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

Repossession of homes: what's the big deal?

Dostoevsky

Regarding this story: Allsops property auction cancelled due to protest

Is somebody cannot pay their mortgage, why do they have a right to keep their house?

I have rented for years, and have no problem with it. I actually think it gives me more freedom and options. Why can't people who are living in homes that they cannot afford just accept that they have to move to something more affordable? They can then get on with their lives.

If the terms of the repossessions are at issue, then that's an entirely different issue and lenders need full legal protection against abuse by more powerful financial institutions. But some people seem, in principle, opposed to repossession of homes by the financial institutions which own them. This, to me, makes no sense. In fact, it is unfair to everybody else who has to pay for their accommodation.

Losing "your" home really, really is not the end of the world. You have your family and if they are in good health you have all the important things in life. That, surely, is your real home. There's no shame in renting, none at all.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ceadaoin.

Frank Black wrote: »

No, you actually said that it happens "quite often".

That's a big difference from saying that it happens.

And yes, saying it "never happens" would be just as dumb.

Yes maybe I shouldn't have said 'quite often'. I apologise

Teyla Emmagan

There was a woman on the radio a while ago who had launched a big fight against the banks. She was years behind on her mortgage and the bank wanted her to sell up essentially. She had this whole human rights thing going on about her house. That it was her home, that she would be suicidal if forced out. That it was only a small house and herself and her two boys couldn't cope anywhere else. They had been on the house 10 years and it was over 2000 square feet. I was just gobsmacked by her crazy and unreasonable attitude. She basically thought she had a right to it no matter what. Mental!

SuperGrover

In these threads, anyone who bought a house was keeping up with the Joneses and anyone who rents had some sort of shrewd insight into property values.

Most people I know who bought an apartment or house did so as to have a place to live, same as generations before them. Also, most people I know who long-term rent do so because they just couldn't be arsed doing anything else or are mostly broke.

Nowt wong with renting. Home is home, no matter the financial details of how it's funded, but the standard stance on these threads is ridiculous, in the main.

Also, don't forget, anyone with a child calls them Tarquin and brings them to school in a jeep. This is thread-mandatory.

martinedwards

if someone takes on a mortgage then they take on the responsibility for being able to pay it.

if you loose your job then tough, you're screwed.

if you buy a hgouse that demands that you pay every last cent into the mortgage and have no backup savings then you will be screwed all the sooner.

yes the banks are to blame, but EQUALLY to blame are the people who bought beyond thier means.

My wife an I bought a house many years ago, and y'know what?

we can AFFORD IT.

I'm currently off work withy health issues and we can STILL afford it.

but then we aren't fashionable and HAVE to have a TV bigger than our bed, 2 new cars every year and 6 maxed credit cards......

live beyond your means and you'll reap the consequences and most of it will be YOUR fault.

too many folks today want to blame thier failings on everyone alse.

mike65

Whatever happened to that posh couple who were "thrown out on the street"?

Anyone see that gobdaw on the news last night invoking the sacrifice of Constant Malkovich?

mkdon05

homerjay2005 wrote: »

to answer an equally assumptions statement that these houses have children in them. people bought over valued houses at the whim of panic. had they sat back and thought about the consequences, they wouldnt be in this mess.

i have no sympathy for anybody to be honest. this concept of "dead money" was the biggest farce of all time...simple mathematics show that renting is cheaper than a mortgage. the house i live in is 1420, if i bought in the boom, id now be paying twice that.

A mortgage on an overpriced house that will see you pay about 30-40% extra in interest, is as dead money as it gets.

And what happens when I have my mortgage paid off, at say 60, and have an asset but you continue to have to pay rent until, say 80, that's a good 20 years of you having to fork out over a grand a month.

Gongoozler

Jesus the thought of putting yourself through that to only own your house at 60 is depressing.

HansHolzel

mike65 wrote: »

Anyone see that gobdaw on the news last night invoking the sacrifice of Constant Malkovich?

News to me that twas a man, too

floggg

JimiTime wrote: »

The bolded part truly saddens me, as its such a common train of ignorant thought. Usually its made by people who during the boom weren't in positions where thinking about a secure home needed to be considered. All of a sudden, they look back in hindsight and think its because they were simply foresightful that they didn't buy homes.

Consider this. Ireland has no secure tennancy for people who earn average wages. SO, when it comes to being married and looking to start a family, but earning what the government believe to be too much for any social housing, then there are 2 options. Private Rent, where you are at the behest of your landlord in terms of them deciding to sell the house or move themselves or a relative etc in (Somthing that happened A LOT during the boom. I had friends with kids having to move numerous times within a 4 year period due to the Landlords selling etc), or Mortgage.

