Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Buy house, don't pay mortgage, live rent-free for 9 years. MOD WARNING POST #268

Options
1…34689…18

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    We may see more of this as the market slows. Banks and funds might think the market has peaked. Which may have be been what they were waiting for. Only to realize by the time it get sorted they'll have missed peak


  • Options
    #153
    Fan of Netflix
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,167 ✭✭✭Fan of Netflix


    It's time for the state to step in here and seize the property.


  • Options
    #154
    MontgomeryClift
    Registered Users Posts: 1,057 ✭✭✭MontgomeryClift


    beauf wrote: »
    We may see more of this as the market slows. Banks and funds might think the market has peaked. Which may have be been what they were waiting for. Only to realize by the time it get sorted they'll have missed peak

    I think that's what's happening. The vulture funds are moving quickly now, and you can see a steady flow of relatively new, stripped out properties going for auction. I suspect that they can see signs of a peak, and are keen to get what they can for houses while the going is good.


  • Options
    #155
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Fan of Netflix wrote: »
    It's time for the state to step in here and seize the property.

    They will..it just won't be the Irish state....


  • Options
    #156
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,699 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Fan of Netflix wrote: »
    It's time for the state to step in here and seize the property.

    You've been told already on another thread that the state has no such powers. I'll have to assume you're trolling if you keep doing it


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Fan of Netflix
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,167 ✭✭✭Fan of Netflix


    L1011 wrote: »
    You've been told already on another thread that the state has no such powers. I'll have to assume you're trolling if you keep doing it
    The constitution should be rejigged, I don't understand why it should prevent seizing property. The constitution is amended regularly it's not worth much anymore. I believe if necessary a referendum would have widespread public support.

    I believe the state should be allowed seize whatever property it sees fit. This case is an example of where the state must step in and seize the property.


  • Options
    #158
    The Specialist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,539 ✭✭✭The Specialist


    Fan of Netflix wrote: »
    The constitution should be rejigged, I don't understand why it should prevent seizing property. The constitution is amended regularly it's not worth much anymore. I believe if necessary a referendum would have widespread public support.

    I believe the state should be allowed seize whatever property it sees fit. This case is an example of where the state must step in and seize the property.

    You think there’d be any sizeable support for allowing the state to seize any property it feels like? Give me some of what you are smoking comrade


  • Options
    #159
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Mod Note

    Fan of Netflix, feel free to start a separate thread in the appropriate forum on that unrelated topic.

    Do not attempt to take this or any other threads off topic on the subject in the mean time.


  • Options
    #160
    Franz Von Peppercorn II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn II


    MontgomeryClift wrote: »
    This thread demonstrates that the majority don't have a clue how this process works, judging by all the upvotes for comments like "Why didn't they hand back the keys and leave nine years ago?"

    For anyone in this situation, handing back the keys is financial suicide. By doing that you lose the house and still owe the bank all of the outstanding mortgage plus accruing interest.

    Nine years ago, the bank would have assessed this couples' income. The couple would have demonstrated an ability to pay X, which was probably far less than what they were earning when the mortgage was taken out four years previously. They "saved" €345,000 by not paying their mortgage since then, because they didn't have €345,000 to pay.

    The bank would have looked at X, and said, "No, that's not enough. The mortgage is not viable." At that point, it makes no sense to keep making payments because the bank is going to take the house anyway. Why would they continue to make payments on a mortgage when they know they will be evicted at some point? Because the armchair economists on boards.ie might begrudge them for it?

    From 2011, the couple didn't know that it would take eight years for the bank to reach a decision and, for all they knew, the bank could have reached a decision and served an eviction notice at any time, giving them six months to leave. Certain banks leave this kind of situation in limbo for years while they wait for the market to improve, which seems to have happened in this case.

    If you all think that this sounds good then why don't you stop paying your mortgages so that you and your children can live in a house that you can't spend a penny on because it's not yours, from which you might be evicted at any time?

    Surely if you stop paying the mortgage the interest should accrue and multiply in most cases. Therefore that policy could lead to bankruptcy.

    It looks like they were holding out for a deal and knowing they could get their buddies in the media to back them.


  • Options
    #161
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »
    Surely if you stop paying the mortgage the interest should accrue and multiply in most cases. Therefore that policy could lead to bankruptcy.

    It looks like they were holding out for a deal and knowing they could get their buddies in the media to back them.

