Should people be evicted from houses they cant afford?

COYVB · 10-03-2013 04:20PM

Gatling wrote: »

So home owners should be absolved of any blame ,

No. They took the loans, they need to pay them all back in full. But there's no reason they shouldn't be able to reduce their monthly exposure to them by extending the duration of the loan via renegotiation with the banks. Everyone still gets paid, in fact the banks make more out of it, but the home owners have the ability to make their outgoings a bit more manageable short term

Boskowski · 10-03-2013 04:33PM

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

You're actually just inventing stuff here to suit your agenda. What evidence do you have of this attitude? And please don't use your mate's wife's husband's 1st cousin, for the love of jaysus. :rolleyes:

No, I'm not.
There are stories on this very forum that I would be able to point out to you using the search function. People asking for advice on legal and property forums along the lines of 'my house is in negative equity I want to hand back they keys' no mention of job loss or anything. One guy bought another house a few miles away for the new cheaper price and now wants rid of the expensive one.

Don't tell me you don't think once a soft spot opens up there wouldn't be thousands like that trying to home in on it. The cute hoor mentality is widespread.

space_man · 10-03-2013 04:40PM

Boskowski wrote: »

No, I'm not.
There are stories on this very forum that I would be able to point out to you using the search function. People asking for advice on legal and property forums along the lines of 'my house is in negative equity I want to hand back they keys' no mention of job loss or anything. One guy bought another house a few miles away for the new cheaper price and now wants rid of the expensive one.

Don't tell me you don't think once a soft spot opens up there wouldn't be thousands like that trying to home in on it. The cute hoor mentality is widespread.

we irish would never attempt to get one over on the system.
it's not in our nature.

clairefontaine · 10-03-2013 04:43PM

Boskowski wrote: »

No, I'm not.
There are stories on this very forum that I would be able to point out to you using the search function. People asking for advice on legal and property forums along the lines of 'my house is in negative equity I want to hand back they keys' no mention of job loss or anything. One guy bought another house a few miles away for the new cheaper price and now wants rid of the expensive one.

Don't tell me you don't think once a soft spot opens up there wouldn't be thousands like that trying to home in on it. The cute hoor mentality is widespread.

You don't think the banks would try to do the same thing?

It's just business.

ronjo · 10-03-2013 04:48PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

You don't think the banks would try to do the same thing?

It's just business.

Really? Do you know someone who had their contract blatantly broken by a bank?

The bank would be in big trouble if this was the case

space_man · 10-03-2013 04:50PM

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Indeed, cannot and will not are two entirely different scenarios.

from a lender's point of view (and i used to work for one of them), there is very little difference.

often it is very difficult to differentiate between the two, eg if a guy has a good income and his repayments seem affordable, but unfortunately he has a bad gambling habit, is he refusing to pay or is he unable to pay?

whether he's refusing or he's unable both will be reflected on a balance sheet in exactly the same way.

clairefontaine · 10-03-2013 04:50PM

ronjo wrote: »

Really? Do you know someone who had their contract blatantly broken by a bank?

The bank would be in big trouble if this was the case

Um isnt that why we are in this mess in the first place?

The banks get bailouts, the mortgage holders get evicted.

space_man · 10-03-2013 04:53PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Um isnt that why we are in this mess in the first place?

The banks get bailouts, the mortgage holders get evicted.

banks are necessary for the proper functioning of the economy. some guy down the road isn't. he's expendable.

sad but true.:(

COYVB · 10-03-2013 04:54PM

space_man wrote: »

banks are necessary for the proper functioning of the economy. some guy down the road isn't. he's expendable.

sad but true.:(

Some guy down the road is expendable in terms of the running of the country, but all the guys down all the roads aren't

wolfpawnat · 10-03-2013 04:55PM

space_man wrote: »

from a lender's point of view (and i used to work for one of them), there is very little difference.

often it is very difficult to differentiate between the two, eg if a guy has a good income and his repayments seem affordable, but unfortunately he has a bad gambling habit, is he refusing to pay or is he unable to pay?

whether he's refusing or he's unable both will be reflected on a balance sheet in exactly the same way.

That is not the banks problem, and no judge would care if a man has gambling problem, it is a disease and is something many cannot control, but with all due respect, it is not a valid reason for not paying your bills in anyone's eyes.

But when a person has been cut hours and pay, and is trying and a bank is showing no leniency, then how is that fair? Surely those who try should be helped? As long as you can prove you have suffered financially then the banks should make an effort too, they know they will make near nothing from the house and unless it is sold it is frozen money, so why not make a fair agreement with the person with the mortgage. As others have said, interest alone would make it more worth their while in the long run.

Legs.Eleven · 10-03-2013 04:55PM

Boskowski wrote: »

No, I'm not.
There are stories on this very forum that I would be able to point out to you using the search function. People asking for advice on legal and property forums along the lines of 'my house is in negative equity I want to hand back they keys' no mention of job loss or anything. One guy bought another house a few miles away for the new cheaper price and now wants rid of the expensive one.

