Repossession of homes: what's the big deal?

My name is Mud · 05-07-2013 04:29PM

floggg wrote: »

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

Its not my problem if your sister bought a house she cant commute to /from.

Our european counterparts have unlimited leases. Some even sign 10+ year leases.

The boom created cowboy landlords, who then have the right to turf out tenants under the part4 legislation.

People bought property they simply couldnt live in, and this has created the short term junk rental market.

The consistitution is feck all use for a family home....when you rent it.

bodice ripper · 05-07-2013 04:34PM

My name is Mud wrote: »

Its not my problem if your sister bought a house she cant commute to /from.

and it isn't her fault if you buy a house you can't afford...

My name is Mud · 05-07-2013 04:35PM

Im finished arguing with the internet.

My position, and many other families are in similar, is going to happen more and more.

Ray Palmer · 05-07-2013 04:36PM

My name is Mud wrote: »

Its not my problem if your sister bought a house she cant commute to /from.

Our european counterparts have unlimited leases. Some even sign 10+ year leases.

The boom created cowboy landlords, who then have the right to turf out tenants under the part4 legislation.

People bought property they simply couldnt live in, and this has created the short term junk rental market.

The consistitution is feck all use for a family home....when you rent it.

Sorry you can't compare central Europe to us. There housing stock was pretty much formed due to WWII and the destruction of housing then. International funds created companies to provide housing. These companies were able to deal with these great conditions. It wasn't by massive clever thinking it involved many deaths and destruction and was pretty much the only option to house all these homeless masses. Then you have former soviet states which provided housing. A lot of the laws you are referring to don't apply to small landlords too so the same as here.

Compare it to a similar market as us i.e. the UK

shruikan2553 · 05-07-2013 04:36PM

My name is Mud wrote: »

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

I thought the issue was the lack of repossessions allowing for people to live in or take rent from houses that they didnt own. That would suggest it isn't happening a lot.

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.

Better go over the the accom and property forum and let people know about that. Lots of landlords selling houses with people in them leaving it up to the new owners to decide weather to keep the tenants or not.

floggg · 05-07-2013 04:37PM

My name is Mud wrote: »

Its not my problem if your sister bought a house she cant commute to /from.

Our european counterparts have unlimited leases. Some even sign 10+ year leases.

The boom created cowboy landlords, who then have the right to turf out tenants under the part4 legislation.

People bought property they simply couldnt live in, and this has created the short term junk rental market.

The consistitution is feck all use for a family home....when you rent it.

And it's not her problem that you are too lazy to move houses. She doesn't owe you a home.

You can sign a 10 year lease here too if you want. Nothing to stop you if you can agree it.

I very much doubt there is any such thing as an "unlimited lease". There may be a lease with a rolling term but there is invariably some form of termination mechanism.

Nobody would ever lease property if they couldn't get it back.

Care to post up any sources to back up your claims of unlimited leases?

The world doesn't owe you a life. You can't afford to she'll out for a house of your own, but you think it's ok that somebody that does she'll out for one should have to let you live in it for as long as they want without any regard to their own needs?

**** outta here with that bull****.

bodice ripper · 05-07-2013 04:37PM

My name is Mud wrote: »

Im finished arguing with the internet.

My position, and many other families are in similar, is going to happen more and more.

well, cheer up. Lots of people don't own their home. You will get used to it.

floggg · 05-07-2013 04:39PM

My name is Mud wrote: »

Im finished arguing with the internet.

My position, and many other families are in similar, is going to happen more and more.

To be honest it's not very easy to have much sympathy for you.

Maybe for your kids (if any) though not for the inconvenience of moving.

laoch na mona · 05-07-2013 04:59PM

A bank that had to be bailed out with public money has no right to take a persons house. never mind the fact that people wouldn't be struggling to pay their mortgages if the banks hadn't ****ed up

Potatoeman · 05-07-2013 05:01PM

floggg wrote: »

And it's not her problem that you are too lazy to move houses. She doesn't owe you a home.

You can sign a 10 year lease here too if you want. Nothing to stop you if you can agree it.

I very much doubt there is any such thing as an "unlimited lease". There may be a lease with a rolling term but there is invariably some form of termination mechanism.

Nobody would ever lease property if they couldn't get it back.

