Repossession of homes: what's the big deal?

jr22 · 05-07-2013 01:46PM

My name is Mud wrote: »

And what if she didnt teach in a local school? Would you still say that renting is the best thing ever, even if you were forced to move because of receivers selling off assets??

Renting is bull**** IMHO. You never have any security, as the landlord can pull any of the Part4 clauses and turf you out.

Thats why we have a property ownsership "fascination", as there is feck all security for renting a "family" home.

Short term rental crap in Ireland = Bagaintown matresses, damp flats.

I would be happy to kit out a rented house myself, but find me a landlord that is willing to move all the bargaintown crap out of the house and store it. Few and far between

She teaches in a school in the local area. That's why we rent here. She would still teach in that same school if we had to move 5-10 minutes up or down the road. If a new job comes up that seems like a better option elsewhere, we might move there.

I can't see why any landlord would turn down long-term family oriented tenants who want to furnish the house themselves. Any landlord I've dealt with has welcomed this.

If you find renting in Ireland to be so tough, then why don't you buy a house or move to a different country?

My name is Mud · 05-07-2013 01:48PM

I could not give a crap about buying a house. Im only in this mindset as we are getting turfed out of our rented family home. Im basically kicking the can down the road unless I buy a house, as we could be thrown out of our new home for any of the stupid Part4 tenancy reasons at any time.

Its madness.

My name is Mud · 05-07-2013 01:53PM

jr22 wrote: »

I can't see why any landlord would turn down long-term family oriented tenants who want to furnish the house themselves. Any landlord I've dealt with has welcomed this.

For ****s sake. This thread is about RESPOSESSIONS. Our landlord is in receivership, and is getting his assets sold off in a fire sale. That means we are out.

Im sure he wants to keep us, but the bank says otherwise.

I did ask him only 2 months ago to remove a bed we didnt want. Its still there, as he didn't have the space to put it anywhere. Same story for alot of the cowboy landlords around

poldebruin · 05-07-2013 01:58PM

jr22 wrote: »

Do you think the people who borrowed money should stay in their houses and not pay off their mortgages? No repossessions?

No, I agree they should not stay in the house, and I am in favour of repossesions, and said as much in my post. I'm not in favor of flogging people and committing them to what amounts to a life of servitude to the bank/government by pursuing them for whatever the balance of the mortgage is. If there is to be a fixed penalty of some sort to avail of the debt writedown, then so be it.

MythicalMadMan · 05-07-2013 02:00PM

who_me wrote: »

So, if the bank lent recklessly, it gets bailed out and takes possession of the home.
If a person borrowed recklessly, they pay increased taxes and lose their homes.

If a person didnt borrow recklessly, they pay increased taxes and then you want them to pay to keep the reckless borrowers in thier homes..

So the lesson for the country is be reckless someone else will bail you out cant wait to see what the countries like in 50 years time if this is the lessons we are teaching

halkar · 05-07-2013 02:19PM

"Your home may be at risk if you do not keep up repayments on your mortgage or any other loans secured on it. "

05-07-2013 02:26PM

I keep an eye on the allsop auctions, some nice bargains out there, actually there are lots of bargains out there in general in the property market at the moment.

Personally I would have no problem buying a house at one of these types of auctions.

jr22 · 05-07-2013 02:26PM

poldebruin wrote: »

No, I agree they should not stay in the house, and I am in favour of repossesions, and said as much in my post. I'm not in favor of flogging people and committing them to what amounts to a life of servitude to the bank/government by pursuing them for whatever the balance of the mortgage is. If there is to be a fixed penalty of some sort to avail of the debt writedown, then so be it.

So who picks up the tab for the debt write-down?

The people who do pay their debts to the now nationalised banks?

I actually do think mortgage holders should be pursued for the balance of the mortgage post repossession. That's what they signed up for, that's the penalty.

I don't care if it's unworkable, it has to be the starting point. Otherwise, the whole thing is even more f*cked.

Everyone in arrears will plead the béal bocht and try to get out of their obligations as a first step. I know for sure there are plenty of people who are strategically defaulting, and there will be plenty more as time ticks on without realistic levels of repossession to encourage those in arrears to face facts and come to proper workable arrangements with the banks.

kristian12 · 05-07-2013 02:48PM

jr22 wrote: »

So who picks up the tab for the debt write-down?

The people who actually their debts to the now nationalised banks?

I actually do think mortgage holders should be pursued for the balance of the mortgage post repossession. That's what they signed up for, that's the penalty.

