14 years of free living

Darc19

This is why you pay higher rates in Ireland than anywhere else in the EU

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/couple-lose-appeal-over-repossession-of-dublin-11-home-1.4601546

14 years of non payment of a single euro of the mortgage and only now repossession has been granted - and even then they fought it in the high court.

Guess who pays for their two fingers to their mortgage bank? - YOU DO in higher interest rates.

In any other country in Europe, new owners would have been in that house within 6 months if a new payment schedule was not agreed and a simple district court hearing would have enabled it.


To give a comparison

Netherlands has 3.5m mortgages and less than 70,000 have arrears which have new payment agreements in place

Ireland has approx. 740,000 mortgages and over 80,000 are in arrears and have not restructured - 24,000 are in excess of 5 years arrears. (5 years of zero payments)

In addition, a further 78,000 Irish mortgages have been restructured (and they are paying as per the agreement and that's fine)


So next time you see the sensationalist media whine about Irish rates being one of the highest in Europe, think of all these wonderful free loaders that are siphoning off thousands of euro from you every year

The only surprising thing about this, is that no one will be surprised it happens.

Thestart

You will find some investors who had rentals didn’t pay the mortgage for years and still received the rent. Not many, but it did happen.

Our legal system needs a huge overhaul but I can’t see it happening as during the troika years of the crash it was supposed to happen but they couldn’t even change it. Too many vested interests I guess.

The chances of legislation being introduced to remove defaulters quickly is about as likely as legislation to quickly remove non paying tenants.

zerosugarbuzz

Darc19 wrote: »

This is why you pay higher rates in Ireland than anywhere else in the EU

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/couple-lose-appeal-over-repossession-of-dublin-11-home-1.4601546

14 years of non payment of a single euro of the mortgage and only now repossession has been granted - and even then they fought it in the high court.

Guess who pays for their two fingers to their mortgage bank? - YOU DO in higher interest rates.

In any other country in Europe, new owners would have been in that house within 6 months if a new payment schedule was not agreed and a simple district court hearing would have enabled it.


To give a comparison

Netherlands has 3.5m mortgages and less than 70,000 have arrears which have new payment agreements in place

Ireland has approx. 740,000 mortgages and over 80,000 are in arrears and have not restructured - 24,000 are in excess of 5 years arrears. (5 years of zero payments)

In addition, a further 78,000 Irish mortgages have been restructured (and they are paying as per the agreement and that's fine)


So next time you see the sensationalist media whine about Irish rates being one of the highest in Europe, think of all these wonderful free loaders that are siphoning off thousands of euro from you every year

If you read the article it actually involves a dispute regarding the exact date the mortgage ended, rather than someone just not paying their mortgage.

theteal

Am I understanding this correctly? They knew they weren't finished paying but a typo on a bank letter said it ended in 2007. This was resent with correct date and their case is "ah but you said 2007 so we're done, thanks!"

zerosugarbuzz

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

If you read the article it actually involves a dispute regarding the exact date the mortgage ended, rather than someone just not paying their mortgage.

If you read the reports, they knew their mortgage was not due to end in 2007, this was a typo corrected by letter in 2006.

Peregrinus

I don't think the fundamental problem is necessarily the legal system. The fact that the Netherlands can have a robust process for terminating defaulting mortgages rapidly is connected to the fact that the Netherlands has a robust public and social housing system; people who lose their homes when they cannot pay their mortgages do not become homeless; they find affordable rented accommodation in the public or private sector.

The Dutch have a system of not-for-profit housing associations which accommodate about 60% of the country's population - selling to some, renting to others. Housing associations are required to use a proportion their housing stock to provide low-income housing (access to which is means-tested), another proportion is let at market rates and some are sold. 30-40-30 might be a common allocation of houses in a development. Developments are integrated, so buyers live in the same developments as market rate tenants and subsidised tenants, and they share common facilities, open spaces, caretakers and maintenance, etc.

The result of all this is that the standard of rented and social housing is quite high, and there is a wide choice available. People aren't under as great a compulsion to buy in order to have some control over where they live and what kind of accommodation they have as might be the case in Ireland. Conversely the decision to buy doesn't mean that you get to live in an area where everyone is a homeowner
or a market-rate tenant; you will still live next door to social housing tenants, and in most cases you will still be paying property service charges, etc for common areas and shared facilities that they use alongside you (i.e. you will be subsidising them as well as living next to them). All of this means there isn't quite the same pressure to buy your own home, and therefore people may not stretch themselves financially quite so much in order to do so, and this may be one of the factors that accounts for a lower default rate.

Ireland has approx. 740,000 mortgages and over 80,000 are in arrears and have not restructured - 24,000 are in excess of 5 years arrears. (5 years of zero payments)

You can be in arrears and still be meeting some payments?

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

You can be in arrears and still be meeting some payments?

Yes. "In excess of five years arrears" means that some amount has been outstanding for five years or more, not that no payments have been made for five years or more.

Furthemore, a long period of arrears does not mean that the bank has been unable to enforce their mortgage and secure an eviction. It could equally mean that they have chosen not to do so, calculating that they will recover more, and write off less, by exercising a degree of patience and collecting what the mortgagor can afford to pay than by foreclosing, evicting and selling, which normally results in a significant writeoff.

The more the bank has lent, relative to the value of the property, they less likely they are to recover the full amount due by forcing a sale of the property. And what the bank always wants to do is maximise its recovery and minimise its writedown. If there isn't more pressure for speedy eviction procudures to become available, that's party because banks may not feel that this would help them acheive their aim of maximising recovery.

atilladehun

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think the fundamental problem is necessarily the legal system. The fact that the Netherlands can have a robust process for terminating defaulting mortgages rapidly is connected to the fact that the Netherlands has a robust public and social housing system; people who lose their homes when they cannot pay their mortgages do not become homeless; they find affordable rented accommodation in the public or private sector.

The Dutch have a system of not-for-profit housing associations which accommodate about 60% of the country's population - selling to some, renting to others. Housing associations are required to use a proportion their housing stock to provide low-income housing (access to which is means-tested), another proportion is let at market rates and some are sold. 30-40-30 might be a common allocation of houses in a development. Developments are integrated, so buyers live in the same developments as market rate tenants and subsidised tenants, and they share common facilities, open spaces, caretakers and maintenance, etc.

The result of all this is that the standard of rented and social housing is quite high, and there is a wide choice available. People aren't under as great a compulsion to buy in order to have some control over where they live and what kind of accommodation they have as might be the case in Ireland. Conversely the decision to buy doesn't mean that you get to live in an area where everyone is a homeowner
or a market-rate tenant; you will still live next door to social housing tenants, and in most cases you will still be paying property service charges, etc for common areas and shared facilities that they use alongside you (i.e. you will be subsidising them as well as living next to them). All of this means there isn't quite the same pressure to buy your own home, and therefore people may not stretch themselves financially quite so much in order to do so, and this may be one of the factors that accounts for a lower default rate.

So who do they burn at the steak, lock into stocks or cast away to an island.

Bass Reeves

Couple had an endowment mortgage at the start it seems which they changed to an annuity. Bank made a mistake in the paperwork and they tried to weasel there way out if repaying what was a 30 k balance in 2007. They now owe nearly 190k and the legal fees for there failed court cases over the last 5-7 years so a 200k bill for there stupidity. Expensive lesson for owners.

I expect that they will end up paying it as if bank seeks the house they may recieve very little out of the balance after selling costs are deducted.

They were really stupid and instead of having payment of 210/ month for the last 14 years which would have ended next year, they have 220-250 k mess to sort out

Idiots

Darc19

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You can be in arrears and still be meeting some payments?

The central bank details the time line of arrears.

24,000 are in arrears of 5 years or more. That's 5+ years of no payments.

gmisk

Absolute chancers trying to get away with paying nothing for so long due to a typo on one letter

Peregrinus

Darc19 wrote: »

The central bank details the time line of arrears.

24,000 are in arrears of 5 years or more. That's 5+ years of no payments.

No. It's five years of not being up to date with payments.

An account is in arrears if it's not making the payments due. That doesn't mean that it's making no payments; just that it's making less than the payments due.

So, an account is in arrears more than 5 years if (a) the borrower failed to make at least one payment in full when due more than five years ago, and (b) he has yet to make up that payment. In theory, if he had made every other payment in full when due since then, but had not made up the shortfall on that payment, he would be in arrears more than 5 years. In reality, of course, somebody who failed to make due payment some time ago and who has been unable to make up the shortfall is financially stressed, and is unlikely to have been able to make all other payments in full when due.

But, no, it doesn't mean that no payment has been made for five years; just that arrears of an unstated amount accrued more than five years ago and remain outstanding.

That article is a very poor example and the couple seems more on the not very bright sided of things rather than calculating.

There are people playing the system but not an enormous amount. The crash of 07 is still being played out.

It would be more telling to look at what was happening say 1990 to 1997 when there was a more normal housing market.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

That article is a very poor example and the couple seems more on the not very bright sided of things rather than calculating.

There are people playing the system but not an enormous amount. The crash of 07 is still being played out.

It would be more telling to look at what was happening say 1990 to 1997 when there was a more normal housing market.

You don’t think they were calculating when they relied on an obvious typo to stop paying their mortgage even though there was thousands owing?

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

You don’t think they were calculating when they relied on an obvious typo to stop paying their mortgage even though there was thousands owing?

No that on the dim side, playing the system is the type of chance who has been at it most of their life and knows the law inside out, know what they can push, and knows exactly what they cant push, often have money hidden in some way, wife or other family members.

TheValeyard

How to do afford the High Court, but not pay your mortgage? Surely its cheaper to pay your debts than rack up more expenses.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

No that on the dim side, playing the system is the type of chance who has been at it most of their life and knows the law inside out, know what they can push, and knows exactly what they cant push, often have money hidden in some way, wife or other family members.

You think the recent Court judgement is the first time in the last 14 years that it has been explained to this couple that they are in mortgage arrears?

Bass Reeves

TheValeyard wrote: »

How to do afford the High Court, but not pay your mortgage? Surely its cheaper to pay your debts than rack up more expenses.

It's a part of being thick. Saw a case like this 20 years ago. There was a one acre cottage plot derlict. A lad had horses wandering into it from.his own farm. Inheritor went selling it and this farmer ( who was quite wealthy) tried to claim squatters rights. He had to go to the high court to try to implement it. He lost the case and had to pay costs of owner defending it. Came to what the place made when it was sold which was 40 k at the time.

He had 40 k spend and no plot of ground. Really funny thing was inheritor made an offer to sell through his solicitor of 25 k when the sh!t kicked off it seems.

Look at the amount of separations where legal fees are 50-100 k when the if it was put on the table at the start it would settle it

Bass Reeves

Dav010 wrote: »

You think the recent Court judgement is the first time in the last 14 years that it has been explained to this couple that they are in mortgage arrears?

It may well depend on what advice a solicitor or your barrister is giving you as well

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

You think the recent Court judgement is the first time in the last 14 years that it has been explained to this couple that they are in mortgage arrears?

It does not make difference one way or another not paying a tiny mortgage for 14 years and hoping to get away with it does make them dim in my opinion.

it's a boards thing as well, the vast majority are not playing the system, nor are the vast majority who claim they can't buy a house the type with 3 kids in rented property buying expensive cars, and going on expensive holidays and night out.

The chances and the stupid with their money do exist but they are a very small minority yet they generate huge outrage.

TallGlass2

Paid for what 20 years, end of the tunnel in sight and they start playing games, lunatics if you ask me. Look at all the messing in courts, sure the same time frame had they paid they'd own the house next year.

DubCount

The exact rights and wrings of this particular case is not the issue IMHO. The issue is that a dispute between 2 sides of a mortgage dispute has taken 14 years to work through the system. A system taking this long is broken. Of course banks need to engage with people to deal with financial problems or disputes, but at some point, if you dont pay, you lose your home. That point should come way before 14 years and a small fortune in legal fees. If it means you become homeless, then you become homeless and our local authorities need to have better systems to house people in these circumstances. It should not fall on banks or landlords for that matter, to house people who cant pay or wont pay.

Squiggle

It's hard to credit that any lawyer would have advised this couple to proceed to defend the case given the clarification of the typo in 2006.

Most arrears cases can be solved in a PIA which, in the main , were designed to keep people in their homes.

Pay what you can afford and Consult a PIP if you're insolvent. Its free if you qualify through the Abhaile scheme.

In this case €187,000 outstanding at an Interest only mortgage of 2% would be €312 pm. They won't rent much for that if renting is their only option now. !

Clareman

So if I get this right, these people get a 30 year mortgage in 1992 of €59,500 at an interest rate of 10.9%, by using an online loan calculator that works out as a monthly payment of €562.14 for a total amount to be paid of €202,370.77. In 2000 they get a letter with a typo that says the mortgage will be completed in July 2007 but in 2006 they got an other letter correcting this, they decided in 2007 to stop paying the mortgage.

Assuming they had kept up to date with the payments, they'd have paid ~€100k towards the mortgage but decided to be smart and try to get out of it. Surely the smartest move back then would have been to move to a tracker mortgage which they would more than likely have been eligible for, assuming that they were in a good LTV place and assuming they could get a rate of 1.25% and assuming they wanted to get another mortgage for the whole amount again, their repayments would have dropped to €198.28 per month.

D3V!L

Clareman wrote: »

So if I get this right, these people get a 30 year mortgage in 1992 of €59,500 at an interest rate of 10.9%, by using an online loan calculator that works out as a monthly payment of €562.14 for a total amount to be paid of €202,370.77. In 2000 they get a letter with a typo that says the mortgage will be completed in July 2007 but in 2006 they got an other letter correcting this, they decided in 2007 to stop paying the mortgage.

Assuming they had kept up to date with the payments, they'd have paid ~€100k towards the mortgage but decided to be smart and try to get out of it. Surely the smartest move back then would have been to move to a tracker mortgage which they would more than likely have been eligible for, assuming that they were in a good LTV place and assuming they could get a rate of 1.25% and assuming they wanted to get another mortgage for the whole amount again, their repayments would have dropped to €198.28 per month.

I think that word should be banned from this thread

Clareman

D3V!L wrote: »

I think that word should be banned from this thread

Very good point well made, poor choice of word. This whole thing appears to me to people people trying to use a loop hole to get out of their agreement but it back firing on them.

Amadan Dubh

Let's not forget about these other high profile selfish, ignorant folks who also think they have a god-given right to a free house even if they don't pay their mortgage;

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/nothing-paid-off-sandymount-couple-s-mortgage-since-2015-court-told-1.3899847

Nothing paid off Sandymount couple’s mortgage since 2015, court told

Firm seeks to repossess Tritonville Road home of Pat and Freda O’Kane, who owe €780,000

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/pamela-flood-and-ronan-ryan-refused-stay-against-repossession-order-1.3988540?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law%2Fcourts%2Fhigh-court%2Fpamela-flood-and-ronan-ryan-refused-stay-against-repossession-order-1.3988540

Pamela Flood and Ronan Ryan refused stay against repossession order
Family allowed short service to seek another stay against fund in High Court next Thursday

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/deluded-odonnells-owe-71m-but-want-to-keep-mansion-31035382.html

Solicitor and property developer Brian O’Donnell owes €71m but want to keep mansion

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/ex-model-to-appeal-repossession-order-on-dalkey-house-1.1975568?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law%2Fcourts%2Fex-model-to-appeal-repossession-order-on-dalkey-house-1.1975568

Artist and former model Jennifer Fitzgerald mounts challenge over repossession of exclusive Dalkey home

