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

Pensioners evicted from their home today!!

1…3435363840

Comments

  • #1112
    ABEasy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 566 ✭✭✭ABEasy


    true wrote: »
    Unrealistic wrote: »
    The couple had a property portfolio generating an income that was not dependent on the couple's ability to work. Even if they both became bedridden the property portfolio should still generate a substantial monthly income.

    but that income was needed to service loans, repairs, letting fees, expenses, etc on the property portfolio. Where was the income to come from to repay the multi million mortgage on the pensioners home? If they had that income do you not think they would have used it to pay the mortgage and avoid the stress of the past while, not to mention the discomfort of sleeping in a tent in April? If you were a pensioner who could affords a relatively newly taken out multi million euro mortgage, would you sleep in a tent? No, I don't think so either;)

    I think the point here is that they could afford to pay the loan off but choose not to. Then mouthed off to the media about landlords in the 1800's, when ironically they are more like the 1800 landlords than tenants!

    P.s. Nice bit of trolling your doing here, should get an award for it or something!


  • #1113
    true
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭true


    ABEasy wrote: »
    I think the point here is that they could afford to pay the loan off but choose not to.

    Have you proof or a link for that? I doubt it very much seeing as how the property market has tanked.


  • #1114
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,647 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    mod

    Not wanting to single anyone out at the moment, but can we stop the accusations of trolling in-thread, please?

    If you suspect someone of trolling, report the posts and your friendly, local spider mods will look into it for and action if necessary.

    Remember kids, back-seat modding is against the charter and all that jazz.

    /mod


  • #1115
    h2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭h2005


    true wrote: »
    Have you proof or a link for that? I doubt it very much seeing as how the property market has tanked.

    Have you proof they could not?


  • #1116
    true
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭true


    h2005 wrote: »
    Have you proof they could not?

    the experience of most people who invested heavily in multiple properties is that they are worth less than the loans on them.


  • Advertisement
  • #1117
    micropig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,366 ✭✭✭micropig


    true wrote: »
    the experience of most people who invested heavily in multiple properties is that they are worth less than the loans on them.

    They could've rented the other 4 bedrooms out if they where really stuck


  • #1118
    h2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭h2005


    true wrote: »
    the experience of most people who invested heavily in multiple properties is that they are worth less than the loans on them.

    Have you proof thats true for this couple? Also should the thread title not read pensioner rather than pensioners she is still working age


  • #1119
    Cedrus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,429 ✭✭✭Cedrus


    true wrote: »
    the experience of most people who invested heavily in multiple properties is that they are worth less than the loans on them.

    That it a thoroughly specious statement!
    Invested when, where, in what pricing climate, at what loan ratio?
    There are plenty of people who have invested major sums in property but bought when and where properties were good value, they didn't borrow against notional increases in property values but on the business value of the actual properties, they have sound financial plans.
    The Kellys big mistake seems to be that they continued buying property at the height of the boom, financing them by remortgaging rather than capital accrued.


  • #1120
    AskMyChocolate
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,312 ✭✭✭AskMyChocolate


    true wrote: »
    the experience of most people who invested heavily in multiple properties is that they are worth less than the loans on them.

    Sorry chief, but unless you're capable of putting things in chronological order, I really would advise you, to leave it at that.Your arguments and your position is quite frankly moronic.

    It has already been pointed out to you on several occasions, by several different posters, that there was nothing imprudent whatsoever, about the mortgage issued in 2004.

    If you want to talk about the loans issued in 2007, then fair enough,but otherwise I'm afraid you're coming across as a bit deficient.

    Also, I'd let up on the whole pensioner angle if I were you. The mortgage was issued in 2004 when the Kellys were 63 and 55 respectively. Their income did not derive from work, but from rental income in a very bouyant rental market.

    These rental properties were worth massively more than the outstanding loans on them and so obviously the rental income was hugely in excess of the outgoings.

    As I said at the start of this post, try to think chronologically, it is inane to try to ascribe blame retrospectively to the issuer of the mortgage for the Kellys' subsequent avarice and foolishness.

    Choco


  • #1121
    true
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭true


    Cedrus wrote: »
    The Kellys big mistake seems to be that they continued buying property at the height of the boom, financing them by remortgaging rather than capital accrued.

    And you think the bank was prudent to sell them these new loans /arrange this remortgaging....on properties which if they were located elsewhere in the world would only have been worth a fraction of that - to a couple approaching retirement age ? Not wise banking, as has been shown.


