Trying to sell my house

lima · 02-03-2013 2:41am

mrmitty wrote: »

The banks also risked.
Should they not abide by the same rules?

Absolutely not, that is just Irish people trying to get out of paying their commitments, that they committed to by taking loans out on their own free will. They are responsible for every penny, the banks situation is none of their business.

mrmitty · 02-03-2013 2:43am

lima wrote: »

Absolutely not, that is just Irish people trying to get out of paying their commitments, that they committed to by taking loans out on their own free will. They are responsible for every penny, the banks situation is none of their business.

Lol

As with so many Irish, You are financially illiterate.

lima · 02-03-2013 2:44am

Cuchulainn1. wrote: »

Lol @ lima stuck in the poverty trap.
Op save two months mortgage payments and take a serious holiday for yourself(I hear Peru is lovely)!!!
It will all be on be on limas tax bill-which I doubt is a whole pile.

Even though it's of no relevance, I'm a private sector worker earning a large salary (for a private sector job that is) and I have an abundance of disposable income as I did not buy property during the 'boom'. I am clever enough to have rented.

Unfortunately I have a large tax bill but hey that's life, I accept it.

lima · 02-03-2013 2:46am

mrmitty wrote: »

Lol

As with so many Irish, You are financially illiterate.

Sure am!! Sooo much money in the bank right now I don't know what to spend it on (but not too stupid to spend it on something to impress the Jonse's)

bar32 · 02-03-2013 2:49am

lima wrote: »

Even though it's of no relevance, I'm a private sector worker earning a large salary (for a private sector job that is) and I have an abundance of disposable income as I did not buy property during the 'boom'. I am clever enough to have rented.

Unfortunately I have a large tax bill but hey that's life, I accept it.

Clever or lucky?

lima · 02-03-2013 2:51am

bar32 wrote: »

Clever or lucky?

Honestly a bit of both.. but no way would I have paid 300k for a 2bd apt in Dublin at the time even if I did get signed off for that amount for a mortgage. (I wasn't here but I heard they actually went for more than that :eek: )

Dr Turk Turkelton · 02-03-2013 2:56am

lima wrote: »

Even though it's of no relevance, I'm a private sector worker earning a large salary (for a private sector job that is) and I have an abundance of disposable income as I did not buy property during the 'boom'. I am clever enough to have rented.

Unfortunately I have a large tax bill but hey that's life, I accept it.

Well if you have no obligations to the bank why are you so worried about the op?
You would think that with all your experience of the private sector that you would have a basic grasp of how capitalism works no?
Basically the bank took a punt on the op,the op fell halfway through the race and the result is tough titties bank.

Now lima there is capitalism 101 explained for you.

bar32 · 02-03-2013 2:59am

lima wrote: »

Honestly a bit of both.. but no way would I have paid 300k for a 2bd apt in Dublin at the time even if I did get signed off for that amount for a mortgage. (I wasn't here but I heard they actually went for more than that :eek: )

I was just plain lucky that I wasn't 5 years older to be honest. Who knows what I might have done. People between 30 and 40years of age at the moment, who have new mortgages, probably got stung the most in certain respects. Just starting to get on the the high first rung of the property ladder, expecting to have an ever increasing salary scale for life. There's a whole new generation now who won't forget this in a hurry and will be more conservative with borrowings. Don't be too harsh on the OP.

mrmitty · 02-03-2013 3:14am

lima wrote: »

Sure am!! Sooo much money in the bank right now I don't know what to spend it on (but not too stupid to spend it on something to impress the Jonse's)

Let me try to educate you about bank lending.

Firstly, lending by any bank or financial institution or any individual for that matter is an exercise in risk Managment. When a bank makes a loan there are no absolute guarantees that they will receive their money back. As the old saying goes "the only thing that's certain is death and taxes".
That being said, when a bank underwrites any loan they are undergoing an exercise in risk Managment.
Their job is to access the risk and charge an interest rate based upon their assesment of said risk. The higher the risk the higher the interest rate.
Some banks may have more of an appetite for risk than other banks but this is usually a reflection of their level of liquidity.
The banks in Ireland had a financial obligation to insure that the asset which they were/are providing the loan for is adequate to provide security for said loan. This is where the culpability of the banks comes into play.
They have a fiduciary responsibility to both their shareholders and customers to insure that they do their due diligence. They did not. They therefore were negligent.