Care to post up any sources to back up your claims of unlimited leases?

The world doesn't owe you a life. You can't afford to she'll out for a house of your own, but you think it's ok that somebody that does she'll out for one should have to let you live in it for as long as they want without any regard to their own needs?

**** outta here with that bull****.

Our rental laws and standards are a huge reason for the mess we are in now. People dont have stability in rental properties.
The ideal situation would have different lease durations but your sister might struggle to lease her house over a short period. A large part of the problem is tenants just dont know how long the property will be let for.

Potatoeman · 05-07-2013 05:05PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

A bank that had to be bailed out with public money has no right to take a persons house. never mind the fact that people wouldn't be struggling to pay their mortgages if the banks hadn't ****ed up

So every idiot gets to keep a free house and the prudent get to fund it.

floggg · 05-07-2013 05:09PM

Potatoeman wrote: »

Our rental laws and standards are a huge reason for the mess we are in now. People dont have stability in rental properties.
The ideal situation would have different lease durations but your sister might struggle to lease her house over a short period. A large part of the problem is tenants just dont know how long the property will be let for.

As a renter, I think out laws are quite reasonable.

After 6 months, it becomes difficult to kick them out unless there's misbehaviour or a genuine need for the property on the part of the landlord. That's fair.

In recent years landlords have had to invoke the "need" caveats more often - but that's because everybody's needs have changed.

Anyway, renters can comfort themselves that the inconvenience caused by the odd move is offset by the reduced rent they could claim - we got over €250 a month of our house since we moved in by citing the recession.

So swings and roundabouts!

end of the road · 05-07-2013 05:14PM

Dostoevsky wrote: »

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

nobody said they did, however it is rather gauling to have 1000000000s put into the banks yet for whatever reason you end up losing your house even though maybe you did everything to try do a deal with the bank and were willing to make an effort to pay (ditto to those who just didn't bother or make an effort)

Dostoevsky wrote: »

I have rented for years, and have no problem with it. I actually think it gives me more freedom and options.

very true.

Dostoevsky wrote: »

Why can't people who are living in homes that they cannot afford just accept that they have to move to something more affordable?

many have done that, just left the keys and went renting and so on, i suppose some wish to pay something and make an effort and do a deal with the bank yet in some cases the bank won't play ball.

Dostoevsky wrote: »

They can then get on with their lives.

i believe if the house sells for under the mortgage one can be chased for the rest so i doubt they could get on with their lives.

Dostoevsky wrote: »

some people seem, in principle, opposed to repossession of homes by the financial institutions which own them.

i suppose again its because of the amount of money pumped into the banks by the tax payers many of who are struggling mortgage holders, also its because many of the banks haven't been able to sell these houses (anyone know how many repossessed houses have been sold since the recession)

Dostoevsky wrote: »

This, to me, makes no sense.

think about it and something out of it might make sense.

Dostoevsky wrote: »

In fact, it is unfair to everybody else who has to pay for their accommodation.

you will have to pay either way in many cases
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.[/QUOTE]
true, all though it can be a major up-evil and isn't something one would want to happen specially if one has kids.

Dostoevsky wrote: »

There's no shame in renting, none at all.

completely agree, however people for whatever reason wanted to buy a house and over payed for them in many cases either because of bad advice, just being stupid, and because the developers and others set the prices at unsustainable and ridiculous levels.

laoch na mona · 05-07-2013 05:15PM

Potatoeman wrote: »

So every idiot gets to keep a free house and the prudent get to fund it.

what about the "prudent" who spent the boom working to stay poor people got rich off their labour but that's not relevent just another way to look at things

I can understand that people who can still afford to pay feel that others should face the music, but these people (mostly) did not think they were taking a big risk the banking system encouraged the high level of borrowing and the government was happy to allow reckless lending.

people are losing their homes due to factors outside their control because banks which shold have failed were giving state money but instead of the state taking an effective level of control the banks continue to act as they did before.

as a people we should be in this together against the greed of the bankers

Potatoeman · 05-07-2013 05:19PM

floggg wrote: »

As a renter, I think out laws are quite reasonable.

After 6 months, it becomes difficult to kick them out unless there's misbehaviour or a genuine need for the property on the part of the landlord. That's fair.