I don't care if it's unworkable, it has to be the starting point. Otherwise, the whole thing is even more f*cked.

Everyone in arrears will plead the béal bocht and try to get out of their obligations as a first step. I know for sure there are plenty of people who are strategically defaulting, and there will be plenty more as time ticks on without realistic levels of repossession to encourage those in arrears to face facts and come to proper workable arrangements with the banks.

I to think they should shoulder most of the responsibilty but being realistic the banks are never going to recoup the whole debt so there needs to be some compromise.

So how about a deal like this if i borrowed €190,000 and bought a house worth €200,000 8 yrs ago and paid my mortgage of €1000 without defaulting for 6yrs that means i've repaid €72,000 (ignoring interest for now) my house is now worth €100,000 so i have my house repossessed and the difference is €18,000. Then we agree a settlement that means i repay €30,000 over the next 7 yrs (approx €350pcm). The bank have then recouped their money plus interest of €12,000 at a rate thats sustainable not the big interest gain they were aiming for over the 25yr mortgage but better than nothing surely??

SeanW · 05-07-2013 03:00PM

My problem withe repossession system in Ireland is that it is too punitive. OK, if someone can't pay their mortage you reposess the house fair enough, but now the reposessee has to find himself/herself a place to live (pay rent) BUT they still have debt from the house they lost. Which frankly strikes me as retarded because A) they now have more costs and

if they could have paid the mortgage in the first place they would still be living in the house.

In the U.S. - which I consider to have a civilised repossession system - if the bank reposesses your house, that's the end of it. If the bank doesn't get the book value of the loan at auction, tough titties for them.

jr22 · 05-07-2013 03:02PM

kristian12 wrote: »

I to think they should shoulder most of the responsibilty but being realistic the banks are never going to recoup the whole debt so there needs to be some compromise.

So how about a deal like this if i borrowed €190,000 and bought a house worth €200,000 8 yrs ago and paid my mortgage of €1000 without defaulting for 6yrs that means i've repaid €72,000 (ignoring interest for now) my house is now worth €100,000 so i have my house repossessed and the difference is €18,000. Then we agree a settlement that means i repay €30,000 over the next 7 yrs (approx €350pcm). The bank have then recouped their money plus interest of €12,000 at a rate thats sustainable not the big interest gain they were aiming for over the 25yr mortgage but better than nothing surely??

Yeah, that sounds fair all round. Completely awful for the people who lose their house, obviously, but something like this has to happen.

Things are already bad enough. Currently, people can live in a house without paying their mortgage and without fear of repossession. Everyone will suffer as a consequence of this in the long term. It just can't work, no matter how emotive people get about banks, bankers and politicians.

SeanW · 05-07-2013 03:03PM

jr22 wrote: »

I know for sure there are plenty of people who are strategically defaulting, and there will be plenty more as time ticks on without realistic levels of repossession to encourage those in arrears to face facts and come to proper workable arrangements with the banks.

Ok fair enough, if it's a case of "Won't Pay" rather than "Can't pay" I don't think the borrower deserves protection. But if someone loses their home because they didn't have the money to pay the mortage, I fail to see what is to be gained by trying to get "blood from a stone"

jr22 · 05-07-2013 03:11PM

SeanW wrote: »

Ok fair enough, if it's a case of "Won't Pay" rather than "Can't pay" I don't think the borrower deserves protection. But if someone loses their home because they didn't have the money to pay the mortage, I fail to see what is to be gained by trying to get "blood from a stone"

I agree with you about the US, ideally that would be the case in Ireland too where the bank takes the hit when things go pear-shaped and they're left with the keys of the repossessed house.

As things stand in Ireland, taxpayers are going to pay for other taxpayers mortgage arrears or defaults. The banks are nationalised. Realistic levels of repossession and some form of serious financial penalty is the only way to weed out strategic defaulters who at the moment know that they will almost certainly get away with it and in the process they make a really bad situation worse for everybody for even longer.

shruikan2553 · 05-07-2013 03:16PM

My name is Mud wrote: »

I could not give a crap about buying a house. Im only in this mindset as we are getting turfed out of our rented family home. Im basically kicking the can down the road unless I buy a house, as we could be thrown out of our new home for any of the stupid Part4 tenancy reasons at any time.

Its madness.

The law is on the tenants side over the landlord and it can be very difficult to kick someone out of the house. As a child my family rented at least 6 different houses between here and america and we never had any issues.