So by all means have the attitude of 'Im alright jack', it is afterall very much the capitalist mentality, but could you at least have the good taste to realise that it wasn't just about keeping up with the Jones'. Believe me, I HATED the thought of a mortgage, but we made the decision that we thought was the best one available for our family by getting one, as it was the most secure option available for our children as we saw it at the time. THEN, the credit crunch happened at the same time the bubble burst etc, and all went pear shaped. When we see the absolute criminal behaviour of the banks, and the absolute ineptitude of our government and regulator, then I think any intelligent person can see the injustice.

The a private Residebtial Tenancies Act gives security if tenure save in limited circumstances like a genuine sale.

As has been said below, I've been renting 11 years too and it's never happened to me. It's happened to two of my sisters and my brother mind - but in each case they had been living there got 3 years plus - and only once each and they are at the renting game much longer than I am.

I think your kids could handle one move every 10 years or so.

mkdon05

Gongoozler wrote: »

Jesus the thought of putting yourself through that to only own your house at 60 is depressing.

That's the reality for a lot of people who bought during the boom.
I'd still take it over paying rent for life.

Gongoozler

mkdon05 wrote: »

That's the reality for a lot of people who bought during the boom.
I'd still take it over paying rent for life.

Why though? Is it so you have something to pass on?

GarIT

mkdon05 wrote: »

And what happens when I have my mortgage paid off, at say 60, and have an asset but you continue to have to pay rent until, say 80, that's a good 20 years of you having to fork out over a grand a month.

I did some maths and worked out if you bought a house worth 200k with a mortgage over 20 years you could rent and save with the monthly total of rent and saving together equaling the mortgage repayments and you would have saved enough to buy the house fully in 9 years.

GarIT

Ireland was having trouble with a group of people called bondholders, and the phrase 'burn the bondholders' became common, now our economy's biggest problem is householders that aren't paying their mortgage, so we should all be telling the government to 'burn the mortgage holders'

martinedwards

GarIT wrote: »

I did some maths and worked out if you bought a house worth 200k with a mortgage over 20 years you could rent and save with the monthly total of rent and saving together equaling the mortgage repayments and you would have saved enough to buy the house fully in 9 years.

yup, but your maths is too simplistic.

ever hear of inflation?

bear in mind that your rent of 1000 a month might match the mortgage of 1000 a month this year.

but in 15 years, your mortgage will still be 1000 a month but rent for the same house will be 2000 a month.......

I'm in the north (like that matters!), but 17 years into a mortgage and I'm paying under £400 a month for a 5 bedroom house thats worth (at todays prices) about £325,000

homerjay2005

mkdon05 wrote: »

And what happens when I have my mortgage paid off, at say 60, and have an asset but you continue to have to pay rent until, say 80, that's a good 20 years of you having to fork out over a grand a month.

ill have enjoyed those 30 years with the money i saved, whiles 1000's around the country struggle to meet those repayments.

what good will that asset be to you, when your dead?

Frank Black

GarIT wrote: »

I did some maths and worked out if you bought a house worth 200k with a mortgage over 20 years you could rent and save with the monthly total of rent and saving together equaling the mortgage repayments and you would have saved enough to buy the house fully in 9 years.

I suspect your 'maths' is way off.
€200K house so Mortgage of €184,000 at 20years variable rate is €1,162 per month.
Equivalent rent on the same property - lets say €950 p/m.

Difference of €212 every month.
Over 9 years that's less than €23K, add on the deposit the buyer has paid and you're 'up' €39K by renting.

How can you now purchase the €200K house?

GarIT

martinedwards wrote: »

yup, but your maths is too simplistic.

ever hear of inflation?

bear in mind that your rent of 1000 a month might match the mortgage of 1000 a month this year.

but in 15 years, your mortgage will still be 1000 a month but rent for the same house will be 2000 a month.......

I'm in the north (like that matters!), but 17 years into a mortgage and I'm paying under £400 a month for a 5 bedroom house thats worth (at todays prices) about £325,000

We dont know how prices will go or how they will change, the days of it only being up are gone. Other than that when you factor inflation into the equation by saying the rate of savings decreases by 4% of the rate of rent per year you still get the house in 11 years, saving €180000 vs getting a mortgage.