In recent years landlords have had to invoke the "need" caveats more often - but that's because everybody's needs have changed.

Anyway, renters can comfort themselves that the inconvenience caused by the odd move is offset by the reduced rent they could claim - we got over €250 a month of our house since we moved in by citing the recession.

So swings and roundabouts!

Long term leases would benefit the tenants and both parties would know up frount what to expect. Short term ones would still be possible but I imagine not as popular due to inconvience.

We have too many small landlords and amatures in this country rather than professionals and leasing agents. A landlords duties should be treated like a job.

jr22 · 05-07-2013 05:22PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

what about the "prudent" who spent the boom working to stay poor people got rich off their labour but that's not relevent just another way to look at things

I can understand that people who can still afford to pay feel that others should face the music, but these people (mostly) did not think they were taking a big risk the banking system encouraged the high level of borrowing and the government was happy to allow reckless lending.

people are losing their homes due to factors outside their control because banks which shold have failed were giving state money but instead of the state taking an effective level of control the banks continue to act as they did before.

as a people we should be in this together against the greed of the bankers

Utter horsh!t. Total and utter.

I don't feel any solidarity with feckless morons who want to lump their debt on everyone else by not paying their mortgages.

If you signed up for the mortgage it's your problem. If you don't pay the mortgage now, it's the tax payers problem. We own the c*nting banks. I don't want to subsidise greedy, easily led morons.

Potatoeman · 05-07-2013 05:30PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

what about the "prudent" who spent the boom working to stay poor people got rich off their labour but that's not relevent just another way to look at things

I can understand that people who can still afford to pay feel that others should face the music, but these people (mostly) did not think they were taking a big risk the banking system encouraged the high level of borrowing and the government was happy to allow reckless lending.

people are losing their homes due to factors outside their control because banks which shold have failed were giving state money but instead of the state taking an effective level of control the banks continue to act as they did before.

as a people we should be in this together against the greed of the
bankers

We are all in this together now that people are struggling but these people didnt want to be 'let behind' and didnt care about those that were.
If you cant afford the home youre in you need to come to terms with it and deal with the choices you made like an adult.
Its the biggest financial decision you will make in your life so put some thought into it. The bankers were sales people and dont have responsibility for your personal finances.

JJJJNR · 05-07-2013 05:38PM

bluesteel wrote: »

What a moronic comment! How can rental prices go through the roof, doesn't it stand to reason that every family (yes renting families deserve consideration too!) that move into a repossessed house were previously renting? So the net number of renters is the same?

Most of the houses are being bought who were prudent and don't have massive mortgages they can't afford. Silly comment, shows you have no sympathy for those who rented all along instead of buying and now want to buy.

Rental prices are already going up due to the lack of available rental property, where are all the shrewd renters going to get mortgages when the banks are fcuked, going to be difficult to get on the property ladder soon as prices have already started to go back up, better get that mortgage application form in ASAP in case they go up any further and drop again.

LOL

05-07-2013 05:43PM

Potatoeman wrote: »

Long term leases would benefit the tenants and both parties would know up frount what to expect. Short term ones would still be possible but I imagine not as popular due to inconvience.

We have too many small landlords and amatures in this country rather than professionals and leasing agents. A landlords duties should be treated like a job.

But in reality property is a way of making additional income and rightly so. People need to understand houses are not rented out for the benefit of the tenant it's for the benefit of the landlord.

Personally I'd like to have a property or two in the future for letting as a sideline to my main work, but I would not allow a lease any longer than a year for various reasons.

laoch na mona · 05-07-2013 05:57PM

Potatoeman wrote: »

We are all in this together now that people are struggling but these people didnt want to be 'let behind' and didnt care about those that were.
If you cant afford the home youre in you need to come to terms with it and deal with the choices you made like an adult.
Its the biggest financial decision you will make in your life so put some thought into it. The bankers were sales people and dont have responsibility for your personal finances.

but people are in financial difficulty through no fault of there own we can't say to these people that their home is the price to be paid for the greed of the elite. Now I'm talking about family homes not mansions but ordinary houses.
this idea that they should just accept the situation that has been thrust upon them allows the people who created this crisis to avoid their responsibility to the people paying for their mistakes

laoch na mona · 05-07-2013 06:02PM

jr22 wrote: »

Utter horsh!t. Total and utter.

