Evictions

wp_rathead · 25-09-2013 08:02PM

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?

Ah now in fairness I'm 100% behind the priory hall residents, the argument of "buyer beware" shouldn't come into practice if house fails to meet safety requirements..

Electric Sheep · 25-09-2013 08:07PM

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

Oh my God, RENT?! How awful, no wonder they were "forced" to jump in...

Femme_Fatale · 25-09-2013 08:16PM

Why are some so convinced that lots of people say they can't afford the mortgage repayments as an excuse when they really can? Is it because they want to believe that?

I'm convinced the majority of people who can't afford their mortgage repayments genuinely can't afford them.

KyussBishop · 25-09-2013 08:44PM

Gee Bag wrote: »

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?

Yes it's the same in almost every thread like this - by default all the blame is placed on the homeowners, despite the responsibility banks/finance/government share in the whole mess (both creating the overinflated prices and in crashing that bubble, and in causing people to become unemployed and unable to pay and these banks will be the groups to get back whatever equity there is in the houses, with the defaulting homeowners having wasted years and years of work/earnings with nothing to show for it in the end and....).

Yes, it's frustrating just how recurring this is, and then immediately you get the apologists defending banks/finance, as if they could do no wrong and wouldn't do anything with the slightest whiff of illegality or ethical misgivings.

What the fúck is the motive for posting like that I wonder? People in general can't be that brainwashed about where the responsibility/fault lies, from the crisis.
Same posters who try to pull the bullshít argument that homeowners "should have known better, it was obvious it was a bubble", but apparently the banks and finance were innocent/clueless? (well they'd have to be right? because if they knew, and kept pumping the bubble, that means they fraudulently pumped the bubble right? meaning they would definitely share responsibility for a huge portion of the homeowners debt)

How is that level of fallacious argument not meant to be deliberate? I really don't get that.

Combine this, with the fact that government is very obviously impeding and covering up any real investigation into banking/financial fraud (examples such as, granting immunity to top bankers, while refusing to do so with lower level whistleblowers trying to expose fraud - threatening those whistleblowers with jail instead), and look at the effect this has on homeowners:

These homeowners are being fúcked by both government and the banking/financial industry. If this fraud was properly investigated, and the mortgage contracts for a lot of homeowners shown to be made under conditions of massive conflict of interest and fraud, these homeowners would (at the very least) be able to sue to get a huge reduction in the size of their debts.

They are being screwed, to save both the banks and the public finances (because there's no way the banks would avoid another bailout), and all of the influential people within banking/government/finance who both caused and benefited from the crisis, are getting away with no repercussions whatsoever (so little has been done in fact, that we are almost ensured another crisis like this in the coming decades, enriching the same class of people, with the public picking up the tab again).

You have this massive level of corruption in our country (with an easy solution: enforce the law equally, actually investigate and prosecute white collar crime), yet nobody gives a toss about protesting or even discussing/learning about this topic (a lot of the time, more effort seems to be put into disparaging both protesting and viable solutions to these problems).

UCDVet · 25-09-2013 09:02PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Why are some so convinced that lots of people say they can't afford the mortgage repayments as an excuse when they really can? Is it because they want to believe that?

I'm convinced the majority of people who can't afford their mortgage repayments genuinely can't afford them.

Not agreeing or disagreeing but....

Do you have any more evidence to offer, or is this just what you want to believe?

Guy:Incognito · 25-09-2013 09:14PM

super_furry wrote: »

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

If that is the case then I dont see why I shouldnt get one. I was never earning great money and was never settled enough with the missus to buy a house. Dumb luck I suppose. But why should I now be excluded from the free house scheme because I dont owe the bank 300k I cant afford to repay?

Guy:Incognito · 25-09-2013 09:22PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Why are some so convinced that lots of people say they can't afford the mortgage repayments as an excuse when they really can? Is it because they want to believe that?

I'm convinced the majority of people who can't afford their mortgage repayments genuinely can't afford them.

Does it matter though? The legal contract they signed says the house will be taken if they dont repay the loan. It doesnt say they wont take it if you cant really afford to pay but want to stay in the house anyway.

The bank owns the house until its paid off, not the person living in it.

lima · 25-09-2013 10:45PM

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.