    If the property is a negative equity to begin with, bankruptcy can happen so the accruing interest isn't a big deal. If you're going bankrupt, you're going bankrupt and the amount of money you or make little difference to you. It may make some slight difference to your creditors, who will be sharing out your estate between them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    MontgomeryClift
    Registered Users Posts: 1,057 ✭✭✭MontgomeryClift


    Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »
    Surely if you stop paying the mortgage the interest should accrue and multiply in most cases. Therefore that policy could lead to bankruptcy.
    It generally leads to insolvency on the part of the borrower. It's the interest, and in particular the sharp rise in interest rates around 2009, that made many previously manageable mortgages unpayable, even before you take into account losses in employment.
    It looks like they were holding out for a deal and knowing they could get their buddies in the media to back them.
    Anybody with sense holds out for a deal in this situation, with or without friends in the media. Just handing back the keys is financial suicide. If they do that, the bank ends up with the property and the mortgage, and the borrowers end up with a crippling debt and nowhere to live. They end up with nowhere to live anyway, but if they hold out at least they can go insolvent and be debt-free.


  • Options
    #163
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    When the economy picked up in Ireland, their foreign bank men offering mortgages lower rates than the Irish banks were charging. The Irish banks, rather than setback letter newcomer half, started to compete. They dropped their own rates and took on foolish risks in an effort to maintain market share. That is what is caused the present crisis. Money was lent to people who couldn't afford to pay the repayments. Blaming the people who borrow the money is completely incorrect.


  • Options
    #164
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    . Blaming the people who borrow the money is completely incorrect.

    Why? Are they not adults? Do people not employ solicitors when buying houses?

    Just absolving grown adults of blame when they sign legal documents is ridiculous.

    Whats the end result of not blaming them btw? Write off the mortgage and let them keep the house or what?


  • Options
    #165
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,786 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    MontgomeryClift wrote: »
    This thread demonstrates that the majority don't have a clue how this process works, judging by all the upvotes for comments like "Why didn't they hand back the keys and leave nine years ago?"

    For anyone in this situation, handing back the keys is financial suicide. By doing that you lose the house and still owe the bank all of the outstanding mortgage plus accruing interest.

    Nine years ago, the bank would have assessed this couples' income. The couple would have demonstrated an ability to pay X, which was probably far less than what they were earning when the mortgage was taken out four years previously. They "saved" €345,000 by not paying their mortgage since then, because they didn't have €345,000 to pay.

    The bank would have looked at X, and said, "No, that's not enough. The mortgage is not viable." At that point, it makes no sense to keep making payments because the bank is going to take the house anyway. Why would they continue to make payments on a mortgage when they know they will be evicted at some point? Because the armchair economists on boards.ie might begrudge them for it?

    From 2011, the couple didn't know that it would take eight years for the bank to reach a decision and, for all they knew, the bank could have reached a decision and served an eviction notice at any time, giving them six months to leave. Certain banks leave this kind of situation in limbo for years while they wait for the market to improve, which seems to have happened in this case.

    If you all think that this sounds good then why don't you stop paying your mortgages so that you and your children can live in a house that you can't spend a penny on because it's not yours, from which you might be evicted at any time?

    The problem isn't handing back the keys or not nine years ago.

    It's completely taking the urine having had NINE years to try and resolve it.

    They got a deal that allowed them walk away and yet here they are still resisting.

    It's difficult to get a handle on what they paid back in nine years but I find the lack of a stated figure interesting.

    Edit - tenants all over the country are paying big money each month into homes they could be asked to leave at any point.


  • Options
    #166
    Jane98
    Registered Users Posts: 570 ✭✭✭Jane98


    They’re holding out for a deal on the outstanding interest and payments they owe. Pure greed!

    I hope they do bankrupt them.


  • Options
    #167
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭Effects


    beauf wrote: »
    At least someone had the decency to hide it behind a paywall. They deserve a bonus for that.

    It's not even a paywall, you just need to register for access.


  • Options
    #168
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Jane98 wrote: »
    They’re holding out for a deal on the outstanding interest and payments they owe.

    Don't they already have a deal?


  • Options
    #169
    jay1988
    Registered Users Posts: 549 ✭✭✭jay1988


    MontgomeryClift wrote: »
    It generally leads to insolvency on the part of the borrower. It's the interest, and in particular the sharp rise in interest rates around 2009, that made many previously manageable mortgages unpayable, even before you take into account losses in employment.

    Anybody with sense holds out for a deal in this situation, with or without friends in the media. Just handing back the keys is financial suicide. If they do that, the bank ends up with the property and the mortgage, and the borrowers end up with a crippling debt and nowhere to live. They end up with nowhere to live anyway, but if they hold out at least they can go insolvent and be debt-free.