I don't feel any solidarity with feckless morons who want to lump their debt on everyone else

funny that's my view on bond holders and high up bankers

but i guess it is easier to blame average working people instead of those responsible

looking_around · 05-07-2013 06:05PM

JJJJNR wrote: »

Rental prices are already going up due to the lack of available rental property, where are all the shrewd renters going to get mortgages when the banks are fcuked, going to be difficult to get on the property ladder soon as prices have already started to go back up, better get that mortgage application form in ASAP in case they go up any further and drop again.

Wha?
There's plenty to rent and many landlords are willing to negotiate a lower price on the rent.
I was looking couple months back, and there was loads out there.

floggg · 05-07-2013 06:10PM

Brianna Thousands Palm wrote: »

Personally I'd like to have a property or two in the future for letting as a sideline to my main work, but I would not allow a lease any longer than a year for various reasons.

1. Part of the reason we got into so much ****. Property ownership was a ladder, buy big and buy often. Amateur landlords inflating prices and getting in over their heads.

If you can pay cash, then fire ahead but the desire of every Tom dick and harry to be a property magnate without actually spending any money is one of the reasons the country is where it is.

2. Regardless of the term in the lease, once they are in for 6 months they can claim a part 4 tenancy ( for a term of 4 years plus).

looking_around · 05-07-2013 06:13PM

floggg wrote: »

1. Part of the reason we got into so much ****. Property ownership was a ladder, buy big and buy often. Amateur landlords inflating prices and getting in over their heads.

If you can pay cash, then fire ahead but the desire of every Tom dick and harry to be a property magnate without actually spending any money is one of the reasons the country is where it is.

2. Regardless of the term in the lease, once they are in for 6 months they can claim a part 4 tenancy ( for a term of 4 years plus).

Wanted to say something along those lines but couldn't word it right.. XD ..:o

jr22 · 05-07-2013 06:21PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

funny that's my view on bond holders and high up bankers

but i guess it is easier to blame average working people instead of those responsible

If your post is representative of the average working person then you're absolutely right.

That is exactly the sort of leaden, poor us, plodding, muck brained thinking that has the average working person in the sh!t right now.

Galwayguy35 · 05-07-2013 06:23PM

I bought my house towards the end of the boom years, I can manage the mortgage but if I got into difficulty it's my problem and don't see why any other taxpayer should have to bail me out, likewise I don't want to have to bail others in difficulty out either.

Sure the banks offered easy money but a 5 minute calculation would have told most people the loan they could afford.

05-07-2013 06:27PM

floggg wrote: »

1. Part of the reason we got into so much ****. Property ownership was a ladder, buy big and buy often. Amateur landlords inflating prices and getting in over their heads.

If you can pay cash, then fire ahead but the desire of every Tom dick and harry to be a property magnate without actually spending any money is one of the reasons the country is where it is.

2. Regardless of the term in the lease, once they are in for 6 months they can claim a part 4 tenancy ( for a term of 4 years plus).

I certainly wouldn't be buying for cash even if I had the full price. Pay a decent deposit yes but I'd much rather have my tenants paying off my mortgage (claiming the income tax against the mortgage interest) then sell when the place is paid off and make a nice profit (less tax). All the time I would still have the cash reserves rather than tying it all up in the property.

Frank Black · 05-07-2013 06:35PM

ScumLord wrote: »

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.

An emotive choice of words that doesn't bear any reality to the actual choice here.
We (the tax-payers) for the most point own the banks.
The choice is actually about who should pay the debt back - us, or the borrowers.
The 'merc driving bankers' will be still driving their mercs regardless of who re-pays the money, but it will have to be re-payed.

laoch na mona · 05-07-2013 06:46PM

jr22 wrote: »

If your post is representative of the average working person then you're absolutely right.

That is exactly the sort of leaden, poor us, plodding, muck brained thinking that has the average working person in the sh!t right now.

so we should just put up with criminal bankers and their political lapdogs

laoch na mona · 05-07-2013 06:52PM

Frank Black wrote: »

The choice is actually about who should pay the debt back - us, or the borrowers..

how about the bankers and the bond holders

Repossession of homes: what's the big deal?

Comments