Its not like one day the landlord comes in and tells you you have to leave tomorrow.

ScumLord · 05-07-2013 03:21PM

floggg wrote: »

Does your ,other still lay put your clothes for you in the morning or are you capable of making at least some decisions on your own?

I also imagine you have bought every item any door to door salesman has very offered to you, and are now a Jehovah's Witness.*

*With your ability to blindly accept whatever you are told without any critical thought or acceptance of your own responsibility for your decisions and actions, you have to be some version of religious.

I was waiting for this assumption to come up. I never got a mortgage, I still don't see any advantage to owning a house. To me it would be like an anchor around my neck. I have never, once in my life taken out a loan from a bank, if I don't have money saved I don't buy it.

If it wasn't obvious from my other posts I hate the banking system, I have minimum contact with it and make every effort to give them as little of my money as possible.

That doesn't mean I didn't take note of the social engineering and pressure put on people to buy into the property bubble.

You go back to property threads here on boards and you'll see most everybody bought into the hype. I wouldn't be surprised to see people posting now about how stupid people were to buy back then posting the exact opposite back then, hindsights a great thing and peoples memories have a funny way of adjusting over time.

Ireland as a whole got conned, I don't think there were many people that saw through the con at the time.

Blaming the sheep instead of the farmer is just daft.

floggg · 05-07-2013 03:23PM

My name is Mud wrote: »

I could not give a crap about buying a house. Im only in this mindset as we are getting turfed out of our rented family home. Im basically kicking the can down the road unless I buy a house, as we could be thrown out of our new home for any of the stupid Part4 tenancy reasons at any time.

Its madness.

Landlord wanting/needing to sell isn't stupid - particularly given the profile of most of the landlords in Ireland who are small scale with only a few properties.

Do you want a situation where a landlord cannot sell a house which is rented out or can only sell subject to the lease - which means that he can only sell to a small pool of professional buyers for a much reduced sale price?

So because you would rather not be inconvenienced by moving, he should be forced to take a major loss on a very expensive asset. That's hardly fair or reasonable.

And that might be the way it works in Germany, but I imagine the profile of your average landlord differs greatly to here.

Anyway, there's a lot of things to work well in Germany but not here - public transport, 24 drinking, fiscal prudence etc.

floggg · 05-07-2013 03:31PM

ScumLord wrote: »

I was waiting for this assumption to come up. I never got a mortgage, I still don't see any advantage to owning a house. To me it would be like an anchor around my neck. I have never, once in my life taken out a loan from a bank, if I don't have money saved I don't buy it.

If it wasn't obvious from my other posts I hate the banking system, I have minimum contact with it and make every effort to give them as little of my money as possible.

That doesn't mean I didn't take note of the social engineering and pressure put on people to buy into the property bubble.

You go back to property threads here on boards and you'll see most everybody bought into the hype. I wouldn't be surprised to see people posting now about how stupid people were to buy back then posting the exact opposite back then, hindsights a great thing and peoples memories have a funny way of adjusting over time.

Ireland as a whole got conned, I don't think there were many people that saw through the con at the time.

Blaming the sheep instead of the farmer is just daft.

And thinking that grown adults should have no personal responsibility for the decisions they make is even dafter.

I never made any assumption about you, only that you seem to think people shouldn't bear any responsibility for their own actions.

Which seems pretty well justified from your posts.

And since you think Irish people are all mindless "sheep" I take it that includes you?

Unless you are a banker - they seem to be the only people who you feel should accept responsibility for their actions (which of course they should).

Frank Black · 05-07-2013 03:34PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Blaming the sheep instead of the farmer is just daft.

But it's not about an either/or when it comes to 'blame'.
The banks lent recklessly.
Some people borrowed recklessly
Both these viewpoints can be held simultaneously without any contradiction.

Saying 'the banks lent recklessly', therefore I shouldn't have to pay back my borrowings doesn't work for me from a moral or ethical point of view and is not something we can afford as a country either imo.

bodice ripper · 05-07-2013 03:41PM

Why are people getting into hysterics (and ludicrous debt) because they fear having to move house with kids? I moved house 5 times between the ages of 0 and 10. I didn't grow up to be an axe murderer...

jr22 · 05-07-2013 03:49PM

Frank Black wrote: »

But it's not about an either/or when it comes to 'blame'.
The banks lent recklessly.
Some people borrowed recklessly
Both these viewpoints can be held simultaneously without any contradiction.

