Evictions

hawkelady · 25-09-2013 10:49AM

chopper6 wrote: »

Well they should never have bought if they cant afford to pay.

A mortage is probably the most significant loan anybody will ever draw down...you need to stress test your circumstances for teh next 25 years or so in order to see if it's affordable.

The fact is that most of these people in arrears didnt buy property to live in,they bought it to sell on at a profit and it typically irish way they no longer want to pay back what they consider to be a losing bet.

Pay up or get out...the bank owns the property until the day of the last payment and people have no right to think otherwise.

Well the first sentence you spouted is completely flawed !!

If you believe what you just said then when anyone went for a mortgage the bank manager could have just asked if you can afford the house if you were earning €200 / week (dole)

People got mortgages on what they were earning at the time and they thought their jobs were secure!! No one expected the amount of jobs that were lost ..
So think before you type

Dravokivich · 25-09-2013 10:50AM

nelly17 wrote: »

The evections would cause a problem in themselves if we end up having a ****load of properties hitting tha market in a short space of time - could destroy any green shoots of recovery.

The property market was over valued 5 years ago and it still is today.

chopper6 · 25-09-2013 10:52AM

hawkelady wrote: »

Well the first sentence you spouted is completely flawed !!

If you believe what you just said then when anyone went for a mortgage the bank manager could have just asked if you can afford the house if you were earning €200 / week (dole)

People got mortgages on what they were earning at the time and they thought their jobs were secure!! No one expected the amount of jobs that were lost ..
So think before you type

As my Old Dad used to say...

"You know what Thought did?...."Pissed in the bed and Thought you were sweating"

nelly17 · 25-09-2013 10:52AM

The property market was over valued 10 years ago - but people still jumped in because they had to it was and still is either jump on or rent

Dravokivich · 25-09-2013 10:58AM

nelly17 wrote: »

The property market was over valued 10 years ago - but people still jumped in because they had to it was and still is either jump on or rent

So why do you seem to be in favour of maintaining it? Your earlier post seemed to be rather paniced and gave a doomsday feel to the idea of mass lots of property being placed onto the market.

Retrovertigo · 25-09-2013 11:03AM

Dravokivich wrote: »

The property market was over valued 5 years ago and it still is today.

5 years ago means nothing compared to now. Quite easy to buy a 3 bed semi detached in Dublin for less than 200k.

Compared to a 3 storey, 10 room Georgian building in the 90's for 40k.

Banjo String · 25-09-2013 11:22AM

chopper6 wrote: »

Well they should never have bought if they cant afford to pay.

A mortage is probably the most significant loan anybody will ever draw down...you need to stress test your circumstances for teh next 25 years or so in order to see if it's affordable.
.

If only everyone had a crystal ball eh?

If someone had every eventuality covered to insure that could pay the mortgage for the next 25 years or so, they'd probably need the price of the house in the bank/in a sock under the bed etc.

That post might just come across as a little bit condescending.

chopper6 · 25-09-2013 12:14PM

Banjo String wrote: »

If only everyone had a crystal ball eh?

If someone had every eventuality covered to insure that could pay the mortgage for the next 25 years or so, they'd probably need the price of the house in the bank/in a sock under the bed etc.

That post might just come across as a little bit condescending.

I cant understand why people *didn't* cover every eventuality berfore they bought or borrowed...ffs it's a 25-30 year bank loan for hundreds of thousands of quid...what did they think it would be okay if they lost their jobs,they could flip the property for a profit?

keeponhurling · 25-09-2013 12:23PM

Could it be a solution to allow banks to repossess any house that is in arrears for, say over 3 months with this condition? -

the condition is that they must provide alternative, basic alternative accomodation. Therefore they can sell off expensive saleable houses to people who are working and can afford it.

For instance, I don't see any problem with the bank removing a family of 4 with no income from a 5-bedroom house in Blackrock, to a 3-bedroom house in Wicklow. Even ghost estate could be considered.
The family doesn't stay in the place they cannot afford. Similarly they are still provided with a place to stay, that they cannot afford, but the bank loses less.

That may free up some properties and prices may fall somewhat from the current artificial high.

keeponhurling · 25-09-2013 12:24PM

chopper6 wrote: »

what did they think it would be okay if they lost their jobs,they could flip the property for a profit?