Newtolimerick

I agree with repossessions

Firstly - banks are not going to repossess IF the borrower has been making contact with them and providing them with some sort of payments (even €10). See the CCMA and MARP codes

The people that are getting the homes repossessed are not cooperating with these banks

Additionally the banks did not force one single person to take out massive mortgages. Yes they should not have given them - but if i earn €30,000 a year how do I think I can ever pay bank a €1,000,000 mortgage??

I pay my debts

Dravokivich

SuperGrover wrote: »

In these threads, anyone who bought a house was keeping up with the Joneses and anyone who rents had some sort of shrewd insight into property values.

N'ah it's much simpler than that. There was no way I'd of been able to afford a mortgage.

My name is Mud

jr22 wrote: »

I'm SICK to death of the béal bocht whingers who got burned by the property bubble.

I didnt get burned by the bubble. Im being thrown out of my rented house because the landlord got burned.

So in all you smugness about being a renter, I am also a renter, and have no security of tenancy. Thats my point.

My name is Mud

floggg wrote: »

The a private Residebtial Tenancies Act gives security if tenure save in limited circumstances like a genuine sale.

As has been said below, I've been renting 11 years too and it's never happened to me. It's happened to two of my sisters and my brother mind - but in each case they had been living there got 3 years plus - and only once each and they are at the renting game much longer than I am.

I think your kids could handle one move every 10 years or so.

Look up termination of a part 4 tenancy. Max notice you get is a few months to vacate in the event of a sale.

Get your facts right. I am being thrown out because of it.

take everything

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

There was a woman on the radio a while ago who had launched a big fight against the banks. She was years behind on her mortgage and the bank wanted her to sell up essentially. She had this whole human rights thing going on about her house. That it was her home, that she would be suicidal if forced out. That it was only a small house and herself and her two boys couldn't cope anywhere else. They had been on the house 10 years and it was over 2000 square feet. I was just gobsmacked by her crazy and unreasonable attitude. She basically thought she had a right to it no matter what. Mental!

The craziest bit is they were on the house for 10 years?
Did nobody tell them they could go inside.

GarIT

Frank Black wrote: »

I suspect your 'maths' is way off.
€200K house so Mortgage of €184,000 at 20years variable rate is €1,162 per month.
Equivalent rent on the same property - lets say €950 p/m.

Difference of €212 every month.
Over 9 years that's less than €23K, add on the deposit the buyer has paid and you're 'up' €39K by renting.

How can you now purchase the €200K house?

I did it for two houses beside each other in Kildare, asking on 1 was 200k rent on the other was 600. I have software on my laptop to calculate mortgage intrest and deposit interest. It assumes your savings are in long term savings accounts. It did work out though and it was only one example obviously if you use another example it probably won't work as rent gets closer to the mortgage.

floggg

JimiTime wrote: »

It was the only option for a secure home. That is simply a fact! You mention risk, which at least acknowledges the issue. Your anecdote did not apply to us, as our experience was very different from your own. A mortgage of course has its own risks, but in the environment and system we were in, the mortgage looked like the much less risky option. The corruption, ineptitude, propaganda and criminal activity going on created a system, and people fell foul of this system, simply for wanting to have a place their children could call home. I know Myself, and countless numbers of my friends never had profit in mind. They had 'Home' in mind, and in the absence of governmental assistance to assist with secure tennancy, a mortgage was the only game in town, if you didn't want the whim of a landlord over your head.

To add to 'My name is Muds' situation, I have a good friend who has a son with special needs. In the space of 4 years, they had to move 3 times. They finally decided they'd have to buy a home (Like myself, there was much reluctance in getting a mortgage, but they felt it was the best option for their circumstance) Both lost jobs (Wife is working again now, but for much less), rates have gone up, and they are in negative equity.
That is a systemic failure, and a great injustice in the face of the banks being bailed out, the criminal goings on, and the absolute ineptitude of government.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I'd love to go back and rent rather than buy, but alas, we didn't all have the crystal ball that so many these days claim they had. Again though, the 'Im alright Jack' attitude, while IMO its shameful, is fine to hold. At least hold it based on the reality though, rather than believing all the nonsense about getting a mortgage being about keeping up with the Jones'. Your experience in renting was different to mine. Grand. I hope it led to you making decisions that have turned out well. My experience was very different, and was part of the process that led us to a decision that we have unfortunately come to regret. At least we can still pay though, and our kids are happy, but my goodness, do I empathise with those who have found themselves looking into a future of uncertainty. I've witnessed the stress etc. It is so frustrating to see people then go on like its their own fault etc. The whole 'No one held a gun to your head', 'I was smart enough' etc brigade. It flabbergasts me that in the face of all the facts about the banks and the regulator etc, that people would still turn on those caught up in the system. I can only hope they reconsider their position at some point.