No, it would allow the property market to reach it's floor. Currently it is being artificially propped up by lack of repossessions, amongst other things.

lima · 25-09-2013 10:51PM

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

You don't seem smart enough for this thread.

lima · 25-09-2013 10:57PM

Gee Bag wrote: »

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.

ahh de banks de banks de banks, sure away with personal financial responsibility sure begorra

oldyouth · 25-09-2013 11:00PM

Won't Payers = Repossess the house
Can't Payers = If the house has a value in the market, take possession, sell it and house the family in a home on the bank's books that meets their basic needs

25-09-2013 11:05PM

Evict the folk that won't pay. There's plenty doing it. I know 2 of the top of my head.

As for folk who are willing to pay a certain amount to the bank as that's all they can afford. I'd be shocked if these people were evicted and rightly so.

sdanseo · 25-09-2013 11:10PM

People in genuine economic hardship that isn't their fault (i.e. those who took out responsible mortgages and are simply unable to meet their payments due to the economic circumstances now that were not predictable at the time they took out the mortgage agreement) should not be turfed out. They should pay back as much as they can afford.

I can't stand the idea of interest only - it should be principal-only.

Those who simply aren't making an effort, or who its felt are deliberately avoiding or manipulating the system applicable to people in my last sentence, should be evicted.

Anyone who after a means test is found to be able to pay and simply isn't, should be turfed out and barred from ever dealing in property except for a single private residence in the state.

jank · 25-09-2013 11:48PM

Reposses the house and make them pay a rent to stay in the place instead. People cant have it both ways no matter how much they want to grumble about it.

Christy42 · 25-09-2013 11:48PM

chopper6 wrote: »

That is called short-sightedness...

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?

Incredible. If you bought a smart phone that was later found to be faulty you would rightfully demand a new one. Here a developer sold houses that he knew were unsafe. Of course he was rich before the boom so the rules don't apply to him.

As to the guy wanting a free house, does that mean I should get dole payments too? Why should others get something for free just because I managed to find an income stream?

26-09-2013 04:29AM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Why are some so convinced that lots of people say they can't afford the mortgage repayments as an excuse when they really can? Is it because they want to believe that?

I'm convinced the majority of people who can't afford their mortgage repayments genuinely can't afford them.

Shouldn`t make a difference, if someone can`t pay for something they don`t get it.

26-09-2013 04:31AM

https://www.facebook.com/AntiEvictionTaskforce?fref=ts

The "Anti Eviction Taskforce" picketed the head of start mortgages house.

I wonder were they disappointed that he lives in a house no fancier than the one in Kanturk?

shruikan2553 · 26-09-2013 10:41AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes it's the same in almost every thread like this - by default all the blame is placed on the homeowners, despite the responsibility banks/finance/government share in the whole mess (both creating the overinflated prices and in crashing that bubble, and in causing people to become unemployed and unable to pay and these banks will be the groups to get back whatever equity there is in the houses, with the defaulting homeowners having wasted years and years of work/earnings with nothing to show for it in the end and....).

Yes, it's frustrating just how recurring this is, and then immediately you get the apologists defending banks/finance, as if they could do no wrong and wouldn't do anything with the slightest whiff of illegality or ethical misgivings.

What the fúck is the motive for posting like that I wonder? People in general can't be that brainwashed about where the responsibility/fault lies, from the crisis.
Same posters who try to pull the bullshít argument that homeowners "should have known better, it was obvious it was a bubble", but apparently the banks and finance were innocent/clueless? (well they'd have to be right? because if they knew, and kept pumping the bubble, that means they fraudulently pumped the bubble right? meaning they would definitely share responsibility for a huge portion of the homeowners debt)

How is that level of fallacious argument not meant to be deliberate? I really don't get that.

Combine this, with the fact that government is very obviously impeding and covering up any real investigation into banking/financial fraud (examples such as, granting immunity to top bankers, while refusing to do so with lower level whistleblowers trying to expose fraud - threatening those whistleblowers with jail instead), and look at the effect this has on homeowners:

These homeowners are being fúcked by both government and the banking/financial industry. If this fraud was properly investigated, and the mortgage contracts for a lot of homeowners shown to be made under conditions of massive conflict of interest and fraud, these homeowners would (at the very least) be able to sue to get a huge reduction in the size of their debts.

