House repossession rates are far too low

JRant · 15-03-2013 11:18AM

Seaneh wrote: »

Ah, so just 23,523 people who should be made homeless and leave the government to pick up the bill rather than, I don't know, meeting them and figuring out what they can afford and tacking on a few extra years to the mortgage so that the bank still gets the full ammount, the occupier still has a home and the taxpayer doesn't get shafted?

Because, you know, just kicking people out of their houses and flooding the market with cheap property will have no adverse affects at all at all at all...

I never said anything about making anyone homeless. There are other options available to people other than having to own a property.

If you read the link provided you'll see that alot of those in 90+ days of arrears are restructured in some way and are now performing. Why would a bank go after a performing loan, even if it is in short term arrears?

Whether we like it or not the citizens of this country are footing the bill for 23,523 people to live effectively rent free for 2 years or more, how is this fair?

NAMA was set up to keep the price artifically high. They have a portfolio of over 200,000 properties and for the most part are being kept off the market to keep the illusion going. 20,000 more homes on the market would be small potatoes compared to this and have little effect on what the true market value should be at the moment.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 11:23AM

Balmed Out wrote: »

How is that relevant?

It's relevant it you bring the tax payer into your argument.

Balmed Out · 15-03-2013 11:25AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

It's relevant it you bring the tax payer into your argument.

Not in the slightest. :pac:
What cant be changed, cant be changed.

JRant · 15-03-2013 11:29AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

JR I don't recall reading about 100's of thousands ending up homeless. Maybe you could post a link? Your hyperbole statement is no better than the scaremongers you refer too.

The reason the respossessions haven't been significant is because the banks are not pushing for it at the moment. They are trying to keep values inflated. I do know of some buy to let repossessions which have sold for significantly less than purchase price.

There are plenty of posts here stating just that, if you want to have a look and try prove otherwise go ahead.

My point had zero hyperbole attached to it, just a cold hard look at the real figures involved in this issue.

I hope the new insolvency bill will offer some relief to people who find themselves in serious financial trouble and give them a real chance to move on in their lives. But whatever the reasons for the low repossession rates, i'd tend to agree with you about why this is so, the fact is we are now seeing a change in policy and more houses will be repossessed.

IM0 · 15-03-2013 11:31AM

Seaneh wrote: »

Ah, so just 23,523 people who should be made homeless and leave the government to pick up the bill rather than, I don't know, meeting them and figuring out what they can afford and tacking on a few extra years to the mortgage so that the bank still gets the full ammount, the occupier still has a home and the taxpayer doesn't get shafted?

Because, you know, just kicking people out of their houses and flooding the market with cheap property will have no adverse affects at all at all at all...

read the thread its about long term thinking, house prices are still massively over inflated [and that wont change until something is done to lower the artificial boosting of the property market] still.

and the only way for that to be done is by flooding market with houses aka repossesions

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 11:36AM

IM0 wrote: »

read the thread its about long term thinking, house prices are still massively over inflated [and that wont change until something is done to lower the artificial boosting of the property market] still.

and the only way for that to be done is by flooding market with houses aka repossesions

A number of those properties shouldn't even come onto the market. They should be demolished and the sites returned to green fields.how some of these estates were ever granted permission is shocking. No proper infrastructure and out in the middle of no where. They are certainly not suitable as social and adorable housing.

JRant · 15-03-2013 11:39AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

What referendum did we have on nationalising the bank of its debts?

We had this last year, Thirtieth Amendment (31 May 2012) which led nicely on to the promissary note "deal" we had a few weeks ago.

Cuddlesworth · 15-03-2013 11:43AM

JRant wrote: »

At end-December there were 23,523"

http://www.centralbank.ie/press-area/press-releases/Pages/ResidentialMortgageArrearsandRepossessionsStatisticsQ42012.aspx

Reading these figures gives a much clearer view of the scale of the problem. 23,523 people are in arrears of 2 years or more and its these ones that for the most part repossession is the only option left. I've no idea why people keep going on about hundreds of thousands of people ending up on the streets when the true figure of people facing the very real threat of repossession is significantly lower.

