nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Home Reposessed??

micbravo

Hi all...im currently way behind my mortgage payments (14 months) and kinda on my last chance with the bank...Realisticly il probably have my home reposessed in the next year..i am working but between all other bills and cost of just basicly living i cant afford my mortgage and by making deals with the bank i feel am just delaying the inevitable...SO i just thought id come up with this thread for people who have had their home reposessed and are waiting for,currently going through,or just finished all the legal stuff that follows reposession To share their stories/experiences to help others/myself who will or might have their home reposessed in the future....

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

cookie1977

If people where out buying all the latest gadgets and cars as Lima seems to think then the domestic economy would be a whole lot better off.

On another note it seems lima seems to not be able to follow his own advice:

I aim to avoid tit-for-tat comments on boards so I'm not going to get sucked in and say much

cookie1977

nacimroc wrote: »

I think the real figure would absolutely stun the country! I'm not getting between you and Lima, but after spending the last 2 years bidding on houses that people have no interested in selling I would disagree. They are only selling to keep the banks off their backs and to live rent/mortgage free even though they could be turning down offers above their asking price.

I could gaurantee everyone on here knows at least a few people who are not paying what they should be or could be. I don't care how broke you are, if they haven't paid a mortgage in 5 years they're better off than they should be. Then you have another mass amount of people struggling, debating weather to join them if their is relief coming to the people who won't pay. Its a house of cards.

You cannot have thousands of people living in houses for free for years! Its total madness.

To be honest if you haven't paid any mortgage in 5 years you're more than likely not enjoying life and are stressed beyond your limits. Being that indebted would not be a fun place to be ducking and diving from everyone.

lima

cookie1977 wrote: »

Ooh. Assumptions again. And you can search.

No I'm not behind in payments thanks. Although I did renegotiate my ppr to a longer term while I have two young kids in creche. Your point?

You are a vested interest as you have at least two properties and therefore it is in your interest to minimize home value depreciation, by advocating the propping up of property prices through state protection from evictions.

cookie1977

lima wrote: »

You are a vested interest as you have at least two properties and therefore it is in your interest to minimize home value depreciation, by advocating the propping up of property prices through state protection from evictions.

And you have no vested interest in the complete collapse of property prices so you can buy cheaper then you can now? You have blinkers on to think you operate alone in this world. Their are serious consequences to a massive default of mortgages and repossessions you seem destined to ignore. I'd be booking that flight to the USA sooner rather than later.

You continue to make assumptions about me. Why do you think I want to sell now?

StillWaters

lima wrote: »

That may happen in the near future.

The problem with this safety net is that it creates a bottom-tier of society that feels entitled to free things and cause a social and cultural burden on the rest of us.

And because they get things for free then someone else feels that because they got ripped off in the boom then they are entitled to not pay their mortgage any more in the hope of free things also.

All these people not getting removed from their houses are taking advantage of Irelands collective Catholic guilt in feeling that they should be forgiven as they have poor kids. Fair enough there may be families who are totally screwed and would have no where to go, but I bet there is a whole lot more who are just holding out, and have more than enough money for a nice car, Sky TV, Internet, iPads and a few pints at the weekend.

Wow, I don't think a neo libertarian like you will feel at home in any Western European country where health and welfare States have been developed since WWII. Nothing to do with Catholicism.

I think even the States would be a bit pink for you. Chile or Argentina maybe?

faceman

cookie1977 wrote: »

We're not a capitalist country as some. We have a huge social safety net. So why not move to the USA?

Actually the US has a better approach. A homeowner can hand back the keys and after a period of a couple of years they can get back property ladder. Banks can't pursue for any mortgage shortfall

cookie1977

faceman wrote: »

Actually the US has a better approach. A homeowner can hand back the keys and after a period of a couple of years they can get back property ladder. Banks can't pursue for any mortgage shortfall

True but I wouldn't say it's a better approach. It does make it a little to easy to walk away from debt. It to me is the other side of lima's coin and both seem to me to be extremes that would not work

frfintanstack

lima wrote: »

You are a vested interest as you have at least two properties and therefore it is in your interest to minimize home value depreciation, by advocating the propping up of property prices through state protection from evictions.

best post of the thread....

vested interest calls someone else a vested interest.:p

lima

frfintanstack wrote: »

best post of the thread....

vested interest calls someone else a vested interest.:p

..except I do not have a vested interest. I am merely hoping that the natural consequences of capitalism prevails, and that homes can get repossessed and the 'owners' get kicked out for not paying their mortgages and rent, thus bringing property prices to their fair market price so that people who had no involvement in the ponzi boom can buy at a fair price.

lima

cookie1977 wrote: »

And you have no vested interest in the complete collapse of property prices so you can buy cheaper then you can now? You have blinkers on to think you operate alone in this world. Their are serious consequences to a massive default of mortgages and repossessions you seem destined to ignore. I'd be booking that flight to the USA sooner rather than later.