Ps. Here's the definition of risk...

"

1risk noun \ˈrisk\

Definition of RISK

1
: possibility of loss or injury : peril
2
: someone or something that creates or suggests a hazard
3
a : the chance of loss or the perils to the subject matter of an insurance contract; also : the degree of probability of such loss
b : a person or thing that is a specified hazard to an insurer
c : an insurance hazard from a specified cause or source <war risk>
4
: the chance that an investment (as a stock or commodity) will lose value
— risk·less adjective
— at risk
: in a state or condition marked by a high level of risk or susceptibility <patients at risk of infection>

In economics and finance, an allowance for the hazard (risk) in an investment or loan. Default risk refers to the chance that a borrower will not repay a loan. If a banker believes that a borrower may not repay a loan, the banker will charge the true interest plus a premium for the default risk, the premium depending on the degree of presumed risk. All stock investment carries an implicit risk since there is no guarantee of return on investment. Trading or variability risk is the amount that the return may vary, up or down, from the expected return on investment."

Chiorino · 02-03-2013 10:07am

Having had a look around, based on what I've seen, the OP actually has a better chance than most of getting a deal from the bank as they might just be desperate enough to get something back from what is obviously a non performing mortgage.

OP, approach the bank and TELL them this is what you are doing (from experience the nicey nice approach doesn't work) and see what the reaction is.

lima · 02-03-2013 10:44am

mrmitty wrote: »

Let me try to educate you about bank lending.

Firstly, lending by any bank or financial institution or any individual for that matter is an exercise in risk Managment. When a bank makes a loan there are no absolute guarantees that they will receive their money back. As the old saying goes "the only thing that's certain is death and taxes".
That being said, when a bank underwrites any loan they are undergoing an exercise in risk Managment.
Their job is to access the risk and charge an interest rate based upon their assesment of said risk. The higher the risk the higher the interest rate.
Some banks may have more of an appetite for risk than other banks but this is usually a reflection of their level of liquidity.
The banks in Ireland had a financial obligation to insure that the asset which they were/are providing the loan for is adequate to provide security for said loan. This is where the culpability of the banks comes into play.
They have a fiduciary responsibility to both their shareholders and customers to insure that they do their due diligence. They did not. They therefore were negligent.

Ps. Here's the definition of risk...

"

Look, what bothers me is that people feel entitled to keep their homes even though they are not willing to pay anything (not even a penny in this case) towards their obligations.

Just because they have kids doesn't mean they can get away with it.

At the very least the bank should sell their home, and whatever debt is left over they can sort that out among themselves. They can then go rent a house somewhere where they can afford.

My problem, as a potential buyer, is that housing stock is being restricted for various reasons and this is one of those reasons.

Galego · 02-03-2013 11:01am

Let's be clear here. Yes banks take as much risk as borrowers but when borrowers default we all pay for it. Banks will have to compensate losses/write offs with increases in the mortgage variable interests or lowering interest in deposits. I am certainly not happy when someone defaults and gets away "clean". I would only agree with write-offs in very extreme cases.

The_Conductor · 02-03-2013 11:15am

Galego wrote: »

Let's be clear here. Yes banks take as much risk as borrowers but when borrowers default we all pay for it. Banks will have to compensate losses/write offs with increases in the mortgage variable interests or lowering interest in deposits. I am certainly not happy when someone defaults and gets away "clean". I would only agree with write-offs in very extreme cases.

In the case of write-offs though, be they in extreme cases or otherwise, there should be no cases where the person gets to hold onto the asset (irrespective of whether its their principle private residence, buy-to-let property or whatever). Sell the properties. Sit down afterwards and argue over the negative equity balance- and in cases where its obvious the person is incapable of ever clearing the balance- write it off. If they are capable of servicing a much smaller amount- reduce it to the smaller amount (remaining cognisant of the need for that person to pay rent elsewhere).

The moratorium on repossessions has been quite ridiculous, and has stored up a whole lot of trouble for the future- alongside making our lending institutions so risk adverse as to refuse credit to perfectly good businesses driving them up the wall, and more people into unemployment.

You could call it the law of unintended consequences- but keeping people in their homes even when they can't pay their mortgages- is in turn lengthening our downturn and is a major contributing factor in our unemployment rate remaining above 14%

Chiorino · 02-03-2013 11:35am

smccarrick wrote: »

In the case of write-offs though, be they in extreme cases or otherwise, there should be no cases where the person gets to hold onto the asset (irrespective of whether its their principle private residence, buy-to-let property or whatever).