They are being screwed, to save both the banks and the public finances (because there's no way the banks would avoid another bailout), and all of the influential people within banking/government/finance who both caused and benefited from the crisis, are getting away with no repercussions whatsoever (so little has been done in fact, that we are almost ensured another crisis like this in the coming decades, enriching the same class of people, with the public picking up the tab again).

You have this massive level of corruption in our country (with an easy solution: enforce the law equally, actually investigate and prosecute white collar crime), yet nobody gives a toss about protesting or even discussing/learning about this topic (a lot of the time, more effort seems to be put into disparaging both protesting and viable solutions to these problems).

So instead people should get free houses because the bankers screwed us over? The homeowners chose to get a mortgage and signed the agreement. They are unable to meet their side of the agreement so they get evicted just as they agreed. What the banks did doesn't change anything as the contract is still in place, even if the banks started pushing grandmothers off the top of their buildings the homeowners agreed to the terms of the mortgage.

Christy42 · 26-09-2013 11:12AM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

So instead people should get free houses because the bankers screwed us over? The homeowners chose to get a mortgage and signed the agreement. They are unable to meet their side of the agreement so they get evicted just as they agreed. What the banks did doesn't change anything as the contract is still in place, even if the banks started pushing grandmothers off the top of their buildings the homeowners agreed to the terms of the mortgage.

You are destroying lives over what is a piece of paper. In the land wars years ago it was legal for the landlords to kick their tenants out. Was that right too? (There are some differences between then and now but there are strong parallels.) Right now there are options if you have strong liquidity but not as much if you don't. Until then it is just advocating debt forgiveness if you are rich enough.

Also I love that you keep talking about free houses. Who is advocating them? We want anyone who can pay to pay, everyone should pay what they can pay. They should be able to sit down with their banks and work something out. Possibly cases may be taken to court to get an independent view as to how much the mortgage holder can pay. If there are cheaper houses nearby this should also be discussed. Again this is about family homes, not second homes.

Presumably we should thank the banks if they start pushing people off of buildings.

DamagedTrax · 26-09-2013 11:20AM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

So instead people should get free houses because the bankers screwed us over?

no.. but why cant a mortgage be put on hold for an amount of time? Let affected (and genuine) cases recover and give them time to get back to a point of payment again. Are we not propping the financial sector up with our taxes? Do they not owe the people of this country some sort of act in return for saving their asses (against our will).

A cynic amongst us might think that all of this was engineered to work in favour of the banks.

WIZE · 26-09-2013 12:21PM

DamagedTrax wrote: »

no.. but why cant a mortgage be put on hold for an amount of time? Let affected (and genuine) cases recover and give them time to get back to a point of payment again. Are we not propping the financial sector up with our taxes? Do they not owe the people of this country some sort of act in return for saving their asses (against our will).

A cynic amongst us might think that all of this was engineered to work in favour of the banks.

I agree with this except any income and expenditure from the house owner should be monitored closely to make sure they are making the effort.

26-09-2013 01:54PM

At end June 2013, 57,163 PDH accounts, or 7.4 per cent of the total stock, were in arrears of over 360 days. Just over
half of these were in arrears of more than 720 days.

Over 2 years!!?! I think 2 years plus of no rent/mortgage is enough for them. They can hardly complain when they get away that long without paying/paying at a discount.
http://www.centralbank.ie/polstats/stats/mortgagearrears/Documents/2013q2_ie_mortgage_arrears_statistics.pdf

A total of 223 properties were taken into possession by lenders during the quarter, of which 63 were repossessed on foot of a Court Order, while the remaining 160 were voluntarily surrendered or abandoned.

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/subCategories/article_1026442_printer.shtml

Only 63 forced repossessions for that number in arrears!! Sounds like you`d be a real fool if you paid your mortgage.

Guy:Incognito · 26-09-2013 02:08PM

DamagedTrax wrote: »

no.. but why cant a mortgage be put on hold for an amount of time? Let affected (and genuine) cases recover and give them time to get back to a point of payment again. Are we not propping the financial sector up with our taxes? Do they not owe the people of this country some sort of act in return for saving their asses (against our will).
.