Don't tell me you don't think once a soft spot opens up there wouldn't be thousands like that trying to home in on it. The cute hoor mentality is widespread.

But what about the genuine cases? I can also point you in the direction of those here on Boards using the search function.

ronjo · 10-03-2013 04:56PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Um isnt that why we are in this mess in the first place?

The banks get bailouts, the mortgage holders get evicted.

I am sure there are tonnes of reasons we are in this mess far beyond my intellect.

However, I would be interested in hearing where a bank broke a contract on a customer illegally.

space_man · 10-03-2013 04:56PM

COYVB wrote: »

Some guy down the road is expendable in terms of the running of the country, but all the guys down all the roads aren't

but thankfully all guys down the road aren't in arrears.
i for instance am totally debt-free. i own 5 properties, but paid them off while others were falling over themselves to borrow and borrow.:D

wolfpawnat · 10-03-2013 04:58PM

space_man wrote: »

but thankfully all guys down the road aren't in arrears.
i for instance am totally debt-free. i own 5 properties, but paid them off while others were falling over themselves to borrow and borrow.:D

Not even thinly veiled "I have loads of property and money" post.

Grayson · 10-03-2013 04:59PM

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Oh and just to add, my ex student banker admitted part of the responsibility lay with them but his answer to that was, "That's business!". Fucker.

To be fair, he was right. The banks job is to make sure someone ticks all the boxes and then if they do, give them a mortgage. they're selling a product. If a mortgage broker doesn't sell the mortgage, they get fired.

(I'm not saying it's morally right or anything like that. I'm just saying that is business)

The government should have been regulating the industry better. In ireland it was obvious that at some time the boom would end. the rate that property was increasing was ridiculous. But the FF government didn't care. So banks went nuts as most businesses do if given a free rein.

space_man · 10-03-2013 05:00PM

wolfpawnat wrote: »

That is not the banks problem, and no judge would care if a man has gambling problem, it is a disease and is something many cannot control, but with all due respect, it is not a valid reason for not paying your bills in anyone's eyes.

But when a person has been cut hours and pay, and is trying and a bank is showing no leniency, then how is that fair? Surely those who try should be helped? As long as you can prove you have suffered financially then the banks should make an effort too, they know they will make near nothing from the house and unless it is sold it is frozen money, so why not make a fair agreement with the person with the mortgage. As others have said, interest alone would make it more worth their while in the long run.

the problem with that "argument" 'er excuse is i know of nobody in this country who could not demonstrate that he/she has not suffered financially. it not called a recession/collapse/meltdown for nuthin.

space_man · 10-03-2013 05:01PM

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Not even thinly veiled "I have loads of property and money" post.

yep that's why i added the smiley face.:D

wolfpawnat · 10-03-2013 05:02PM

We can hardly blame the lad/lady in the suit in the bank that typed our financial criteria into the computer and then told us whether or not we were eligible for the mortgage for the way things ended up. They were only doing a job, same as a car sales person and even the girls in Claires Accessory's that comes over annoying you about new products. It was the ridiculous increase in house prices, mixed with the idea that you had to have a house and you had to have it twenty minutes ago!

wolfpawnat · 10-03-2013 05:07PM

space_man wrote: »

the problem with that "argument" 'er excuse is i know of nobody in this country who could not demonstrate that he/she has not suffered financially. it not called a recession/collapse/meltdown for nuthin.

But if you prove on paper you have less of an income and that your bills have increased (thank you rising oil, electricity and gas prices!) and you are still trying then that should count for something. But the essential part here is trying, and realistically too. Obviously, if you are down 400 a month (random figure) and you want to reduce your payment by 600 then they bank should be able to say no, 400 = 400 not 600, but the same, they should not say that you are 400 so we will reduce your repayments by only 100 if you still cannot make the repayment. Obviously we have all taken a hit to our standard of living and I would think it cheeky if someone will not get rid of their sky movies in an attempt to try and sort their outgoings, but both sides should be open to negotiation, IMO anyway, not that I have any power or even vast knowledge in the subject.

L.Jenkins · 10-03-2013 05:08PM

It's hard to know if a person can't or won't pay their mortgage, but I don't believe the banks should evict people from their homes. Would it not be worth more to the banks if the occupants could pay something, instead of having a house on the books that they can't sell?

Boskowski · 10-03-2013 05:10PM

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

But what about the genuine cases? I can also point you in the direction of those here on Boards using the search function.

But what's a genuine case and how do you differentiate between the two especially with the cute hoors wanting to appear like genuine cases too?
It would be a minefield and our administration doesn't exactly have a great track record of getting such things right. I mean they can't even sort out who needs children's allowance and who doesn't so they just pay it to everyone.

ronjo · 10-03-2013 05:10PM

Itzy wrote: »

It's hard to know if a person can't or won't pay their mortgage, but I don't believe the banks should evict people from their homes. Would it not be worth more to the banks if the occupants could pay something, instead of having a house on the books that they can't sell?