Agree completely.

smccarrick wrote: »

Sell the properties. Sit down afterwards and argue over the negative equity balance- and in cases where its obvious the person is incapable of ever clearing the balance- write it off.

Unfortunately the banks are not interested in engaging in this. Despite all their "talk to us" attitude, all they will do is offer the same short term approach they always have, ie interest only. Is it that they cannot see or refuse to accept that this will all come to a head eventually in mass defaults?

The_Conductor · 02-03-2013 11:49am

Well- the central bank are taking a far more pro-active approach of late- and their directives are being more and more explicit to the banks- crystalise the losses on your balance sheets, cleanse your bad debts, and behave like a normal financial institution. When we recapitalised the banks, we injected sufficient into them to assume a high level of bad debts- however instead of cleansing their balance sheets, banks and other lending institutions have instead sat on the cash, and played a waiting game. The moratorium on repossessions, alongside the ridiculous rules about the family home- have only encouraged them to sit down on their hands and wait things out. The new 'get-tough' attitude of the central bank is to be applauded, however it has to be shown to the lending institutions that there is bite along with the bark, and consequences associated with continuing to sit on their hands and ignore their bad debts. The government in turn- has to stop meddling, do away with any impediments to repossessions (of all asset classes), and give the relevant authorities the impetus to sort of the mess for once and for all.

The issue about the UN Declaration on providing housing is the biggest red herring yet that the politicians keep trotting out with- housing is not extravagent palatial pads that people once were able to afford, but no longer. The declaration is understood by some countries to include tents ffs. In an Irish context- people should be moved to properties that NAMA or other agencies are unable to let on the open market. The people in turn should be given every possible opportunity to procure employment- and get back on their feet, and weaned off state support.

Ireland seems to want to be a socialist state- but we just can't afford it- which is something no matter how we dress it up, that has to be accepted by both the public, and more pertinently, politicians of all cloths.

Chiorino · 02-03-2013 12:12pm

smccarrick wrote: »

however instead of cleansing their balance sheets, banks and other lending institutions have instead sat on the cash, and played a waiting game.

Exactly my point but how enforcable are these directives (I genuinely don't know). Can the central bank actually force an individual bank to do something?? Similarly can an individual appeal a banks decision to the central bank (or another body) in the way businesses can appeal a denial or withdrawl of credit facilites?

Galego · 02-03-2013 12:42pm

Chiorino wrote: »

Exactly my point but how enforcable are these directives (I genuinely don't know). Can the central bank actually force an individual bank to do something?? Similarly can an individual appeal a banks decision to the central bank (or another body) in the way businesses can appeal a denial or withdrawl of credit facilites?

I haven't seen a report yet which says what percentage of those in arrears are people with arrangements in place with their banks (interest only, etc).
If a borrower paid interest only in the loan, what interest would a bank have to repossess that house? It would be mad to do that in fairness.

To me, the BTLs not performing should be the first ones to be tackled. These are pure investments making losses. No point in letting them go on that way.

mrmitty · 02-03-2013 3:55pm

lima wrote: »

Look, what bothers me is that people feel entitled to keep their homes even though they are not willing to pay anything (not even a penny in this case) towards their obligations.

Just because they have kids doesn't mean they can get away with it.

At the very least the bank should sell their home, and whatever debt is left over they can sort that out among themselves. They can then go rent a house somewhere where they can afford.

My problem, as a potential buyer, is that housing stock is being restricted for various reasons and this is one of those reasons.

You are emotionally charged and frustrates by the situation which is understandable.
However, your desire to have those financially illiterate people who entered into (what is most likely the biggest investment of their lives) without proper knowledge, become indentured slaves for the foreseeable future is what's immoral.
These buyers were given upwards of 5 and sometimes as high as 10 times multiples of their income by banks to purchase homes by bankers who are supposed to be professionals.
These banks were either very greedy or very stupid or (proberly) a combination of both yet you propose that they walk away without recourse.
I agree totally that nobody in default should get to keep their homes and that the repossession process should be accelerated but the notion that someone should pay for this mistake for the rest of their lives is absurd and It is in no way constructive.
Also, if we don't address the systemic incompetence and baffonery that is rampant in our banking system then this will just be repeated again and again.

