technically incorrect but in terms of their ability to repay their loan) if they feel like it.
Public Relations back lash is irrelevant to them , they have no need of good PR , no new business to attract and no high street consumers who can leave in protest.

If these loans are sold at a discount - these funds are making killing. Why haven't the Irish citizen been offered their own home at a discount? The same citizens who bailed out these same banks and will carry that bill for generations.

It stinks.

so what do you think will happen when all those people who pay their mortgage, see those that dont, get their properties at a reduced price?

ismat

BattleCorp wrote: »

If I have a rental property with a €1000 pm mortgage and I charge €1300 pm rent, then I am effectively taking a loss as I will have to pay 50% in tax.

That's why a lot of landlords have sky high rent. Not all, but a lot.

If you have a mortgage then you have not paid for the property in the first place,and instead have taken a loan over say 25 years to pay for the asset you have purchased.
The majority of your payment is in relation to the capital element of your loan
If you are making a profit on your investment and at the same time paying off the capital on your investment why should you not pay tax ? It is no different than any other type of income.

TheChizler

Avatar MIA wrote: »

What?!

What loss are you talking about? You've a shortfall of approx. 350 a month in cash terms, but the €1,000 is also going to pay down the interest & CAPITAL of your mortgage. Eventually that will be paid off and you'll own the property and €650* monthly income from it.


* keeping it simple, avoiding time value of money and rent (relative increase or decrease)

I think if more landlords when they get started looked at their business as a long term investment rather than a business with monthly income it could help things a lot. If you start a savings portfolio for instance with an initial lump sum and a monthly deposit you don't expect an immediate monthly income and it's clear from the start that interest is subject to 37% DIRT.

Vic_08

paw patrol wrote: »

This isn't quite true . The contract is the same on paper. But how they act can be a much different.
But they can act a lot harsher when people get into difficulty , they can hike the variable rates to as high as they like.

Which (if property goes much higher) may be more profitable for them to bankrupt people (yes technically incorrect but in terms of their ability to repay their loan) if they feel like it.
Public Relations back lash is irrelevant to them , they have no need of good PR , no new business to attract and no high street consumers who can leave in protest.

If these loans are sold at a discount - these funds are making killing. Why haven't the Irish citizen been offered their own home at a discount? The same citizens who bailed out these same banks and will carry that bill for generations.

Eh, No. It is not the same citizens who bailed out the banks. It was the citizens who did not default on loans they took out but continued to pay increasing tax rates as well as increasing variable mortgage rates they weren't defaulting on who bailed out the banks.

Maybe it is these citizens who should be offered the defaulter's houses at preferential rates, it certainly isn't the defaulters who should be given sweetheart deals for their financial mismanagement.

AndrewJRenko

Ninthlife wrote: »

There are 1,000's of performing loans being sold its not all dead beats some of us just got screwed by the bad decisions of banks.

How exactly did the sale of your mortgage result in you getting screwed? In what ways are you worse off?

silverharp

in the US after the S&L crises in the 90's borrowers were able to buy their own mortgages back if they could at a discount

Avatar MIA

silverharp wrote: »

in the US after the S&L crises in the 90's borrowers were able to buy their own mortgages back if they could at a discount

That was far too complicated for Noonan. That's what happens when you have a school teacher as minister for finance.

lawred2

iomusicdublin wrote: »

Legally the banks may have to offer the same deal to the mortgage holder under contract law.

lol

Anyone who flat out refuses to pay, and doesn't bother to engage with the bank should absolutely be evicted.

Avatar MIA

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Anyone who flat out refuses to pay, and doesn't bother to engage with the bank should absolutely be evicted.

They should. And it then becomes the state's obligation to house them.

lawred2

BattleCorp wrote: »

I have bills to pay in the here and now. I know the mortgage will eventually be paid and the asset is appreciating but in the meantime I have bills to pay and giving the government 50% is killing small time landlords.

My point is that the tax on rental houses is too high. Fcuking ridiculous giving the government 50%. It should be taxed like a business at 12.5% on the nett profit. That would ease rent pressure. As it stands it's 50% even if you make a loss.

If you can't afford it then you shouldn't be a landlord.

What happens when repairs and maintenance are required?