I guess if the person is refusing to pay anything it might be better for the bank to evict them and sell it even for 25% of the outstanding amount.

Legs.Eleven · 10-03-2013 05:11PM

Grayson wrote: »

To be fair, he was right. The banks job is to make sure someone ticks all the boxes and then if they do, give them a mortgage. they're selling a product. If a mortgage broker doesn't sell the mortgage, they get fired.

(I'm not saying it's morally right or anything like that. I'm just saying that is business)

The government should have been regulating the industry better. In ireland it was obvious that at some time the boom would end. the rate that property was increasing was ridiculous. But the FF government didn't care. So banks went nuts as most businesses do if given a free rein.

Indeed he was "right" but I am talking about morals and the fact that he didn't give a **** even on a human level (this was an English class, so we were talking "off the record" so to speak). They conducted business immorally. That might not mean anything to many people but it does to me. It makes me sick that they got away with it actually and thousands of people were made homeless as a result and it even lead to a number of suicides around the country because people were so desperate. As you said, the government should've regulated it better. My point is, the responsibility doesn't lie solely with the home owner and even still, you can't just kick people out onto the streets. It's completely inhumane. Provisions need to me made while times are tough. It's the right thing to do, not in terms of business but in terms of ensuring Ireland remains a somewhat civilised society where people come first.

COYVB · 10-03-2013 05:14PM

Boskowski wrote: »

But what's a genuine case and how do you differentiate between the two especially with the cute hoors wanting to appear like genuine cases too?

The genuine cases would likely have no problem accepting additional interest and an extension of the duration of a mortgage in order to reduce short term repayment amounts. The non-genuine cases would be unwilling to absorb the long term additional cost associated with it. Easy.

Legs.Eleven · 10-03-2013 05:14PM

Boskowski wrote: »

But what's a genuine case and how do you differentiate between the two especially with the cute hoors wanting to appear like genuine cases too?
It would be a minefield and our administration doesn't exactly have a great track record of getting such things right. I mean they can't even sort out who needs children's allowance and who doesn't so they just pay it to everyone.

So everyone should be punished because of the minority of cute hoors? I know of more genuine cases than scams.

It had disastrous results here in Spain to the point of a number of home owners committing suicide and only then were the banks forced to put a freeze on evictions for the time being.

Are you really suggesting throwing families out onto the street? Don't you think a compromise should be reached first?

Grayson · 10-03-2013 05:21PM

ronjo wrote: »

I guess if the person is refusing to pay anything it might be better for the bank to evict them and sell it even for 25% of the outstanding amount.

Plus, it's better for others if cheaper housing ends up on the market.

I think that's the hardest for people to understand, even those that can pay mortgages. The only people who want to see house prices rise to their previous levels are those that bought them. But they were grossly overinflated. It'd be terrible for the economy if they started to increase again.

Boskowski · 10-03-2013 05:22PM

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

So everyone should be punished because of the minority of cute hoors? I know of more genuine cases than scams.

It had disastrous results here in Spain to the point of a number of home owners committing suicide and only then were the banks forced to put a freeze on evictions for the time being.

Are you really suggesting throwing families out onto the street? Don't you think a compromise should be reached first?

You overdramatising though. Nobody would be thrown out on the streets.

I just fail to see how removing the moral hazard can be a good thing. If you can't pay your mortgage there has to be a consequence. If you remove the consequence why would anyone pay their mortgage?

wolfpawnat · 10-03-2013 05:28PM

Boskowski wrote: »

You overdramatising though. Nobody would be thrown out on the streets.

I just fail to see how removing the moral hazard can be a good thing. If you can't pay your mortgage there has to be a consequence. If you remove the consequence why would anyone pay their mortgage?

Very few would be in favour of overall debt forgiveness for anyone, after all it means those who overspent are rewarded while more conservative individuals are given a slap on the face. But most would be in favour, I would think, of allowing people to have reduced repayment rates so that they can pay, but within reason. With neither the person or the bank taking the píss.

earlyevening · 10-03-2013 05:33PM

The market will only function correctly again when those with unsustainable mortgages have their properties repossessed.

We can't have people not repaying mortgages if renegotiation is unsuccessful.

Allow the market to hit the floor. Buyers will flood in prices will be restored to a level of equilibrium.

Legs.Eleven · 10-03-2013 05:36PM

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Very few would be in favour of overall debt forgiveness for anyone, after all it means those who overspent are rewarded while more conservative individuals are given a slap on the face. But most would be in favour, I would think, of allowing people to have reduced repayment rates so that they can pay, but within reason. With neither the person or the bank taking the píss.

This.

Should people be evicted from houses they cant afford?

Comments