Peanut2011 · 02-03-2013 6:02pm

lima wrote: »

Get the f**k out of it and stop trying to justify breaking the law. This person took out a mortgage on a property and obvisously screwed up and didn't take into account the fact they they may lost their jobs. Thats THEIR FAULT. They made the mistake, not the banks, they went in and got a mortage, the banks didn't force it upon them.

OP you NEED to pay back what you owe the banks, you need to be pursued for the rest of your life because you owe what you owe.

How DARE you not pay your mortgage and expect to live in the same house, you are ripping me as a tax payer off and you deserve the house to be taken from you and you should be shoved into a rental property asap.

Another thread same old posts! From what I can see OP is trying to find solution not run away from it.

As in any business agreements and arrangements are part and parcel of daily operation. Why should bank be any different from any other business?

Let me guess, only because "tax payer" is now footing the shortfall. Who's fault is that?

Chiorino · 02-03-2013 6:18pm

Peanut2011 wrote: »

Another thread same old posts! From what I can see OP is trying to find solution not run away from it.

As in any business agreements and arrangements are part and parcel of daily operation. Why should bank be any different from any other business?

Let me guess, only because "tax payer" is now footing the shortfall. Who's fault is that?

As I've said previously, the main problem is the banks wont engage in any meaningful arrangements or agreements. Putting someone who is in difficulty on interest only for a few months wont solve the root problem.

Any non traditional suggestions are flat out refused (in my experience). The OP's situation sounds like a total default and repossesion is on the cards as I really dont see the bank accepting any settlement offer.

Tonsass · 02-03-2013 8:58pm

thanks so much for the replys guys even the bad ones lol.....i have went into the bank 3 years ago when husband was told was being left go..he was in army so when we took mortgage we taught we would be fine as even when came time to retire he would have got good pension unfortunately this didn't happen and he got injured 9 years into the job and they just didn't keep him on and no he didn't get claim or pension out of that.....as for my kids they are not an excuse not to pay mortgage just that in my eyes better to feed and look after them that's my job.....i don't depend on the 'tax payers money' as i pay tax my self and always have and never had to rely on the state EVER......we bought in 2006 in the boom andour mortgage was 165k which wasnt big at all we didnt over borrow at all.....i have been in contact with the bank the whole way through this and they didnt want to help in any way as we are only still paying mostly interest on mortgage the interest option was no good to us......i have been in since (Friday) and have to fill out yet another form to send off to Dublin for them to look at and what i propose to do to get out of this mess..........im not in any way trying to run away from this at all and just want to get it sorted and not have it hanging over my head.....

Chiorino · 02-03-2013 9:09pm

Tonsass wrote: »

thanks so much for the replys guys even the bad ones lol.....i have went into the bank 3 years ago when husband was told was being left go..he was in army so when we took mortgage we taught we would be fine as even when came time to retire he would have got good pension unfortunately this didn't happen and he got injured 9 years into the
job and they just didn't keep him on and no he didn't get claim or pension out of that.....as for my kids they are not an excuse not to pay mortgage just that in my eyes better to feed and look after them that's my job.....i don't depend on the 'tax payers money' as i pay tax my self and always have and never had to rely on the state EVER......we bought in 2006 in the boom andour mortgage was 165k which wasnt big at all we didnt over borrow at all.....i have been in contact with the bank the whole way through this and they didnt want to help in any way as we are only still paying mostly interest on mortgage the interest option was no good to us......i have been in since (Friday) and have to fill out yet another form to send off to Dublin for them to look at and what i propose to do to get out of this mess..........im not in any way trying to run away from this at all and just want to get it sorted and not have it hanging over my head.....

If you can will you keep us informed as to how you're getting on. I would like to see how different banks are dealing with cases. What bank do you have your mortgage with if you don't mind me asking? Good luck with everything and hopefully you get sorted.