    Judging by your posts on this matter you seem to think taking out a mortgage and not bothering to pay it is okay, what planet are you living on?


  • Options
    #170
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    "Blaming the people who borrow the money is completely incorrect" - wtf?!

    Banks shouldn't have given people stupid mortgages/loans but people shouldn't have chosen to take out stupid mortgages/loans that they knew they had a huge chance of not being able to repay.


  • Options
    #171
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭Effects


    Graham wrote: »
    Don't they already have a deal?

    The deal they had was to leave the house and owe nothing.

    The deal they want is to buy the house now at it's current worth.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    ButtersSuki
    Registered Users Posts: 53,028 ✭✭✭✭ButtersSuki


    The Irish Times article that was linked from here earlier seems to have been withdrawn, but was insightful as to the mindset of the occupiers - how they thought doing a feature on their 'home' when they hadn't made a payment on it in almost a decade was a good idea I don't know.


  • Options
    #173
    chicorytip
    Registered Users Posts: 4,092 ✭✭✭chicorytip


    What is their current employment status ?


  • Options
    #174
    The Specialist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,539 ✭✭✭The Specialist


    Gimme A Pound wrote: »
    "Blaming the people who borrow the money is completely incorrect" - wtf?!

    Banks shouldn't have given people stupid mortgages/loans but people shouldn't have chosen to take out stupid mortgages/loans that they knew they had a huge chance of not being able to repay.

    Personal responsibility is a taboo in 2019 Ireland - everything is the “bankers” or the “gubberments” fault.


  • Options
    #175
    Nevin Parsnipp
    Registered Users Posts: 832 ✭✭✭Nevin Parsnipp


    This pair are giving the two fingers to all the hard working young folk who are working to pay off their mortgages and other bills and are being put to the pin of their collar to do so .

    They gave an undertaking to the Court to vacate their house by a particular date and have reneged on that ....middle Ireland is watching this one on behalf of their kids and hard working people who get up early and believe they should pay back what they borrow !

    What a croc of pure ****e !


  • Options
    #176
    2xj3hplqgsbkym
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,181 ✭✭✭2xj3hplqgsbkym


    ButtersSuki wrote: »
    The Irish Times article that was linked from here earlier seems to have been withdrawn, but was insightful as to the mindset of the occupiers - how they thought doing a feature on their 'home' when they hadn't made a payment on it in almost a decade was a good idea I don't know.

    Still there https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/interiors/at-home-with-pamela-flood-i-am-a-total-hoarder-1.3333531%3fmode=amp
    I agree, so insightful of their mindset.


  • Options
    #177
    Atlantic Dawn
    Registered Users Posts: 81,181 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    M


    We live in such a basket case country, these fookwits should be out on their hole after paying fook all for a year. We are all paying for scrotes like this, no bank with any sense will come to this country to offer mortgages.

    One thing struggling family putting over what they can, then, these scrounger fookwits.


  • Options
    #178
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,867 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    chicorytip wrote: »
    What is their current employment status ?

    Interesting question and a good one too.

    I suspect they are claiming no (or low) income and would qualify for HAP or the likes, but they just don't want to leave their trophy home.

    Big question for me is who is funding their legal reps. Think about that. Is it privately funded or on Free Legal Aid I wonder.

    Surely if privately funded they could afford to pay the mortgage and get on with it.

    Baffled.


  • Options
    #179
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭Effects


    ButtersSuki wrote: »
    The Irish Times article that was linked from here earlier seems to have been withdrawn, but was insightful as to the mindset of the occupiers - how they thought doing a feature on their 'home' when they hadn't made a payment on it in almost a decade was a good idea I don't know.

    They seem to have disconnected themselves from what's going on.
    It seems like a very business type approach. Maybe that's how we should all view our mortgages.


  • Options
    #180
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭Effects


    chicorytip wrote: »
    What is their current employment status ?

    I could be wrong, but I thought they were operating a food business from the Hollybrook Bar in Clontarf. That whole venture seemed to close down out of the blue last week.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    MontgomeryClift
    Registered Users Posts: 1,057 ✭✭✭MontgomeryClift


    jay1988 wrote: »
    Judging by your posts on this matter you seem to think taking out a mortgage and not bothering to pay it is okay, what planet are you living on?

    Welcome to the Joe Duffy mortgage outrage thread. Why talk about the facts when you can howl about how awful people are for not doing what you would like them to do?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement