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.