Tonsass · 02-03-2013 9:19pm

Chiorino wrote: »

If you can will you keep us informed as to how you're getting on. I would like to see how different banks are dealing with cases. What bank do you have your mortgage with if you don't mind me asking? Good luck with everything and hopefully you get sorted.

im with TSB...i will keep ye posted im requesting to sell my house buy another house that is cheaper and pay off some of the balance....also if i move nearer the town can get rid of the car as can walk school and also get bus to work so the expense is gone.....just tryin to cut non essential outgoings so can pay bit more off house if that makes sense

StillWaters · 02-03-2013 9:34pm

Tonsass wrote: »

im with TSB...i will keep ye posted im requesting to sell my house buy another house that is cheaper and pay off some of the balance....also if i move nearer the town can get rid of the car as can walk school and also get bus to work so the expense is gone.....just tryin to cut non essential outgoings so can pay bit more off house if that makes sense

But if you bought in 2006 for €165k, surely if you sold for €200k you could clear your mortgage?

Also, I dont think you will get a mortgage for another house in your circumstances, sorry.

Tonsass · 02-03-2013 10:11pm

StillWaters wrote: »

But if you bought in 2006 for €165k, surely if you sold for €200k you could clear your mortgage?

Also, I dont think you will get a mortgage for another house in your circumstances, sorry.

house prices are not the same so i will only get around 100kfor it

i am tryin to down grade my mortgage that the option im trying for

StillWaters · 03-03-2013 12:17am

Tonsass wrote: »

house prices are not the same so i will only get around 100kfor it

i am tryin to down grade my mortgage that the option im trying for

Tonsass, that doesnt make sense, you cannot bring the mortgage with you, and if you have been in default or arrears you wont get a new mortgage. You will either have to negotiate to stay in your house, or sell and rent elsewhere.

flutered · 03-03-2013 12:41am

lima wrote: »

ohh the interweb nooo

I'm obviously not angry about this specific post, as I have a life and joy and all that, but for someone to not pay back what they committed to pay back is inconceivable to me.. I know tonnes of people who have come over to Ireland and got jobs, I also know tonnes of people who have emigrated to find work and have thus not had to rely on the state for income. This OP sounds lazy, like they should get their sh*t together and train themselves up to work either here or abroad.... there are plenty of foreigners coming over here and working for our high minimum wage, yet so many Irish refuse to work for such wages and preferto crib and moan about not being able to pay their dues when in fact they over borrowed.

the female is doing as you suggest, the male is at home child minding etc, now if he as you suggest take a minimun wage job like as you call them the foreigners who who will mind the kids, his minimun wage job will not cover childminding plus playschool plus national school delivery and collection, i.m.o. you are doing your best to be nasty in your replies, you make suggestions which are extreme and very over the top.

The_Conductor · 03-03-2013 11:20am

StillWaters wrote: »

But if you bought in 2006 for €165k, surely if you sold for €200k you could clear your mortgage?

Also, I dont think you will get a mortgage for another house in your circumstances, sorry.

The issue is they won't get 200k- nothing like it, so they'd be carrying significant negative equity with them. They would also need the explicit permission of the lender to sell for less than the outstanding mortgage- which they are unlikely to get. If they sell anyway- and then try to get another mortgage- they may or may not- they need to discuss this with their lender in advance of doing anything.

D3PO · 03-03-2013 11:30am

lima wrote: »

Honestly a bit of both.. but no way would I have paid 300k for a 2bd apt in Dublin at the time even if I did get signed off for that amount for a mortgage. (I wasn't here but I heard they actually went for more than that :eek: )

clearly not clever. otherwise you wouldnt have applied for a mortgage if you though property was overpriced.

Well done on being lucky though :rolleyes:

D3PO · 03-03-2013 11:32am

smccarrick wrote: »

In the case of write-offs though, be they in extreme cases or otherwise, there should be no cases where the person gets to hold onto the asset (irrespective of whether its their principle private residence, buy-to-let property or whatever). Sell the properties. Sit down afterwards and argue over the negative equity balance- and in cases where its obvious the person is incapable of ever clearing the balance- write it off. If they are capable of servicing a much smaller amount- reduce it to the smaller amount (remaining cognisant of the need for that person to pay rent elsewhere).

The moratorium on repossessions has been quite ridiculous, and has stored up a whole lot of trouble for the future- alongside making our lending institutions so risk adverse as to refuse credit to perfectly good businesses driving them up the wall, and more people into unemployment.

You could call it the law of unintended consequences- but keeping people in their homes even when they can't pay their mortgages- is in turn lengthening our downturn and is a major contributing factor in our unemployment rate remaining above 14%

ah Shane get a grip. No need for common sense on such an emotive subject :cool:

Trying to sell my house

Comments