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/couple-who-owe-336k-in-arrears-on-double-mortgage-given-stay-of-one-year-before-repossession-of-south-dublin-home-37479280.html

University lecturer Dr Paul Stokes, of 'Pinehaven', Dalkey Avenue, Co Dublin, and his wife, Eilish Kendlin, 17 Kilcolman Court, Glenageary, Co Dublin

Nermal

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think the fundamental problem is necessarily the legal system. The fact that the Netherlands can have a robust process for terminating defaulting mortgages rapidly is connected to the fact that the Netherlands has a robust public and social housing system; people who lose their homes when they cannot pay their mortgages do not become homeless; they find affordable rented accommodation in the public or private sector.

No, it's the legal system. Plenty of countries with worse social housing provision than Ireland have legal systems that resolve these cases in weeks, not years.

cruizer101

Its ridiculous, they signed up for 30 year mortgage (as an aside that surprises me a lot I thought mortgages were all 20 year until celtic tiger years when people took 30 year ones to reduce monthly payments so they could stretch themselves to buy better houses) there was no way they could have thought it was done in 15 years.

Its like someone finding a very obvious pricing mistake on a website and chancing their arm buying it, then giving out reams when the retailer doesn't send them their 500 euro tv that they paid 5 quid for.
Except in this case there is clear documentation from the start of what they will have to pay back, idiots.

Interest rates have more or less consistently dropped from when they took their mortgage so their repayments will have been dropping all the time, add in inflation and repayments have effectively dropped even more, if they could afford the 500 odd initial repayments in 1992 (back then that was a significant amount) the reduced payment of probably 2-300 in 2007 would be nothing, idiotic to not just continue to pay it off.

It does show there a significant problem in repossessions when it takes that long for a judgment to be made.

Calahonda52

Darc19 wrote: »

The central bank details the time line of arrears.

24,000 are in arrears of 5 years or more. That's 5+ years of no payments.

Not necessarily true.
I was in arrears for 10 years but still made payments

Peregrinus

Nermal wrote: »

No, it's the legal system. Plenty of countries with worse social housing provision than Ireland have legal systems that resolve these cases in weeks, not years.

Yeah, but only if they are prepared to make people homeless at short notice. Which, generally speaking, as a society, we are averse to doing. Especially in the middle of a housing crisis.

iColdFusion

Clareman wrote: »

So if I get this right, these people get a 30 year mortgage in 1992 of €59,500 at an interest rate of 10.9%, by using an online loan calculator that works out as a monthly payment of €562.14 for a total amount to be paid of €202,370.77. In 2000 they get a letter with a typo that says the mortgage will be completed in July 2007 but in 2006 they got an other letter correcting this, they decided in 2007 to stop paying the mortgage.

Assuming they had kept up to date with the payments, they'd have paid ~€100k towards the mortgage but decided to be smart and try to get out of it. Surely the smartest move back then would have been to move to a tracker mortgage which they would more than likely have been eligible for, assuming that they were in a good LTV place and assuming they could get a rate of 1.25% and assuming they wanted to get another mortgage for the whole amount again, their repayments would have dropped to €198.28 per month.

A quick google shows houses in their area selling for 400k now also :rolleyes:

Amadan Dubh

Another shocking aspect of this story is that a 30 year mortgage taken out in 1992 is 1 year off being fully paid off - the 1990s were 30 years ago!

Bass Reeves

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

Another shocking aspect of this story is that a 30 year mortgage taken out in 1992 is 1 year off being fully paid off - the 1990s were 30 years ago!

When it was taken out it was probably 2.5 years wages to two people.one of them could be now earning that a year.
There is another reason to wonder if these were not the brightest sparks back then. They originally took out an endowment mortgage. In 1990 the issue with them were public knowledge. They changed to a straight annuity, I think in the early noughties. It took them that long to figure that endowment loans were a disaster. If they had opted for a 1% ECB tracker back then even if because of the endowment they had to borrow 55k paying it up to now would entail 13-17k in interest in that period.