Saying 'the banks lent recklessly', therefore I shouldn't have to pay back my borrowings doesn't work for me from a moral or ethical point of view and is not something we can afford as a country either imo.

Totally agree. That argument is what is going to push the whole mess over the edge I reckon. The whole messed up situation will be catastrophically banjoed if that sort of approach is seen to work by those in financial trouble. At the moment, it seems to work.

What is going to happen though?

The government just won't to preside over mass repossessions and the banks don't want to face the prospect that they are even more f*cked as a result of the repossessions or some sort of debt forgiveness.

The whole thing is such a mess, it's hard to get your head around it.

My name is Mud · 05-07-2013 03:51PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

The law is on the tenants side over the landlord and it can be very difficult to kick someone out of the house. As a child my family rented at least 6 different houses between here and america and we never had any issues.

Its not like one day the landlord comes in and tells you you have to leave tomorrow.

Sorry, but the law is on the landlords side in the event of a sale. Tenants have to vacate a part4 tenancy agreement in the event of sale, or if landlord wants to move back in.

The best scenario is if you have rented the house for 4+ years, you get 112 days notice to move. Its on a sliding scale, and for us, we have been living in the house for 2 years and get 40 something days to leave.

Its a load of bollox.

purplepanda · 05-07-2013 03:53PM

Irish banks & mortgage lenders, government & even the EU need to come up with a viable scheme to help some of those stuck in negative equity, perhaps extending mortgage repayment periods, from upwards to 35 or 40 years if needed, maybe shared ownership schemes to help families stay in their homes could be ideas at least. Even reducing the payments on mortgages for those that are earning less than a few years ago. Whilst times are tough.

Throwing families out of homes with the added cost of rehousing & paying private rental charges for many is going to cost the taxpayers substantial amounts anyway so other options need to be considered.

Those that are still earning decent money but are holding back on their mortgage repayments, looking for a payout need to be forced to pay up, however if anyone needs proper help they should be given adequate options to help them stay in their homes.

Problem is that the property business, like banking is infested with leaches who will be looking for another profit from reposed properties & don't care about the costs to society as long as they get their bonuses!!!!

FG Labour need to come up with a proper solution before the next election or risk losing power. The question is do they have the vision to do so? :rolleyes:

My name is Mud · 05-07-2013 03:54PM

floggg wrote: »

Do you want a situation where a landlord cannot sell a house which is rented out or can only sell subject to the lease - which means that he can only sell to a small pool of professional buyers for a much reduced sale price?

Yes. Thats exactly what I want. Thats why they are landlords.

Being a landlord is the business of leasing land/property to tenants.

Not cowboys out for a quick buck, which is Ireland in a nutshell

ScumLord · 05-07-2013 03:58PM

Frank Black wrote: »

But it's not about an either/or when it comes to 'blame'.
The banks lent recklessly.
Some people borrowed recklessly
Both these viewpoints can be held simultaneously without any contradiction.

Saying 'the banks lent recklessly', therefore I shouldn't have to pay back my borrowings doesn't work for me from a moral or ethical point of view and is not something we can afford as a country either imo.

You're right up to a point, I've never said people shouldn't pay back what they borrowed. What I'm saying is the banks getting money they lent out recklessly to people that couldn't know any better by virtue of being lay people dealing with college educated experts shouldn't be prioritised. Keeping families in their home is more important to Ireland than keeping bankers in mercs.

Most people borrowed under a completely different environment than we have today, they could make repayments, they often had two or more jobs per household. They couldn't foresee the banks collapsing due to the banks managements incompetence/criminality.

shruikan2553 · 05-07-2013 04:12PM

My name is Mud wrote: »

Sorry, but the law is on the landlords side in the event of a sale. Tenants have to vacate a part4 tenancy agreement in the event of sale, or if landlord wants to move back in.

The best scenario is if you have rented the house for 4+ years, you get 112 days notice to move. Its on a sliding scale, and for us, we have been living in the house for 2 years and get 40 something days to leave.

Its a load of bollox.

Sale or to move in are the only times it can happen and how often does that happen?

Houses tend to be for sale for months and then once it is sold you have to be given time to move out.

Both renting and owning have their flaws, with owning you are less likely to be moved but if you have to move then it is difficult to leave. If you rent you can just give your notice and leave for somewhere else. You dont HAVE to own your own house, it is a choice and many people didnt question if they could afford it or think that maybe the house prices could go down. What if it gets flooded? You will have nowhere to live and have to pay to repair it.

floggg · 05-07-2013 04:21PM

My name is Mud wrote: »

Yes. Thats exactly what I want. Thats why they are landlords.

Being a landlord is the business of leasing land/property to tenants.

Not cowboys out for a quick buck, which is Ireland in a nutshell

Then you want some stupid unreasonable ****.

My sister has a house which she is renting out as its not viable for her to live there and commute to and from work.

Should she be faced with option of either

(i)leaving it sit idle and costing her money (mortgage, tax, upkeep) for the foreseeable future or

(I) renting it out and risk not being able to sell it or move in herself if her circumstances change?

just because somebody with an over inflated sense of self entitlement and with no long term financial commitment to the property (unlike her who is tied to and paying a mortgage) would rather not go through the inconvenience of moving?

Anyway, what you argue for is possibly unconstitutional as an unreasonable attack on property rights.

So I would suggest if you don't like it you do hit the road.

Ray Palmer · 05-07-2013 04:22PM

SeanW wrote: »

My problem withe repossession system in Ireland is that it is too punitive. OK, if someone can't pay their mortage you reposess the house fair enough, but now the reposessee has to find himself/herself a place to live (pay rent) BUT they still have debt from the house they lost. Which frankly strikes me as retarded because A) they now have more costs and if they could have paid the mortgage in the first place they would still be living in the house.

In the U.S. - which I consider to have a civilised repossession system - if the bank reposesses your house, that's the end of it. If the bank doesn't get the book value of the loan at auction, tough titties for them.

This is actually the reason for the world wide recession. Mortgages were given out to people who couldn't afford them. Then the properties were repossessed and the funds that were tied to these mortgages collapsed. The banks with money in these funds suddenly lost massive amounts of money.

The reason these mortgages were given was because of the mentality everybody can buy a house. The US government pretty much forced the banks to give these loans. So the scheme you think is much more civilised is so flawed that because it is allowed in one country it damaged the world. If it was similar laws to here it would never have happened and people would not have taken the risks they did in the US. People think the banks here failed due to property investment in Ireland and that isn't the case. Irish property investment was not healthy but it would not have had the same effect if it wasn't for the original issue in the US that damaged the investment market that caused the credit crunch world wide.

There are lots of things in the US that wouldn't be allowed in the EU due to how reckless it is. It still effects us all the same. What seems like a nice consumer idea isn't good for stability or the market

My name is Mud · 05-07-2013 04:24PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Sale or to move in are the only times it can happen and how often does that happen?

This is a thread on house repossesions. Its happening quite alot.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Houses tend to be for sale for months and then once it is sold you have to be given time to move out.
.

Thats not true. A house cannot be sold unless its freehold, which means tenants need to move before it can go on the market.

05-07-2013 04:25PM

My name is Mud wrote: »

Yes. Thats exactly what I want. Thats why they are landlords.

Being a landlord is the business of leasing land/property to tenants.

Not cowboys out for a quick buck, which is Ireland in a nutshell

I disagree so much I can't even put it into words. If I buy a house and decide to let it, I'm doing it for the benefit of my pocket and noting else. If I then decide I want to live in the house, rent it to a relative, sell the house I should be allowd to do so. If I'm out for a quick buck so be it I'm entitled to be out for a quick buck. I would totally disagree with anything that stopped landlords doing as they wish with their property (allowing a reasonable notice period which is already in place). It's their property why should a tenant have a say outside of requesting the property be well maintained while they live there.

I sympathise with your situation but this sort of thing among plenty of other reasons is while I will be buying as soon as I can.

My name is Mud wrote: »

Thats not true. A house cannot be sold unless its freehold, which means tenants need to move before it can go on the market.

This is not true, there are loads of places for sale with sitting tenants. You will even find monthly rent roll figures etc given in advertisements.

floggg · 05-07-2013 04:29PM

My name is Mud wrote: »

This is a thread on house repossesions. Its happening quite alot.

Thats not true. A house cannot be sold unless its freehold, which means tenants need to move before it can go on the market.

I gather you don't actually know what freehold means.

It's not the same as vacant possession, which I assume is what you are referring to.

And houses can be sold without vacant possession - it's just that purchasers are generally reluctant to do so. As a result anybody trying to sell without vacant possession usually has to accept a lower price.

You probably shouldn't make definitive statements without knowing what you are talking about.

Repossession of homes: what's the big deal?

Comments