23,523 property's. Could be closer to 75,000 people at a average of 3 people per house.

JRant · 15-03-2013 11:45AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

A number of those properties shouldn't even come onto the market. They should be demolished and the sites returned to green fields.how some of these estates were ever granted permission is shocking. No proper infrastructure and out in the middle of no where. They are certainly not suitable as social and adorable housing.

And not forgetting the crazy number of homes built in high flood risk areas. There are estates around the country that flood after a few days rain.

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 11:49AM

JRant wrote: »

Addressing your second point first, if I may. What they say may well be true, it may not be, but the only thing that matters is whether homeowners are the victim of fraud as you state and to date we've seen nothing to suggest that this is the case. Remembering of course that it's the courts job to rule on such matters.

Sorry but you're burying your head in the sand there, if you really think there wasn't any fraud, especially when I've not just given you a study on it from one of the most well regarded criminologists (and previously a regulator during the US 'savings and loans' crisis, who helped put a lot of people in jail), and from a whistleblower in Ireland who directly saw it.

You have to be willfully blind in those instances, to say there was no fraud, with those and multiple other stories of banks throwing out loans with abandon, in breach of their lending criteria.

JRant wrote: »

Regarding your first point, if that's what you took from what i stated then there's not much more I can do to make myself clearer. Each individual who signed for a mortgage is ultimately responsable for their own actions.
Did they get a solicitor to check the fine print?
Did they consult an accountant to assess their finances?
Did they check long term rental rates in the area to see if the valuation matched its real value?
All these things lie in the signees remit.
To blindly say it's all the banks fault does nothing to move the discussion on and only attempts to absolve the mortgage holder of any responsablity.

Yes, people who signed up for mortgages should be responsible for their actions, and the banks theirs, which includes having inflated the property prices in the first place, and having cost a lot of people their jobs through the ensuing crisis.

You want to ignore the responsibility of the banks though, and put the lot on homeowners, saying 'they signed a contract', as if it justifies the banks wrongdoing, illegality and immorality; just by making that very argument you try to absolve them of responsibility.

Even people who fulfilled all your criteria above have been screwed! People who had perfectly sustainable mortgages before the crisis, are now at risk, and this is due to losing their jobs, and being unable to get a job again due to the crisis, the crisis which the banks created.

You think the responsibility is a purely black/white thing here, and in doing so you put 100% responsibility on the homeowner when it is shared, and bury your head into the sand when it comes to actions of the banks; to you when it comes to the size of and inability to pay the debt, the banks are faultless pretty much, despite being the direct cause of both those problems.

If banks share responsibility in any way for the crisis, that necessarily means they share part of the responsibility both for the amount of debt people are in, and their inability to pay it; all of that despite contracts.

JRant · 15-03-2013 11:52AM

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

23,523 property's. Could be closer to 75,000 people at a average of 3 people per house.

We don't know how many people may or may not live in those houses. Some might have zero some might have 3/4 but what we do know is that 23,523 houses have people living in them practically rent free for over 2 years.

Uriel. · 15-03-2013 11:54AM

JRant wrote: »

I never said anything about making anyone homeless. There are other options available to people other than having to own a property.

If you read the link provided you'll see that alot of those in 90+ days of arrears are restructured in some way and are now performing. Why would a bank go after a performing loan, even if it is in short term arrears?

Whether we like it or not the citizens of this country are footing the bill for 23,523 people to live effectively rent free for 2 years or more, how is this fair?

NAMA was set up to keep the price artifically high. They have a portfolio of over 200,000 properties and for the most part are being kept off the market to keep the illusion going. 20,000 more homes on the market would be small potatoes compared to this and have little effect on what the true market value should be at the moment.