Sadly yes.
Remember the phrase "Property Ladder"?

shruikan2553 · 25-09-2013 12:37PM

I thought when you choose to take out a mortgage you make an agreement with the bank that they will give you the money and you pay it back plus interest over a time period. If you fail to do this the property may be taken away from you.

If you agreed to this then you cant complain. The most you can expect is the bank may let you pay less each month for longer but if you just stop payments and decide **** it then you should just be thrown out, if you dont try to deal with the bank why should they try to deal with you.

BlackWizard · 25-09-2013 01:01PM

Indecision is costing

super_furry · 25-09-2013 01:02PM

What do people want here really? Is there the expectation that they be given a house for free?

SafeSurfer · 25-09-2013 01:18PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That said I do think more people are just using it as an excuse than genuinely can't afford it.

Do you honestly think that the majority of people in mortgage arrears can afford to make their mortgage payments but have decided not to?

Have you any basis for this belief? Even the banks analysis estimates strategic defaulters at around 20%.

Banjo String · 25-09-2013 01:21PM

chopper6 wrote: »

I cant understand why people *didn't* cover every eventuality berfore they bought or borrowed...ffs it's a 25-30 year bank loan for hundreds of thousands of quid...what did they think it would be okay if they lost their jobs,they could flip the property for a profit?

Chopper this might come as a shock to you, so you might want to sit down and prepare yourself.

Just maybe they didn't envisage ever losing their jobs?

Your original post stated that people taking out a mortgage should make provisions for something maybe down the line, they can't see coming. Mortgage insurance?

25-09-2013 01:24PM

What is wrong with them leaving the house and renting somewhere else, a mortgage that you are not paying does not entitle you to stay in a house without having to pay for it. What`s wrong with throwing them out on their ear and injecting some personal responsibility back into Irish society?

Some people bought tiny apartments/unsuitable crappy houses for over half a million euros. They neutered themselves and willingly crippled their disposable income for their working lifetime. Darwinism in action. Weeding out the idiots.

whiskeyman · 25-09-2013 01:24PM

super_furry wrote: »

What do people want here really? Is there the expectation that they be given a house for free?

Obviously people really didnt think they'd lose one or both jobs in the household, so repayment is neigh on impossible.
The situation in Kanturk mentioned they offered to pay €400 pm but the bank refused - I find this hard to believe and surely the bank should compromise in this situation. The banks got enough support from the Government, so this support has to come back around. You'd hope that when (if!) the employment situation picks up, the household income will increase and more repayments can be made.
If it's found that the people are making zero attempt to pay / are recklessly spending elsewhere, these are the ones who should be turfed out.
Apparently there's many high incomes earners who are well able to pay their mortgages but are tactically refusing for various reasons.

jester77 · 25-09-2013 01:30PM

Banjo String wrote: »

If only everyone had a crystal ball eh?

If someone had every eventuality covered to insure that could pay the mortgage for the next 25 years or so, they'd probably need the price of the house in the bank/in a sock under the bed etc.

That post might just come across as a little bit condescending.

That's BS. For most people, buying a home is the biggest financial undertaking they will make in their lifetime. And for most people, this will be a long term undertaking, anything from 15 years plus to pay it back. Only a fool would not cover all possibilities in this instance, unemployment of one or both parties, death of one party, long-term sickness or injury, children, high interest rates like our parents had, etc.

If anyone thinks they can go 15 plus years without anything happening then they are very foolish and don't deserve sympathy.

25-09-2013 01:33PM

whiskeyman wrote: »

Obviously people really didnt think they'd lose one or both jobs in the household, so repayment is neigh on impossible.
The situation in Kanturk mentioned they offered to pay €400 pm but the bank refused - I find this hard to believe and surely the bank should compromise in this situation. The banks got enough support from the Government, so this support has to come back around. You'd hope that when (if!) the employment situation picks up, the household income will increase and more repayments can be made.
If it's found that the people are making zero attempt to pay / are recklessly spending elsewhere, these are the ones who should be turfed out.
Apparently there's many high incomes earners who are well able to pay their mortgages but are tactically refusing for various reasons.

The couple accept that they have not made mortgage repayments for about two years

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/couple-facing-eviction-vow-to-fight-back-244202.html

Give me a good reason why they shouldn`t be kicked out? 2 years no payments at all. A renter wouldn`t last a few weeks. If they had 400 to put towards it a month then they have around 10k saved up. If they were refused welfare payments it was because they failed the means test, i.e they have means.