  • Advertisement
  • #1122
    kincsem
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,012 ✭✭✭kincsem


    true wrote: »
    And you think the bank was prudent to sell them these new loans /arrange this remortgaging....on properties which if they were located elsewhere in the world would only have been worth a fraction of that - to a couple approaching retirement age ? Not wise banking, as has been shown.
    Prudent or not, the banks will (1) collect the mortgage loan repayments month by month, or (2) if they are not paid they will take possession of the property. They make so many mortgage loans they know a percentage will default, but most will be paid. They charge interest sufficient to cover the losses from defaulters. I wonder considering the (I assume) lack of salary income, did the bank require additional guarantees from the couple.


  • #1123
    true
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭true


    kincsem wrote: »
    Prudent or not, the banks will (1) collect the mortgage loan repayments month by month, or (2) if they are not paid they will take possession of the property. They make so many mortgage loans they know a percentage will default, but most will be paid. They charge interest sufficient to cover the losses from defaulters.

    nice theory, but too much greedy, unscroupolous and unethical lending has meant the interest they get is not sufficient to cover the losses from defaulters...thats why the banks have lost not just millions but hundreds of billions.
    But its ok, the regulator and wbankers got to keep their bonuses and pensions. Only the flies got caught in the web.


  • #1124
    kincsem
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,012 ✭✭✭kincsem


    true wrote: »
    nice theory, but too much greedy, unscroupolous and unethical lending borrowing has meant the interest they get is not sufficient to cover the losses from defaulters...thats why the banks have lost not just millions but hundreds of billions.
    But its ok, the regulator and wbankers got to keep their bonuses and pensions. Only the flies got caught in the web.
    It was a transaction. One side did not perform.


  • #1125
    conor1979
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 197 ✭✭conor1979


    true wrote: »
    nice theory, but too much greedy, unscroupolous and unethical lending has meant the interest they get is not sufficient to cover the losses from defaulters...thats why the banks have lost not just millions but hundreds of billions.
    But its ok, the regulator and wbankers got to keep their bonuses and pensions. Only the flies got caught in the web.

    Are you implying that the Kelly's and others like them did not have a choice in getting lent the money?
    That they were forced to take out the loans?
    That the greed is one sided, from the bankers alone?


  • #1126
    lividduck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,250 ✭✭✭lividduck


    true wrote: »
    And you think the bank was prudent to sell them these new loans /arrange this remortgaging....on properties which if they were located elsewhere in the world would only have been worth a fraction of that - to a couple approaching retirement age ? Not wise banking, as has been shown.
    They are a pair of nasty greedy old chancers who think that there should be on rule for their "class" and another for the plebs, hope their tent gets a puncture in the rain!


  • #1127
    michaelg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 50 ✭✭michaelg


    lividduck wrote: »
    true wrote: »
    And you think the bank was prudent to sell them these new loans /arrange this remortgaging....on properties which if they were located elsewhere in the world would only have been worth a fraction of that - to a couple approaching retirement age ? Not wise banking, as has been shown.
    They are a pair of nasty greedy old chancers who think that there should be on rule for their "class" and another for the plebs, hope their tent gets a puncture in the rain!

    Bit disgusted with the lack of humanity in the comments here.
    I found the video shocking , sad and moving.
    The whole banking property thing is a mess and both banks and citizens are to blame but its still very sad to see people getting evicted.

    I can't believe how some here can say such heartless things,, shame on you.

    I hope the couple will be ok.


  • #1128
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    Perhaps they could be housed in a soon to vacant 3 bedroom house in Moyross, there are only 2 of them.

    Then the social welfare could buy their old house and house Yore wan.


  • #1129
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    michaelg wrote: »
    I found the video shocking , sad and moving.

    I can't believe how some here can say such heartless things,, shame on you.

    I hope the couple will be ok.

    The only thing moving was the kelly's and I think they will survive. Some of us have no shame.


  • #1130
    thebaz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,846 ✭✭✭✭thebaz


    michaelg wrote: »
    Bit disgusted with the lack of humanity in the comments here.
    I found the video shocking , sad and moving.

    if you want sad and moving , you don't have to look far , for real deserving cases

    i.e. those with no home , no money , no income -

    not a couple with 20 properties , pulling in a nice chunk on rent - yet expect sympathy for not paying for living in a gated community in Killiney, in a 5 bedroom house , with no children - sob sob


  • #1131
    thebaz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,846 ✭✭✭✭thebaz


    woops, more sobbing and sadness , it is just reported they also have substantial properties in london

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0424/1224315104103.html

    I will cry myself to sleep,


  • Advertisement
  • #1132
    jack presley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,687 ✭✭✭✭jack presley


    thebaz wrote: »
    woops, more sobbing and sadness , it is just reported they also have substantial properties in london

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0424/1224315104103.html

    I will cry myself to sleep,

    Property in London's still selling I presume? Which would put an end to their line about not being able to sell any of their properties because they won't sell.