Leaving aside mortgages etc... Aren't there thousands of people living rent free on a consistent basis their whole lives, along with free access to medical care etc?? Why aren't we also dealing with that?

Also, you make it sound simple in terms of those people who are evicted from their homes... They won't be homeless, they'll just rent like everyone else.

But the problem I see there is that it would be ok for you and I to afford to rent somewhere with little or no debt burden. But don't forget these people will be required to pay rent AND the remainder of the outstanding mortgage. It could take a bank year to sell the repossed property, so the mortgage holder would need to foot the bill for that full amount...

Then with a flood of housing coming to the market like you want, house prices will severely drop again, so the sale value of the house reduces the mortgage value by even less. Potentially you'll have people with little income trying to rent while trying to repay a mortgage debt of a couple of hundred thousand euro. Essentially this puts them into social housing so the tax payer picks up that tab again.

Tbh other than ill performing investment properties I cannot see the economic advantage in diving in and kicking people out of homes, save for where new investors want to get their hands on property for next to nothing.

People should be responsible for their borrowings and repay etc but I don't believe the silver bullet is mass eviction to be perfectly honest.

Grayson · 15-03-2013 12:01PM

JRant wrote: »

We don't know how many people may or may not live in those houses. Some might have zero some might have 3/4 but what we do know is that 23,523 houses have people living in them practically rent free for over 2 years.

And there are people in this thread who want those people to continue to live rent free.

There may be occasions where restructuring would work. But when it doesn't, these guys think the tax payer should foot the bill.

Home owning isn't a right. If it is, give me my house right now.
If it's a privilege, then anyone who can't afford their house should declare bankruptcy. The houses should be taken back and given to the bank. Those people can then apply for social housing.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 12:06PM

JRant wrote: »

We had this last year, Thirtieth Amendment (31 May 2012) which led nicely on to the promissary note "deal" we had a few weeks ago.

I have a complete blank on what we were asked to vote on? But I'm sure it wasn't for the nationalising of the banks. That was done by Brian Lenihan and Brian Cowen. According to other members of cabinet they were not even consulted.

Grayson · 15-03-2013 12:07PM

Uriel. wrote: »

Leaving aside mortgages etc... Aren't there thousands of people living rent free on a consistent basis their whole lives, along with free access to medical care etc?? Why aren't we also dealing with that?

Also, you make it sound simple in terms of those people who are evicted from their homes... They won't be homeless, they'll just rent like everyone else.

But the problem I see there is that it would be ok for you and I to afford to rent somewhere with little or no debt burden. But don't forget these people will be required to pay rent AND the remainder of the outstanding mortgage. It could take a bank year to sell the repossed property, so the mortgage holder would need to foot the bill for that full amount...

Then with a flood of housing coming to the market like you want, house prices will severely drop again, so the sale value of the house reduces the mortgage value by even less. Potentially you'll have people with little income trying to rent while trying to repay a mortgage debt of a couple of hundred thousand euro. Essentially this puts them into social housing so the tax payer picks up that tab again.

Tbh other than ill performing investment properties I cannot see the economic advantage in diving in and kicking people out of homes, save for where new investors want to get their hands on property for next to nothing.

People should be responsible for their borrowings and repay etc but I don't believe the silver bullet is mass eviction to be perfectly honest.

We're kinda assuming that mortgage holders aren't blood sucking leeches who would rather keep up payments on their houses if they can. And would go for a mortgage restructure if they couldn't. But if none of that works, then yes, the house should be repossessed.

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 12:11PM

Balmed Out wrote: »

There would seem to be plenty of people on this thread with a vested interest. I am one. I have been looking to purchase a home for over 9 years now and am continuing to wait until I find the right property at the right price. Some here consider that to be the behaviour of a hyenna.

Can you explain why I should pay more then a fair market value for a property or anything else for that matter?