You continue to make assumptions about me. Why do you think I want to sell now?

I didn't say I think you want to sell. You do probably want to current property falls to reach bottom so that they 'go up again' so that in x amount of years you want to sell at least your second 'investment' property.

I understand that if the house of cards collapses then the whole state would be in trouble. But it seems there are people who have no regard for paying their dues and continue to live for free whilst they are protected by government from being evicted from their 'homes' (that the bank really own). This is preventing me from buying a house at the moment as evidence suggests that prices are being propped up by 1. Banks not being able to repossess homes and 2. NAMA.

I understand your point of view and I am clearly on the opposite side. I wasn't here for the greed of the boom and I am aiming to be a 'vulture purchaser' and get one maybe two repossessed properties. I just wish it would happen already as it is not fair that I have to contribute my taxes to banks to pay their bondholders whilst mr and ms boom ended up making a bad investment and are not willing to pay their dues.

faceman

lima wrote: »

..except I do not have a vested interest. I am merely hoping that the natural consequences of capitalism prevails, and that homes can get repossessed and the 'owners' get kicked out for not paying their mortgages and rent, thus bringing property prices to their fair market price so that people who had no involvement in the ponzi boom can buy at a fair price.

And then happens to those that are kicked out?

lima wrote: »

I'm just saying no-one should think they are entitled to something for free, at the expense of someone else. We all know no one is going to be put on the street, but there are still people out there who would be shocked and appalled if god forbid they had to rent for the rest of their lives as they made a poor financial decision. I'm just saying it in simple terms.

Should they be deprived of state welfare too? Isn't that at the expense of someone else?

nacimroc

faceman wrote: »

And then happens to those that are kicked out?

The same thing that happens to everyone else who didn't borrow above their means. They rent.

cookie1977

My btl is for my pension hopefully, which is a few years off yet. You might not think it but you are 100% a vested interest I'm afraid. I do hope your hopes don't come true but mainly for the state of the country and not for any hope of price increases. The things is the country needs some stability.

Any sudden change in house prices up or down would be bad. We are were we are because of greed and I don't see a lot of difference in some of your views and the views of the people who caused this in the first place.

cookie1977

nacimroc wrote: »

The same thing that happens to everyone else who didn't borrow above their means. They rent.

And those that can't afford to rent become reliant on the state and thus the tax payer. I'm afraid this narrow view does not make a lot of sense to me.

nacimroc

cookie1977 wrote: »

And those that can't afford to rent become reliant on the state and thus the tax payer. I'm afraid this narrow view does not make a lot of sense to me.

2000 quid a month mortgage we are paying for them that they won't pay versus a cheapo council house! It makes an awful lot of sense if you think about it!

cookie1977

nacimroc wrote: »

2000 quid a month mortgage we are paying for them that they won't pay versus a cheapo council house! It makes an awful lot of sense if you think about it!

But that's my point. The banks have already been paid for the bad debts on their books yet they still won't negotiate a deal to repay some of the debt with these customers. It does not make sense to me at all.

nacimroc

cookie1977 wrote: »

they still won't negotiate a deal to repay some of the debt

AKA - write off money to someone who won't pay. Fine write it off! When they ask me for 1k next month I will happily hand it over? No chance!

Half the reason I bought recently is that if I don't pay my rent I'm out after a month. But yet I can live happily for free for years by owning. Its amazing that people can't see how absolutely crazy this whole system is. An entire false economy where the most ruthless get rewarded the most. A false economy propped up by a government elected by the vested interests in keeping the status quo of "nothing happening". Nobody willing to lose a penny after the massive crash we've had. Any excuse not to pay. Any excuse not to make a deal. Any excuse not to accept your investment failed.

cookie1977

You should ask some other landlords (not me thankfully) of their expereinces with getting rid of tennents who don't pay their rent.