Meanwhile in Kanturk we have a crowd to block the eviction

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/09/24/meanwhile-in-kanturk-2/

Banjo String · 25-09-2013 01:40PM

jester77 wrote: »

That's BS. For most people, buying a home is the biggest financial undertaking they will make in their lifetime. And for most people, this will be a long term undertaking, anything from 15 years plus to pay it back. Only a fool would not cover all possibilities in this instance, unemployment of one or both parties, death of one party, long-term sickness or injury, children, high interest rates like our parents had, etc.

If anyone thinks they can go 15 plus years without anything happening then they are very foolish and don't deserve sympathy.

Mortgage applications are decided upon a person's circumstances at the time of applying.

Income, savings, credit history etc etc. Jobs that used to be jobs for life in this country are no longer jobs for life. Things change, mostly beyond the mortgage applicants control.

Please tell me how someone makes plans to pay a mortgage in 25/15/10 years time bar putting a safety net like insurance in place?

jester77 · 25-09-2013 01:47PM

Banjo String wrote: »

Mortgage applications are decided upon a person's circumstances at the time of applying.

Income, savings, credit history etc etc. Jobs that used to be jobs for life in this country are no longer jobs for life. Things change, mostly beyond the mortgage applicants control.

Please tell me how someone makes plans to pay a mortgage in 25/15/10 years time bar putting a safety net like insurance in place?

eh, insurance is they key, hence the name. If myself or my partner die, our insurance will pay off 60% of the mortgage. If either/both of us are sick our health insurances pay out. If either/both of us cannot work long term due to injury/disability/longer term-illness, insurance pays us out the current equivalent of our salary. Mortgage is fixed for 20 years, so we don't have to worry about rate increases and by then the kids will have moved out so we can downsize if necessary. If either/both of us lose our jobs we get paid 60% of our salary for 12 months, after that we have to use savings.

Banjo String · 25-09-2013 01:51PM

jester77 wrote: »

eh, insurance is they key, hence the name. If myself or my partner die, our insurance will pay off 60% of the mortgage. If either/both of us are sick our health insurances pay out. If either/both of us cannot work long term due to injury/disability/longer term-illness, insurance pays us out the current equivalent of our salary. Mortgage is fixed for 20 years, so we don't have to worry about rate increases and by then the kids will have moved out so we can downsize if necessary. If either/both of us lose our jobs we get paid 60% of our salary for 12 months, after that we have to use savings.

The post of mine below the one you quoted specifically mentioned mortgage insurance as the only means of planning for the future, I'm at a loss as to what your point is?

drunkmonkey · 25-09-2013 01:54PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Meanwhile in Kanturk we have a crowd to block the eviction

In the Immortal words of Enda Kenny, "Why aren't you in work today"

Anyone in that picture should be hauled in front of the DSW and asked why they were not out trying to make a contribution to society, I wonder how may of them under 65 sent out a CV that day.

Time for the softly softly approach has passed, feck out the freeloaders and wasters, stick them all in ****ty ghost estates in the middle of no where so they can waste out the rest of their lives without having an impact on the people actually trying to make a go of it.
Plenty of people out there who would actually pay for that house. Lobby groups have way to much say in this country.

Christy42 · 25-09-2013 02:09PM

jester77 wrote: »

eh, insurance is they key, hence the name. If myself or my partner die, our insurance will pay off 60% of the mortgage. If either/both of us are sick our health insurances pay out. If either/both of us cannot work long term due to injury/disability/longer term-illness, insurance pays us out the current equivalent of our salary. Mortgage is fixed for 20 years, so we don't have to worry about rate increases and by then the kids will have moved out so we can downsize if necessary. If either/both of us lose our jobs we get paid 60% of our salary for 12 months, after that we have to use savings.

So if both of you lose your jobs you lose the ability to pay your mortgage long term (presuming you don't have a massive amount saved up, well and beyond what most people could manage). The only way to cover every possibility like you suggest is to not buy or manage to buy a house that could be payed off while on the dole. I highly doubt 60% of most peoples salary for a year will pay off their entire mortgage. Downsizing can also be difficult if all the replacement with lower pay in the same location.

Turfing people out will only make it harder for them to get back on their feet. If people have trouble getting back on their feet it will slow any recovery. Yes houses are overvalued at the moment but making them cheaper won't help when people are contributing to society like they are capable of. Anyhow, all these people own their houses. The bank owns the house and we "own" the banks:P

It is all well and good saying people should pay for lost bets but this will hurt lives forever, probably their children's lives as well. I see no logic in making the people pay for the government's mistakes, the banks mistakes and their own. Banks need to show compassion to work out payment plans with people to get back some of what they are owed and keep people in their homes where possible.