Do you realise that a decade of rent coupled with the high interest rates now being charged to pay for others mistakes means that I may actually be paying more for my home then if I had bought at a higher sticker price with a tracker 10 years ago?

That's a totally selfish interest, which would have you support doubly-screwing-over troubled homeowners, so that they lose everything, so that for many of them, they lose many years of their lives working, having pumped all that money into houses, that they would be able to afford if there were jobs available.

You'd have them kicked out on the street, because you selfishly want the market flooded with cheap properties; if you want property prices brought back to a sensible level, and you want that to be sustainable, then you promote fixing the lax lending criteria that led to the increase in house prices in the first place, and you get government to stop propping up house prices to save their balance sheets.

No, instead of taking either of those sensible measures first, you want to chuck people out on the street instead, which would provide only a temporary relief in the property prices, because all the problems leading to their original and current inflation still stand.

For the price of houses to fall further by repossessions as well, there needs to be a shortage of properties, and there is already an abundance of vacant properties all over the country; so you'd chuck people out without rectifying the real causes of the inflated property values (which is banks still avoiding taking the hit to their balance sheets).

The primary people that benefits, are all the investment firms waiting to buy up all the houses when the market hits bottom (at a time when potential buyers pockets are being bled, suppressing legitimate buyers), as you'd be giving them an even bigger pool to buy the houses from, taking them out of the hands of homeowners, many of which will be perfectly able to pay for their mortgage after restructuring and after jobs are made available.

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 12:12PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Sorry but you're burying your head in the sand there, if you really think there wasn't any fraud, especially when I've not just given you a study on it from one of the most well regarded criminologists (and previously a regulator during the US 'savings and loans' crisis, who helped put a lot of people in jail), and from a whistleblower in Ireland who directly saw it.

You have to be willfully blind in those instances, to say there was no fraud, with those and multiple other stories of banks throwing out loans with abandon, in breach of their lending criteria.

Yes, people who signed up for mortgages should be responsible for their actions, and the banks theirs, which includes having inflated the property prices in the first place, and having cost a lot of people their jobs through the ensuing crisis.

You want to ignore the responsibility of the banks though, and put the lot on homeowners, saying 'they signed a contract', as if it justifies the banks wrongdoing, illegality and immorality; just by making that very argument you try to absolve them of responsibility.

Even people who fulfilled all your criteria above have been screwed! People who had perfectly sustainable mortgages before the crisis, are now at risk, and this is due to losing their jobs, and being unable to get a job again due to the crisis, the crisis which the banks created.

You think the responsibility is a purely black/white thing here, and in doing so you put 100% responsibility on the homeowner when it is shared, and bury your head into the sand when it comes to actions of the banks; to you when it comes to the size of and inability to pay the debt, the banks are faultless pretty much, despite being the direct cause of both those problems.

If banks share responsibility in any way for the crisis, that necessarily means they share part of the responsibility both for the amount of debt people are in, and their inability to pay it; all of that despite contracts.

House buyers, cheap credit and the government created the property bubble.

It is not the banks responsibility to maintain the economy. It is their responsibility to make profits.

The government is responsible for looking after the economy and they were punished in the last election. The owners of the banks lost their entire share value. So also suffered the consequences.

Why shouldn't the buyer of a mortgage suffer the consequences for failing to adhere to the contract?

If you voluntarily signed for a mortgage and now can't pay it back you have to suffer the consequences. It is your own responsibility to pay it back. The economy being bad isn't a valid excuse, it doesn't matter, you either find a way to pay it back or you suffer the consequences.

The banks aren't responsible for the countries economy, they are responsible for making profits. We are all allowed make bad decisions so long as we suffer the consequences. The banks shareholders lost their entire share value.

It doesn't matter whose to blame for the bad economy, you have to adhere to your contract. Anyone who thinks they knew their future income is an idiot.