I wasn't necessarily speaking of right downs although in some cases that may be an option. I was speak of McWilliams idea (see earlier in thread).

professore

cookie1977 wrote: »

No your mortgage and tax went up because the banks were bailed out due to an international recession and bad decisions by the government and banks of the day primarily.

This just isn't true. We went particularly mad in this country over and above others on property. A huge chunk of our tax revenue came from building, buying and selling houses to each other. This vanished when the boom stopped.

It's the gap between taxes and spending that's the real reason for the tax increases. The banking debt is only a fraction of this. A lot of money, granted, but if it was written off 100% in the morning we'd STILL need cuts and/or tax rises additional to what's been done already - or we need to cut our unemployment rate by half or more to achieve the same thing.

cookie1977

Em where do you think our national debt came from? How much have we plied into the banks to recapitalise directly. Do you need me to google that?

professore

cookie1977 wrote: »

You should ask some other landlords (not me thankfully) of their expereinces with getting rid of tennents who don't pay their rent.

I wasn't necessarily speaking of right downs although in some cases that may be an option. I was speak of McWilliams idea (see earlier in thread).

As a tenant in Ireland, you have 2 options:

1. Pay everything you're supposed to, take good care of the property = get shafted by the landlord.

2. Trash the place and don't pay your rent = come out of the deal with several months of rent free.

That's why people are so eager to own properties here.

cookie1977

professore wrote: »

As a tenant in Ireland, you have 2 options:

1. Pay everything you're supposed to, take good care of the property = get shafted by the landlord.

2. Trash the place and don't pay your rent = come out of the deal with several months of rent free.

That's why people are so eager to own properties here.

Mass generalisation again. How simple it would be to live in a world of clear options.

professore

cookie1977 wrote: »

Em where do you think our national debt came from? How much have we plied into the banks to recapitalise directly. Do you need me to google that?

http://www.finfacts-blog.com/2011/03/irish-national-debt-public-spending-was.html

The economist said at the end-of 2013 we will have a huge debt. One-fifth will be what we brought with us into the crisis. Less than a third will be due to the bank bailout. About half of our debt will be due to our own deficits. By 2013 the bank recapitalisations will be over, and we may even see some small return on the money poured into AIB and BOI, with the toxic property loans NAMA process also well advanced. However, our Exchequer deficits will remain and will continue to require further borrowings. With the annual deficit still estimated to be 7.5% of GDP in 2013, the 113.5% Debt/GDP ratio at that stage will continue to increase.

professore

cookie1977 wrote: »

Mass generalisation again. How simple it would be to live in a world of clear options.

Well option 2 is definitely the case, and I have experienced option 1 a few times, having said that there are decent landlords out there.

cookie1977

And what do you think we would have done with the cash we didn't use to bail out the banks? Perhaps pay to run the country?? Maybe then we wouldn't have needed/forced to run a deficit

professore

Apologies for going off-topic. I sympathise with anyone in the unfortunate situation of having their house repossessed.

professore

cookie1977 wrote: »

And what do you think we would have done with the cash we didn't use to bail out the banks? Perhaps pay to run the country?? Maybe then we wouldn't have needed/forced to run a deficit

Apart from €15 bln or so from the pension reserve fund, the rest came from the troika.

cookie1977

professore wrote: »

Apart from €15 bln or so from the pension reserve fund, the rest came from the troika.

An we needed the troika's cheap cash only after bailing the banks out and finding no one else trusted us with loans other then at ridiculous rates. Any way back to the main point on house reposessions.

flutered

juanbob wrote: »

hi just wondering about home repo im going through a very rough time here with my family we know the house is going to be reposessed,but when is the question a fella came to the door yesterday and new my name and the wifes name and was looking to see was the house occupied or vacant said he was from the bank is this a part of the reposession stage

short shift, no one should get that kind of info, even if had i.d. i would run him, all this needs to be done by appointment, not in your house but on your terms.

professore

On topic, would people in this situation prefer to be able to declare some sort of bankruptcy where they would lose the house and any possessions worth taking (maybe stuff worth over a grand) that would see them free to return to a normal credit existence after say 2-3 years,

OR

Pay the banks some barely affordable amount that left them with a minimum basic standard of living until their circumstances improved, possibly for the rest of their lives?

I know which I would choose, option 1.