There's a big difference between "turning in those caught up in the system" and not accepting responsibility for the payment of debts of adults who made a conscious decision to purchase property using borrowed monies.

My sister is one of those people saddled with a house in negative equity. I have enormous sympathy for her, but at the end of the day she decided to go ahead and purchase.

If there is a mortgage forgiveness scheme, why should she be left with the benefit of the house which she couldn't afford to pay?

Why should my younger sister who only started working in 2011 have to spend the rest of her life payin to keep her in the house?

sbsquarepants

GarIT wrote: »

I did it for two houses beside each other in Kildare, asking on 1 was 200k rent on the other was 600. I have software on my laptop to calculate mortgage intrest and deposit interest. It assumes your savings are in long term savings accounts. It did work out though and it was only one example obviously if you use another example it probably won't work as rent gets closer to the mortgage.

There's your problem right there. There are thousands of houses for sale all around the country at ridiculous asking prices, probably caused by people trying to recoup what they paid. I'm currently looking to buy myself and only last week i came across 2 indentical houses 4 or 5 doors apart on the same road. House 1 was asking for €160k house 2 somehow expected €315, basically double for the exact same thing.
Common sense will tell you you can't pay rent and save the purchase price of the house in 9 years, for the same cost as paying the bloody mortgage for 9 years, come on now!

floggg

bodice ripper wrote: »

I went to art college, and even I knew the prices were unsustainable, so I really don't believe the "we didn't know" thing.

If they take your house, well then your back to not owning a house. Hasn't done me any harm.

I remember when I was in college joking with a number of friends that we couldn't wait for the crash so then we might be able to afford something ourselves.

We didn't know it would be quite as bad as it was, but the prospects of a crash had been well flagged.

People were just too busy "getting on the ladder"* to pay attention?

*Remember how often that phrase was used back in the boom? Too bad people didnt realise there was a big dirty snake on the next roll of the dice!

JimiTime

jr22 wrote: »

JimiTime, you make your choices and you live with the consequences, for better or worse. Deal with it.

That makes sense. It really does. I'm nearly sure that I passed by an AIB, PTSB, Bank of Ireland etc yesterday, and they were open and doing business though?? And the people resposnsible for bankrupting them, still got/get paid

Maybe you should get onto someone and tell them they're doing it wrong.

Theta

Why do people always respond with we gave the banks money so they shouldn't take our homes?

You entered an agreement to pay a debt providing the house as a guarantee of that debt, you don't pay that debt the bank is entitled to take that guarantee.

The legal contract has not changed and why should it? Why should people get to renege on their contract? What gives them the entitlement to do that? And please dont give me something like we gave the banks money, that's irrelevant to the question I have posed which is about the contract you entered. The bank never entered an agreement with the public to not try and make money.

Also the reason we don't have the rental market that other European countries have is because Irish mentality that you have to own a house which is not the case on mainland Europe where renting is not considered to be the stomping group of students or single people. You may be annoyed with getting cheap mattresses in your houses apartments but at least they come with something. Many apartments in Germany for example don't come with kitchens and you are expected to bring your own.

floggg

My name is Mud wrote: »

Look up termination of a part 4 tenancy. Max notice you get is a few months to vacate in the event of a sale.

Get your facts right. I am being thrown out because of it.

How we my facts wrong. I said there's no security in the case of a sale.

Do you think that of you rent a property the owner should never be allowed sell it and has to hold on to it for as long as you feel like staying, even if he needs the sale proceeds for his own personal Financial needs?

kristian12

I grew up on a UK council estate and having a council house was not looked down on, i see no issue with someone having a council house and paying rent on it. The problem in Ireland is there is not enough council housing and people really haven't put much thought into it. If councils built a 4 bed house and charged €600pcm that repays €7200 a yr in 10 yrs the house has practically repaid the council and taking into account the longevity of property will then turn into profit for the next 30 odd years. More council housing would mean more security for renters.

I had a choice when i bought my house a 5 bedroomed house for me my partner and 2 teenagers or a 3 bedroomed smaller house. I figured i didn't need the bigger house as stunning as it was so i bought the smaller one much to the teenagers disgust as it wasn't as cool as their mates houses. However i can still afford it after recently being laid off for a while. It's not about me being smarter than anyone else its about buying within our needs and means rather than just what we want.