JRant · 15-03-2013 12:12PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Sorry but you're burying your head in the sand there, if you really think there wasn't any fraud, especially when I've not just given you a study on it from one of the most well regarded criminologists (and previously a regulator during the US 'savings and loans' crisis, who helped put a lot of people in jail), and from a whistleblower in Ireland who directly saw it.

You have to be willfully blind in those instances, to say there was no fraud, with those and multiple other stories of banks throwing out loans with abandon, in breach of their lending criteria.

Yes, people who signed up for mortgages should be responsible for their actions, and the banks theirs, which includes having inflated the property prices in the first place, and having cost a lot of people their jobs through the ensuing crisis.

You want to ignore the responsibility of the banks though, and put the lot on homeowners, saying 'they signed a contract', as if it justifies the banks wrongdoing, illegality and immorality; just by making that very argument you try to absolve them of responsibility.

Even people who fulfilled all your criteria above have been screwed! People who had perfectly sustainable mortgages before the crisis, are now at risk, and this is due to losing their jobs, and being unable to get a job again due to the crisis, the crisis which the banks created.

You think the responsibility is a purely black/white thing here, and in doing so you put 100% responsibility on the homeowner when it is shared, and bury your head into the sand when it comes to actions of the banks; to you when it comes to the size of and inability to pay the debt, the banks are faultless pretty much, despite being the direct cause of both those problems.

If banks share responsibility in any way for the crisis, that necessarily means they share part of the responsibility both for the amount of debt people are in, and their inability to pay it; all of that despite contracts.

Please read what i said and don't misrepresent what i actually stated. Those people you referred to may or may not be correct, I don't know enough so comment one way or the other. But if what your saying is true then surely we would see many many cases being brought before the courts as a result. We aren't seeing this, therefore there either isn't a case to be had or the mortgage holders are in on it too.

I have no idea why you'd say I think the banks are 100% blameless. If a property is repossessed the bank will most certainly take a fairly big hit in the current market. Yes the person is still liable for any outstanding debt but if you were in such financial dire straits then bankruptcy wouldn't be to far behind. Like i said earlier, i truely hope the new insolvancy bill will take some of thd pressure off people stuck in this position.

nelly17 · 15-03-2013 12:13PM

To me the reposessions make both sense and no sense all at the same time.

There has to be a consequence to prevent people jumping in wrecklessly irrespective of means (or future means). Plus its less of a slap in the face to people to do Pay their mortgage and not look for handouts/writedowns etc.

But on the other hand would itnot be the case that all of these properties will end up back on the market in Distressed Auctions or at a knock down rate because the Banks wont want to hold onto them for too long without some sort of payments being made. Will this not drive property prices down further and hence a greater Negative Equity gap?

I know the Central Bank have said the Negative Equity situation is not really an issue its concerned with - but how will things ever pick up if someone is carrying a 100K debt burden with them no matter what.

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 12:17PM

nelly17 wrote: »

To me the reposessions make both sense and no sense all at the same time.

There has to be a consequence to prevent people jumping in wrecklessly irrespective of means (or future means). Plus its less of a slap in the face to people to do Pay their mortgage and not look for handouts/writedowns etc.

But on the other hand would itnot be the case that all of these properties will end up back on the market in Distressed Auctions or at a knock down rate because the Banks wont want to hold onto them for too long without some sort of payments being made. Will this not drive property prices down further and hence a greater Negative Equity gap?

I know the Central Bank have said the Negative Equity situation is not really an issue its concerned with - but how will things ever pick up if someone is carrying a 100K debt burden with them no matter what.

When the housing market reaches a fair value it is more likely to pickup. House prices are still too high. If people can make their payments it doesn't matter If it is in negative equity. If you paid 400k for a house that is what you think it is worth ( unless you are a lemming) so you still have an asset worth 400k to you even if other people don't think so.

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 12:18PM

the groutch wrote: »

The inherent problem though is that there is those who CAN'T pay, and those who WON'T pay.
And most of those who won't pay are doing so because of the lack of reposessions makes them think "why bother paying, they're not going to do anything about it".
There needs to be at least one round of reposessions without any debt writedowns, just to put the fear of God into the won't-pays.