  • #1133
    cyrusdvirus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    Unfortunately, this couple and their charade will have taken in some people with the 'emotive' scenes of them being removed from the house in Killiney that they were illegally occupying.


    Today's revelations about the extra properties in London show them up for what they really are, a shrewd manipulating pair of chancers.

    As for the occupy movement ending up with egg on their faces, I love that bit. Maybe that shower of krustys will look before they leap in future.


  • #1134
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    jack presley wrote: »
    Property in London's still selling I presume? Which would put an end to their line about not being able to sell any of their properties because they won't sell.
    Their properties will sell, all of them. Just not at the price they would like. So they could have sold a couple of their properties cheaply and then kept their home plus all their other properties but no, they chose to hold on to their properties and stop paying their rent and eventually were evicted. Idiots.


  • #1135
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    13 apartments in London!! Add that to the 21 in Dublin.

    No wonder Mr Kelly didn't want to divulge his financial circumstances to reporters initially, the info had to be dug out by genuine investigative journalists who I take my hat off to!


  • #1136
    Vicxas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,613 ✭✭✭✭Vicxas


    These people should be flogged for wasting public time with this needless ****e.


  • #1137
    true
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭true


    gurramok wrote: »
    13 apartments in London
    and quite possibly the bank owns them too, with the value of mortgages outstanding exceeding the sale price if sold.

    Renting properties was their business, and no doubt their business is in serious trouble. The question remains : do you think the bank was prudent to sell them new loans /arrange this remortgaging....on properties such as their own multi million home which if it was located elsewhere in the world would only have been worth a fraction of that - to a couple approaching retirement age ?


  • #1138
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    true wrote: »
    and quite possibly the bank owns them too, with the value of mortgages outstanding exceeding the sale price if sold.

    Renting properties was their business, and no doubt their business is in serious trouble. The question remains : do you think the bank was prudent to sell them new loans /arrange this remortgaging....on properties such as their own multi million home which if it was located elsewhere in the world would only have been worth a fraction of that - to a couple approaching retirement age ?

    Both parties (banks and borrowers) were not prudent. This couple had 4 years to sell off some of those properties which were bought in the 90's and early 2000's (hence would still have higher value today) before they were evicted from their mansion and also had that time to arrange to live in at least one of their 34 properties.


  • #1139
    lividduck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,250 ✭✭✭lividduck


    true wrote: »
    and quite possibly the bank owns them too, with the value of mortgages outstanding exceeding the sale price if sold.

    Renting properties was their business, and no doubt their business is in serious trouble. The question remains : do you think the bank was prudent to sell them new loans /arrange this remortgaging....on properties such as their own multi million home which if it was located elsewhere in the world would only have been worth a fraction of that - to a couple approaching retirement age ?
    The question is "When o when is somebody going to do the right thing and BLAST THEM PAIR WITH PISS!" :mad:


  • #1140
    true
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭true


    lividduck wrote: »
    The question is "When o when is somebody going to do the right thing and BLAST THEM PAIR WITH PISS!" :mad:
    I feel like blasting the regulator, bankers and government with piss for creating the mess the country is in.


  • Advertisement
  • #1141
    cyrusdvirus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    true wrote: »
    and quite possibly the bank owns them too, with the value of mortgages outstanding exceeding the sale price if sold.

    Renting properties was their business, and no doubt their business is in serious trouble. The question remains : do you think the bank was prudent to sell them new loans /arrange this remortgaging....on properties such as their own multi million home which if it was located elsewhere in the world would only have been worth a fraction of that - to a couple approaching retirement age ?

    True, you are arguing with a level of intensity that leads people to believe that you have a personal involvement with this case. And by personal involvement, i don't mean the involvement that any tax payer has in that we all own a share of that house in Killiney.

    Do you have some involvement with the kelly's? I'm just asking, as for the life of me, i cannot see why anyone WITHOUT a personal involvement would be standing up for this couple.

    As a business transaction, what happened here has been explained on numerous occasions. The bank looked at the overall value of the assets, looked at the value of the loan and decided that it was worth loaning out the money, as they would get back either the money loaned out with interest and so show a profit, or get the assets. It's not exactly rocket science.


Advertisement