Gee Bag · 25-09-2013 07:05PM

I'm genuinley amazed by the vitriol in this thread, lots of posters seem to be placing the blame solely on the mortgage holder without reference to the outrageous miss selling of mortgages by banks or the fact that we are in a global economic crisis that has lasted five years. If the banks, IMF, EU, national governments, etc. didn't see this coming then how the hell was an average joe looking to buy a house supposed to?

A hell of a lot of posters in this thread seem to be making the assumption that every mortgage currently in default is over 12 months, as per the links in the OP only 7.4% of the 100,000 are.

A lot of posters are alao assuming that the majority of mortgages in default are held by strategic defaulters. the banks are not even claiming the figure is this high. One of them (AIB I think) claimed that 20% of mortgages on their books were in strategic default. This figure is disputed by the Central Bank which estimates that the true figure is much lower.

Not everyone in arrears is a callous oppurtunist. The vast majority are honest, hard working people that because of naivety and/or bad luck are in difficulty at present. Umemployment is still very high, and when available the wages are lower.

I have no problem with strategic defaulters and investment properties being repossessed. Same goes for family homes where there is no chance that the mortgage will ever be repaid. But I do think that those who are making an effort and have the potential to repay should be given the time and oppurtunity to try and get through their difficulty.

somuj · 25-09-2013 07:19PM

Random public executions of defaulters by the banks will soon weed out the people who can actually afford to make repayments.

UCDVet · 25-09-2013 07:28PM

I'm not even sure why this is a topic of discussion. I mean that respectfully and all, but my mind can't even fathom how we can't all agree.

If you aren't paying your mortgage, OF COURSE, the lender should have the ability to decide what to do with *their* property. If you aren't paying for it, it isn't yours. Why should it be?

Both the lender and lendee are free to offer alternative agreements, but neither should be obligated to accept. Some lenders might want to renegotiate with people struggling to pay their mortgage, but that should be entirely at their discretion.

It's not about blame or punishment. It's about the importance of having a legal system that allows legally binding contracts. If one end of a contract loses the ability to enforce that contract, who is going to sign anything? It's also about 'fair'. It's easy to be sympathetic towards a poor family that can't pay their mortgage, but not allowing banks to reclaim the property creates artificial inflation in the value of homes. And while that might be good for some people, it's bad for other poor families who would otherwise be able to afford a home.

chopper6 · 25-09-2013 07:35PM

Banjo String wrote: »

Just maybe they didn't envisage ever losing their jobs?

That is called short-sightedness...

Banjo String wrote: »

Your original post stated that people taking out a mortgage should make provisions for something maybe down the line, they can't see coming. Mortgage insurance?

Mortage insurance...or mortage protection...easy and inexpensive.

Much like the people in priory hall who didnt bother to get architects to look over thier proerties coz they wanted to save a few bob....was it worth the savings?

myshirt · 25-09-2013 07:47PM

Banks are repossessing very few houses as I understand it.

Plainly the best realisation option at this time is to sit on it and try get them to pay as much as they can.

When the time comes, I'd nearly just enforce the mortgage and sell the property with the person in situ. Take a small hit.

Advantage is purchaser of that property doesn't have all the PR flack.
Plain and simple, it's out by the scruff of the neck at that point.

If there is a crowd, and some headbutts need to be thrown, then so be it.

Banjo String · 25-09-2013 07:55PM

chopper6 wrote: »

That is called short-sightedness...

Failing to predict employment status in ten/fifteen/twenty years is short sighted is it?
Did the all powerful banks predict this current economic catastrophe?

(The answer you're searching for is no)

chopper6 wrote: »

Mortage insurance...or mortage protection...easy and inexpensive.

Indeed, very rarely a mortgage will be approved without taking such insurance (at least that's how I recall it being) insurance will only pay a certain percentage though.

The shortfall could still get you evicted incidentally.

chopper6 wrote: »

Much like the people in priory hall who didnt bother to get architects to look over thier proerties coz they wanted to save a few bob....was it worth the savings?

What?

Are you actually saying priory hall residents are to blame for the predicament they found them selves in

Seriously.

Evictions

Comments