While I agree that the "won't-pays" should be repossessed mercilessly, doing a whole round of repossessions on all, to put fear into the "won't-pays" would be collective punishment and unnecessary, as you can find out who the won't-pays are by examining their assets and tax returns.

Balmed Out · 15-03-2013 12:19PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

That's a totally selfish interest, which would have you support doubly-screwing-over troubled homeowners, so that they lose everything, so that for many of them, they lose many years of their lives working, having pumped all that money into houses, that they would be able to afford if there were jobs available.

You'd have them kicked out on the street, because you selfishly want the market flooded with cheap properties; if you want property prices brought back to a sensible level, and you want that to be sustainable, then you promote fixing the lax lending criteria that led to the increase in house prices in the first place, and you get government to stop propping up house prices to save their balance sheets.

No, instead of taking either of those sensible measures first, you want to chuck people out on the street instead, which would provide only a temporary relief in the property prices, because all the problems leading to their original and current inflation still stand.

For the price of houses to fall further by repossessions as well, there needs to be a shortage of properties, and there is already an abundance of vacant properties all over the country; so you'd chuck people out without rectifying the real causes of the inflated property values (which is banks still avoiding taking the hit to their balance sheets).

The primary people that benefits, are all the investment firms waiting to buy up all the houses when the market hits bottom (at a time when potential buyers pockets are being bled, suppressing legitimate buyers), as you'd be giving them an even bigger pool to buy the houses from, taking them out of the hands of homeowners, many of which will be perfectly able to pay for their mortgage after restructuring and after jobs are made available.

Is that you Mystic Meg?
You seem to have an amazing ability to guess whats going on in the minds of others, although your completely WRONG
Where do you come up with all this nonsense. I will credit you with an inventive imagination though. 5 stars.
Can you back up that nonsense ?

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 12:19PM

JRant wrote: »

Why would a bank go after a performing loan, even if it is in short term arrears?

Banks in the US have been doing exactly that, so they can force people into foreclosure/default, and then take the house and sell it on again at profit.

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 12:23PM

IM0 wrote: »

read the thread its about long term thinking, house prices are still massively over inflated [and that wont change until something is done to lower the artificial boosting of the property market] still.

and the only way for that to be done is by flooding market with houses aka repossesions

Eh, this is nonsense; explain how flooding the market (with a massive social cost attached to that), is going to trigger any kind of reform with the real causes of the overinflated prices?

There isn't a shortage of properties, so that makes no sense; you get a temporary decrease in prices, until the unreformed factors leading to the inflation in the first place, catch up again and start the bubble mill rolling again.

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 12:28PM

Grayson wrote: »

And there are people in this thread who want those people to continue to live rent free.

There may be occasions where restructuring would work. But when it doesn't, these guys think the tax payer should foot the bill.

Home owning isn't a right. If it is, give me my house right now.
If it's a privilege, then anyone who can't afford their house should declare bankruptcy. The houses should be taken back and given to the bank. Those people can then apply for social housing.

Eh, you want the taxpayer to foot the bill, because by repossessing you are inherently ensuring a default; I want people to be given adequate chance to repay their debts.

donegal_road · 15-03-2013 12:30PM

orestes wrote: »

Economics isn't my strong point, so could you explain to me how this would work? You can even use little dolls as teaching aids if you need to.

inflatable ones you mean, the ones that get rode

JRant · 15-03-2013 12:34PM

Uriel. wrote: »

Leaving aside mortgages etc... Aren't there thousands of people living rent free on a consistent basis their whole lives, along with free access to medical care etc?? Why aren't we also dealing with that?

Also, you make it sound simple in terms of those people who are evicted from their homes... They won't be homeless, they'll just rent like everyone else.