Shorter term loans are done like that fairly regularly I'd say. The problem is we're dealing with mortgages of up to 35 years. What does a bank do with someone that has 30 years left but is 40 say? IF they have to extend it by 5 years, will be person still be in a position to meet repayments when they are over 70?

and "saving their asses" isn't worth a **** if the banks have to write off huge losses and either fold or need many more billions to keep going. The banking system collapse wouldn't have benefited anyone.

Presumably if the bank owed you money you'd be happy to wait till they were ready to pay it back seeing as they are in difficulty?

Guy:Incognito · 26-09-2013 02:22PM

Christy42 wrote: »

As to the guy wanting a free house, does that mean I should get dole payments too? Why should others get something for free just because I managed to find an income stream?

Is a mortgage a form of social welfare now?

DamagedTrax · 26-09-2013 02:26PM

Shorter term loans are done like that fairly regularly I'd say. The problem is we're dealing with mortgages of up to 35 years. What does a bank do with someone that has 30 years left but is 40 say? IF they have to extend it by 5 years, will be person still be in a position to meet repayments when they are over 70?

they take bigger gambles on the speculative market everyday. MUCH bigger as we've seen recently.

and "saving their asses" isn't worth a **** if the banks have to write off huge losses and either fold or need many more billions to keep going. The banking system collapse wouldn't have benefited anyone.

You're right, nobody would benefit. But that doesnt mean families should be allowed suffer either. It doesnt matter what the reasons were for saving the banks, fact is we're all paying for it. Discounting everything else, they still owe the people of this country the common coutesy of not making them homeless when those very people have lost jobs/income because of the bankers actions in the first place.

Presumably if the bank owed you money you'd be happy to wait till they were ready to pay it back seeing as they are in difficulty?

Depends on whether i'd been caught on tape basically laughing about a situation that i'd engineered, that put the bank in a position that they couldnt pay me back.

200motels · 26-09-2013 02:30PM

nelly17 wrote: »

Further deepening the Negative equity crisis

I can't understand some of the right wing remarks on here, if when they took out the mortgage they could afford it fair enough but has anyone on here ever heard of people loosing their jobs and now they can 't afford to pay , they were never stressed tested at the time.

DamagedTrax · 26-09-2013 02:33PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Only 63 forced repossessions for that number in arrears!! Sounds like you`d be a real fool if you paid your mortgage.

i sat in court 23 last week, supporting a friend. there were 45 adjournments read out within the first 10 minutes. A soliciter said it was a quiet day that day! That number of 63 is going to rise sharply by next summer if even 10% of repossession orders are upheld.

Guy:Incognito · 26-09-2013 02:37PM

DamagedTrax wrote: »

they take bigger gambles on the speculative market everyday. MUCH bigger as we've seen recently..

Irrelevant, they loaned out money on certain terms. It's their loan and their house.

DamagedTrax wrote: »

You're right, nobody would benefit. But that doesnt mean families should be allowed suffer either. It doesnt matter what the reasons were for saving the banks, fact is we're all paying for it. Discounting everything else, they still owe the people of this country the common coutesy of not making them homeless when those very people have lost jobs/income because of the bankers actions in the first place.

"the people" didn't give the banks anything. The government made decisions on our behalf, like we elect them too. The fact that you, me or anyone else might disagree with a decision is irrelevant, its made. Crippling the banks and forcing them to lose money is in no ones best interest. If the same people had their cars repossessed no one would car. Just because its a house is irrelevant. They borrowed and cant pay it back. Such is life.

DamagedTrax wrote: »

Depends on whether i'd been caught on tape basically laughing about a situation that i'd engineered, that put the bank in a position that they couldnt pay me back.

Bull**** it would, stop making stuff up. Youd want your money.

It's a recession and lots of people lost their jobs. This happens every couple or few decades and will happen again.

Thargor · 26-09-2013 02:37PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder were they disappointed that he lives in a house no fancier than the one in Kanturk?

Exactly my thoughts, bet there would have been a lot more media coverage if it was outside some big gates in Killiney or wherever, the house in this video wouldnt fit RTEs debt forgiveness agenda at all.

Mr.Fred · 26-09-2013 02:38PM

dobman88 wrote: »

So you're saying if people don't pay their mortgage it's grand? They shouldn't be kicked out?

Did you actually read my post or were you to busy looking for an argument about people not paying their mortgages??

Evictions

Comments