Massive Write Down

welcome to socialist ireland

I wonder if Revenue will pursue her for the BIK she just received.

Where in the hell is she living that a property bought for €343,785 in 2005 is only worth €160,000 in 2019?

I know the recovery has been slower in some areas than others but they didn't even buy at the peak?

I don't see the issue here. Legacy cases from the crash like this need be resolved and the amount is unrecoverable. If the woman were to hand the keys back and declare bankruptcy the bank would realise the same loss anyway.

neris wrote: »

shes a lowly civil servant, now if shed been a broke ex business owner theyd probably be all over her like a rash

Like Sean Quinn.

Jesus, didnt think Id be sympathetic to PTSB or a bank, and while I empathise with the alleged?/sated situation with her husband, that debt seems relatively low (If not inexcusable for anyone in a relationship with family bills to pay).

But 900 per month on her wages doesnt seem unrealistic, while I dont think it sensible for young people (or anyone) in college to work too much, that person needs to chip in and get a job, although it may be better they get their education and chip in later as they'll be paying rent somewhere.
I have no doubt this is because she is in a state job, appaling on those wages, I can only conclude she has not been prudent with her wages as she owes nothing on an extortionate loan shark debt (its likely been paid many times over and was not owed by her). What does it have to do with her paying her mortgage, she should have focused on paying that and seen how much was spent on loan shark loans and potentially gone to the Gardai.

So was she living the life of reilly? new cars and holidays? or what because Id love to be on 2900 per month net, so how come she cant make ends meet?
Many people would be paying more than 33% of their income on their mortgage.
Why didnt they just write the debt to its value and give PTSB 50% shared ownership on the sale? this person could make a tidy profit after their insolvency surely?

Giveaway wrote: »

Her new mortgage is about 180 000 euro. Repayments must be in excess of 1200 euro per month. Unless in dublin city centre could easily afford a 1 or 2 bed flat to rent. But she gets to keep or celtic tiger home. Ita a disgrace

JOE

Giveaway wrote: »

Why should she get to keep an asset she is not paying for, when she could support herself and nearly adult daughter in rental accomodation. Have some empathy for the people paying their way with familys on less monthly net pay. The courts are usually sympathetic to woman in her situation..ie they dont load them with the outstanding debt after the assets have been sold
Ps the husband needs to be dealt with too.

What is your point?
I don't see how this woman retaining her home affects other people 'paying their way ' can you clarify?

Giveaway wrote: »

Why should she get to keep an asset she is not paying for

Once the debt is brought down to a reasonable level, she will be paying for it. And most likely she has been repaying something. But arrears are really hard to get out of.

What sense does it make for court to turf her and her daughter out so the bank can sell the house for €160,000?

Then the bank see nothing of the rest of the debt and lost money in legal fees on the sale.

Some people get their pound of flesh, but nobody is better off.

The disagreement in this case was not that PTSB wanted to take the house, but that they believed she could afford larger repayments. They failed to prove their case.

They can still follow the husband for the debt and if she sells the house for more than 160k the bank will get the difference, I am not in favour of the judgement but those two factors give some balance to it. The husband could be doing well and getting away free of the debt

Xterminator wrote: »

Value was written down to current market value of the house.

Was it though?

Sorry for making the same point twice but I just can't accept that a property bought for €343,785 in 2005 is only worth €160,000 in 2019. Was the valuation agent a friend of the lady in question I wonder?

The average trend would have the property back at roughly the value it was in 2005 (or even higher), not at 46% of the original price.



So unless the property was affected by pyrite (and isn't covered under the remediation schemes) or the owners have a habit of swinging around sledge-hammers, how in the hell is the asset worth so much less than was paid for it?

Giveaway wrote: »

I get the debt write down making the mortgage affordable and in selected cases is appropriate, but more than half the principal when she coukd afford to rent. The debt write down should have occured after disposal of the asset. Also the bankruptcy procedure here had been shortened to 3 years.

It seems she got an apparently preferential treatment?
Im sure a house could have sold and payed off the mortgage, now all it means is she will be renting (not something Id want to be doing myself) and someone else that could get a mortgage would get the place? isnt that already happening to others who are having their homes repossesed off them due to inability/unwillingness to pay? something else must have must be going on here, maybe she has attempted to pay down a a portion of the mortgage, but I dont see how the balance is not reducing unless she didnt pay down a substantial amount for years, and that seems to be the case for people being turfed out of places, they didnt make any effort when they had the means or they didnt have the means, so why is her debt still so high?

Giveaway wrote: »

Unrelates to this case but surely an american style system where if one defaults on the mortgage, if there is any outstanding debt after sale of the house, the debt is on the lender not the borrower. Would encourage more prudent lending and allow a fresh start for the borrower albeit with a poor credit rating

I dont think they'd let that fly here, it probably would encourage more people to default.
But it might mean house prices wouldnt have increased as much as the risk of defaulting is greater and it might encourage more realistic lending as you mention, which also might put the brakes on increases.
At this point, I think the brakes are on moderately but way too late, but they should have been cooling off the cost increases in 2003/2004 and then we might have had more stable and sustainable housing costs and less of an effect on the rest of the economy, it wouldnt have prevented the global problems but it may have still helped us nationally if personal debt was lower because of it.