But the problem I see there is that it would be ok for you and I to afford to rent somewhere with little or no debt burden. But don't forget these people will be required to pay rent AND the remainder of the outstanding mortgage. It could take a bank year to sell the repossed property, so the mortgage holder would need to foot the bill for that full amount...

Then with a flood of housing coming to the market like you want, house prices will severely drop again, so the sale value of the house reduces the mortgage value by even less. Potentially you'll have people with little income trying to rent while trying to repay a mortgage debt of a couple of hundred thousand euro. Essentially this puts them into social housing so the tax payer picks up that tab again.

Tbh other than ill performing investment properties I cannot see the economic advantage in diving in and kicking people out of homes, save for where new investors want to get their hands on property for next to nothing.

People should be responsible for their borrowings and repay etc but I don't believe the silver bullet is mass eviction to be perfectly honest.

You do realise that people in social housing also pay rent. You also realise that people receiving rent allowance also have to contribute toward their rent. The difference being that these people will never own the property, even after 20/30 of renting. Yet some who bought a property and leveraged a loan against it want to live rent free and keep the property at the end of it!

I've already stated that more protection should be afforded people going through bankruptcy to stop this double punishment of failed mortgage holders.

Your making it out that i'm all for mass eviction, that couldn't be further from the truth. We do, however, need to address the issue that some people would be better off in the medulium to long term by having the milestone of a completely unpayable loan hanging around their shoulders.

I think any loan that hasn't performed for over 2 years needs a long hard look at and the best long term option for both parties agreed upon, which in these cases will be foreclosure.

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 12:35PM

Three Seasons wrote: »

House buyers, cheap credit and the government created the property bubble.

Yea and what are we missing from this sentence? Banks.

I already gave up replying to you earlier, and since you're continuing your effort to be completely blind the banks responsibility in all of this (even pretty much saying they share no responsibility whatsoever here, for the economic crisis), there's no point continuing again now.

Serious question: Do you work in finance/banking? I can't think of why someone would try to abdicate banks of any responsibility like that; even for people wanting repossessions for self-interested reasons, so they can get on the property market cheap, I don't think they would so explicitly ignore bank responsibility.

Grayson · 15-03-2013 12:39PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Eh, you want the taxpayer to foot the bill, because by repossessing you are inherently ensuring a default; I want people to be given adequate chance to repay their debts.

I'm already paying for their house. As is every tax payer in this country. If I'm going to pay for it, I don't see why they should get to live there rent free.

It's not like these woke up one morning and discovered they were the owners of a three bed semi detached with decking. They went looking for houses. Probably saw more than one. they went shopping for a mortgage. They probably checked more than one bank. They got together all their information and submitted it. And then they signed their agreements.

People were greedy and blind and ignored the bloody obvious. They signed up for those mortgages. They created a bubble and kept it going.

You're the one that wants a nanny state where people can do anything they want and the state will bail them out. Well, tough, if they signed up to an agreement, they should keep that agreement.

I expect to see you defending the morbidly obese next week. It's not their fault. KFC kept selling them buckets of chicken. It's KFC's fault.

JRant · 15-03-2013 12:43PM

Grayson wrote: »

And there are people in this thread who want those people to continue to live rent free.

There may be occasions where restructuring would work. But when it doesn't, these guys think the tax payer should foot the bill.

Home owning isn't a right. If it is, give me my house right now.
If it's a privilege, then anyone who can't afford their house should declare bankruptcy. The houses should be taken back and given to the bank. Those people can then apply for social housing.

It's downright baffling to be honest. If i get into 2 months arrears in my rent i'd be out the door, but i wouldn't expect a bailout from anyone just dust off and go somewhere i could afford.

When you look at the figures given by the central bank it's clear that restructuring is happening and is quite successful but as usual we only here the bad news.

The real story is that most people are keeping up payments on their mortgages and are in some ways helping to pay for very small minority,who will never be able to service their loans, through higher interest rates.

House repossession rates are far too low

Comments