Unpaid Debts

Financial systems are very simple to understand when stripped down.

If you don't have enough money for a "thing", and then you borrow money to get that thing, you end up with even LESS money.

I have 1 euro. I want something that costs 2 euro. I borrow the extra 1 euro, but the loan costs 20%, say.

So I started with a net worth of 1 euro, whereas by the time you pay the loan back, your net worth has been REDUCED to 80 cent.

Simplistic example, but damned if the average person fully understands the basis of financial systems. You lose money on debt.

So I say it is not a particular demographic guilty here, it is the vast majority of people across all groups. Just some are more obvious, that's all. Gicnah who has a gigantic loan on his house is seen as fine and upstanding, but he's no more financially savvy than most. The system relies on the ignorance of the majority.

Don't be annoying me about smarter loans and all that, I know. I'm only demonstrating the (not so) obvious

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I do also believe this, even though I'd imagine the majority of individuals working in the swevtor are just normal genuine folk, it's the inbuilt ideology and incentive schemes seems to be highly problematic, and in fact dangerous for all

And the fear of losing your job if you don't comply.

Pressure Sales in the finance sector should be outlawed.

Raconteuse wrote: »

But I'm not talking about whether it works or not. I'm referring to "don't bother paying" for a service provided, and for which an agreement was made to pay it.

Some people think they are better than others and are above paying what they owe (and I am talking about all members of society with that attitude before someone mentions senior bank scum just assuming I'm not referring to them).

I don't think that's the full case. I don't believe anyone fully sets out to not pay or refuse to pay. Having worked within the industry myself I have come across thousands of people in debt.

I would estimate that 99.9 % want to pay but sue to unforseen circumstances either long term I'll health, job loss etc their circumstances change and be it the mortgage company etc refuse point blank to renegotiate the loan terms and demand payment in full there and then.

As a bailiff, 1 case springs to mind. A terminally I'll woman dying of cancer. I was sent out to evict her. On paper it was a tenant refusing to pay rent. The agency we t for immediate eviction on 2 months unpaid rent and got the court order as the tenant didn't respond. In reality tenant lost her job due to health, had applied for housing benefit which had not yet come through. She had not ignored the court she was in hospital.

Alternatively think of a couple who initially took out a 25 year mortgage. 10 years later one has to give up work due to having a disabled child or ill health. House is in negative equity so can't remortgage. They can now only meet 75% of mortgage payment monthly without going into dire financial circumstances. Bank refuse this and refuse to negotiate payments.

Are both of the above cases scumbag debtors or both scenarios the banks / creditors fault

Yes there are non payers out there, they are not the majority.

Deleted User wrote: »

Why this isn't deducted at source from their social welfare payments is a complete mystery to me.

Can you see any politician advocating for this?

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Good post, well put, you see nobody wants the genuine person in trouble financially, either due to ill health, job loss, circumstances beyond their control to suffer, they should be helped to the max.

But the Dublin City Council figures couldn’t reflect the genuine condition of the non payers, no way whatsoever.

What really puzzles me though is that the ‘political party ‘ that is at every dog fight going, every demo, every picket line, every protest about anything ,never, to my knowledge has highlighted this situation.

Rents are being raised and they are up in arms,but no reference to if the defaulters paid up there would be no need for a rent rise.

No suggestion as to how these massive arrears could be recovered, no interest in putting forward legislation to ensure that the money can be recovered.

Sometimes I think this country hasn’t a clue how to manage its affairs.

Everything takes longer to complete, is more expensive, is less well regulated, has worse after effects .

Why is that?

Has me riled up a bit for sure.

I will give you a genuine council debt, it is ireland but not Dublin.

A widow, husband killed in a crash left a child disabled. Child has medical needs and requires adaptive aids. She pays rent weekly she always rounded it up so was often ahead and reviewed every year.

There was a problem with some of the equipment and needed repair, she ended up having to go to council to apply for a grant to update and modernise.
. Next thing is she gets a call from the council saying oooppps we should have revised your rent when disabled child turned 18 and was in receipt of their own funds. We have done it now and you owe us thousands.
Demand for payment in full immediately, she told them to take her to court. The adult child does not have capicity and the tennancy is not a joint tenancy.
She increased her weekly payments by the new rent amount and 20 on top for the "arrears"
How is that even legal

Mad_maxx wrote: »

which local authority are you referring to ?

there are far more than twenty five thousand local authority tenants in dublin , never mind nationally

Dublin city council, line was taken direct from the article.

realdanbreen wrote: »

Can you see any politician advocating for this?

No, but it seems mad to me, no doubt they would be crucified by the left politician but I genuinely think they would have the support of most people

ednwireland wrote: »

funny i was looking at the latest housing technology Magazine (as its the sector i work in !)

this jumped out on rotherham council managing their rent collection


which equated to 1.1 million extra funding, i wonder what proper repayments and addressing arrears would do for some irish councils

Jesus, there'd be uproar if whatever system they use was brought in!
Paddy would prefer to do an amnesty on all non payers n start again with a clean slate. It'd make the figures look better... For a while!

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Let’s understand this. Nobody wants people like that ‘punished’

That is a genuine case and looks like the councils fault.

Let’s get back to the topic on hand, 30large owed to DCC in unpaid rent.

Now is anyone suggesting that all those defaulters and gamers are in the same boat as the unfortunate person you highlighted.

Surely there is some intelligence out there which can separate the gamer from the genuine.

Is that too much to ask?

I agree it's not too much to ask. Something needs to be done but it's also very very unfair to treat everyone as a gamer when the majority are probably not.

As far as I can see that council need to recruit properly to their finance division and properly train people in how to do their jobs.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Buddy, you have been trying to derail this thread all day.

No harm in that but your contributions have been less than salient to the issue.

All I advocate is that those who game the system are weeded out but that those who genuinely are trying are supported.

Do you have the same outlook?

Do you think that a 30 million arrears in rent to DCC should be ignored?

Do you think that action should be taken to protect those in genuine need and put forward a genuine plan to recoup arrears?

Do you think that folk who refuse to pay arrears should be tolerated?

no i havent, theres clearly something deeply wrong with our credit creation systems, theres simply too much debt, and this is a global issue

the biggest gamers are those linked to the same financial institutions that have lead us down this path. what do we do when we 'weed' these people out, how do you even do that?

of course it shouldnt be ignored, but is it really that big of a problem, theres far more serious problems causing house price inflation