Darc19

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Not necessarily true.
I was in arrears for 10 years but still made payments

The central bank arrears are calculated by the months of arrears. So if for argument sakes you are 6 month of arrears and these have been siting there for 5 years, you are in the 6 month category.

If you have agreed to add these to the end of your mortgage and the bank has agreed (or agreed any other solution) you are considered a "restructured" mortgage and you are not included in the arrears list.

baldbear

Jesus Christ what is wrong with some people. What a stupid gamble.

...Ghost...

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

Let's not forget about these other high profile selfish, ignorant folks who also think they have a god-given right to a free house even if they don't pay their mortgage;

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/nothing-paid-off-sandymount-couple-s-mortgage-since-2015-court-told-1.3899847



https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/pamela-flood-and-ronan-ryan-refused-stay-against-repossession-order-1.3988540?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law%2Fcourts%2Fhigh-court%2Fpamela-flood-and-ronan-ryan-refused-stay-against-repossession-order-1.3988540



https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/deluded-odonnells-owe-71m-but-want-to-keep-mansion-31035382.html



https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/ex-model-to-appeal-repossession-order-on-dalkey-house-1.1975568?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law%2Fcourts%2Fex-model-to-appeal-repossession-order-on-dalkey-house-1.1975568



https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/couple-who-owe-336k-in-arrears-on-double-mortgage-given-stay-of-one-year-before-repossession-of-south-dublin-home-37479280.html

Too much entitlement in Dawkey

Jerry Attrick

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yeah, but only if they are prepared to make people homeless at short notice. Which, generally speaking, as a society, we are averse to doing. Especially in the middle of a housing crisis.

Speak for yourself. I regard grown ups as grown ups, expect them to pay their bills where possible, and have a complete and utter loathing for parasites.

DubCount

DubCount wrote: »

The exact rights and wrings of this particular case is not the issue IMHO. The issue is that a dispute between 2 sides of a mortgage dispute has taken 14 years to work through the system. A system taking this long is broken. Of course banks need to engage with people to deal with financial problems or disputes, but at some point, if you dont pay, you lose your home. That point should come way before 14 years and a small fortune in legal fees. If it means you become homeless, then you become homeless and our local authorities need to have better systems to house people in these circumstances. It should not fall on banks or landlords for that matter, to house people who cant pay or wont pay.

The legal system has done well here. The owners and the banks. Not so much.

They obviously got some advice that the typo changed the nature of the loan. That was probably formal legal advice.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The legal system has done well here. The owners and the banks. Not so much.

They obviously got some advice that the typo changed the nature of the loan. That was probably formal legal advice.

Was there a mention of legal advice? The reports state the typo was corrected the year before they stopped paying their mortgage. Also, would a typo in correspondence alter the signed mortgage contract?

As repayments rarely remain constant through out the term of a mortgage (coincidently a new product is being launched with just that arrangement), if the term was being reduced by the time period they claim, their repayments would have increased significantly between the date the letter was received and the new 2007 end date, they would still be in arrears if they continued to pay the lower repayments as per the original term.

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

Was there a mention of legal advice? The reports state the typo was corrected the year before they stopped paying their mortgage. Also, would a typo in correspondence alter the signed mortgage contract?

Yes.

She was satisfied the position was made “entirely clear” to the couple in October 2006 and they could not thereafter rely on the 2000 letter as a justification to cease paying the mortgage from October 2007. Because they were legally represented, there could be no question of a misunderstanding on their part.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes.

She was satisfied the position was made “entirely clear” to the couple in October 2006 and they could not thereafter rely on the 2000 letter as a justification to cease paying the mortgage from October 2007. Because they were legally represented, there could be no question of a misunderstanding on their part.

I’m sorry, I took it you meant they got legal advice that supported their contention that the mortgage term ended in 2007.

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

I’m sorry, I took it you meant they got legal advice that supported their contention that the mortgage term ended in 2007.

I suppose they did. I mean if they were advised by any solicitor that they had no case and the typo was just that they would have dropped it. You’d think.

It’s speculation alright.