nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Explain evictions to me.

Straight Edge Punk

I have been wanting to ask this for a long time but never plucked up the courage to ask on facebook just incase the answer is staring me in the face.

People are being evicted from their homes, I understand that much. They are being evicted for not paying their mortgages, is this correct?

If that is correct then what is the issue here? You sign up for a mortgage and right there in your contract it states that your house may be repossessed if you fail to keep up with payments.

Why are people so up in arms over families being evicted? If you can't afford your mortgage then why should you get to live in the house?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

strelok

because bankers, vaccines, fluoridated water, global imperial zionists, GMO crops, fracking, trump's a nazi, russia is only defending itself, the rich don't pay enough tax, etc etc

pick whichever hard left horse**** you feel applies best.

listermint

Straight Edge Punk wrote: »

I have been wanting to ask this for a long time but never plucked up the courage to ask on facebook just incase the answer is staring me in the face.

People are being evicted from their homes, I understand that much. They are being evicted for not paying their mortgages, is this correct?

If that is correct then what is the issue here? You sign up for a mortgage and right there in your contract it states that your house may be repossessed if you fail to keep up with payments.

Why are people so up in arms over families being evicted? If you can't afford your mortgage then why should you get to live in the house?

1) dont ask for answers on facebook

2) no people are being evicted from the tenancy agreements.

The reasons are too complex for facebook. But yes you might see all the nonsense on there the poster above as eluded to.

Jayop

It's a fair question and one lots of people would agree with (a lot of them silently). I guess it comes down to two separate things. If it's a case that someone simply can't afford to pay the full amount but makes every effort to pay what they can whilst trying to work with the bank then they shouldn't be evicted whereas people who won't pay or refuse to deal with the bank probably will. A lot of people's issues stem from the the banks getting bailed out when they got overstretched so they should be willing to help ordinary people in the same situation.

DrumSteve

Because according to the likes of RBB, everyone has the right to a home.

I also predict this thread will go on for about 900 pages.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I completely agree. If you stop paying your rent or mortgage, out you go. There's people completely on the poverty line who will still try meet their mortgage repayments, even if it's not the full amount, and people who don't. If you don't, you have no right to live in a free house.

Jayop

DrumSteve wrote: »

Because according to the likes of RBB, everyone has the right to a home.

I also predict this thread will go on for about 900 pages.

Everyone does have a right to a home. They don't have a right to own that home at other people's expense though.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

DrumSteve wrote: »

Because according to the likes of RBB, everyone has the right to a home.

I also predict this thread will go on for about 900 pages.

And with every right comes responsibility. In order to live in a house, one must pay for said home.

Straight Edge Punk

I know that if I just decided I couldn't pay my rent then my landlord would have me shipped out.

Why are these people different? Because they signed up for a mortgage when they clearly couldn't afford it during the boom?

DrumSteve

LexieOnRale wrote: »

And with every right comes responsibility. In order to live in a house, one must pay for said home.

I agree.

seamus

Because of the fallacy that the "little guy" is getting squeezed while the "big guy" lives it up with his ivory backscratchers.

What's ironic is that the same people who'll foam at the mouth about "bankers getting away with it", is the same guy who's screaming at the telly when TV3 are showing "dole cheats".

In other words, they're annoyed about perceived injustices to people like them, blind to the bare facts of the situation.

Nodin

Straight Edge Punk wrote: »

I have been wanting to ask this for a long time but never plucked up the courage to ask on facebook just incase the answer is staring me in the face.

People are being evicted from their homes, I understand that much. They are being evicted for not paying their mortgages, is this correct?

If that is correct then what is the issue here? You sign up for a mortgage and right there in your contract it states that your house may be repossessed if you fail to keep up with payments.

Why are people so up in arms over families being evicted? If you can't afford your mortgage then why should you get to live in the house?

There are many people being evicted for many different reasons. Some are being shafted, some aren't, some are just unlucky......

Flatzie_poo

Straight Edge Punk wrote: »

Why are these people different? Because they signed up for a mortgage when they clearly couldn't afford it during the boom?

Exactly, where on their head did their bank stick the gun?

You buy a car there's risk, you buy a bike there's risk.

No difference with property.

Volkswagon stock purchasers will refuse to pay their mortgage next.

Groups of people like this feel vindicated because of hindsight. They shift the blame.

Awful situation to be in but there are a lot more constructive ways to deal with that then non-payment.

Welcome to the Jerry Beades generation folks.

Dom84

There is also the issue that you still owe the bank once they evict you.
If you don't pay your mortgage you should be evicted but that should be the end of it.

listermint

Why are people continually referring to mortgages here ?

There are scant all mortgages involved in the latest issue this week.

So you should possibly look at the facts of the case, not that i agree or disagree with the evictions but you are talking nonsense.

Flatzie_poo

Dom84 wrote: »

There is also the issue that you still owe the bank once they evict you.
If you don't pay your mortgage you should be evicted but that should be the end of it.

You stop paying your mortgage Dec '14.

It's challenged, and the eviction gets through the courts Dec '15.

You want someone like in this example to be able to live free for a year?

[Deleted User]

Dom84 wrote: »

There is also the issue that you still owe the bank once they evict you.
If you don't pay your mortgage you should be evicted but that should be the end of it.

But that's the deal the borrower signed up to.

And banks are dealing with the legacy debts, know a few who have managed to sell second homes at enormous write downs and have had the legacy debt all but wiped away or reduced to a fraction...while hanging on to their own homes. Not that I'd say the banks are great for that at all, presume they do it for their own reasons and to realise something from the mess.

Jayop

listermint wrote: »

Why are people continually referring to mortgages here ?

There are scant all mortgages involved in the latest issue this week.

So you should possibly look at the facts of the case, not that i agree or disagree with the evictions but you are talking nonsense.

The op clearly said it's something they've been wondering about for ages so it's not related to the evictions in the media this week.

Maybe you could read the op properly before accusing someone of talking nonsense.

listermint

Jayop wrote: »

The op clearly said it's something they've been wondering about for ages so it's not related to the evictions in the media this week.

Maybe you could read the op properly before accusing someone of talking nonsense.

The OP said this

Why are people so up in arms over families being evicted? If you can't afford your mortgage then why should you get to live in the house?

which suggest to be the question was spurned from the reports all over RTE last night.

I suspect my powers of deduction to be very accurate in this instance or would you not agree ?

Jayop

listermint wrote: »

The OP said this

which suggest to be the question was spurned from the reports all over RTE last night.

I suspect my powers of deduction to be very accurate in this instance or would you not agree ?

I wouldnt agree at all considering the first paragraph in the op explicitly stated he's been wondering for some time. Do unless you define some time as a day or two then you're clearly wrong.

[Deleted User]

listermint wrote: »

The OP said this

which suggest to be the question was spurned from the reports all over RTE last night.

I suspect my powers of deduction to be very accurate in this instance or would you not agree ?

Assume.
Ass.
Me.

kneemos

In nobodies interest to evict.The taxpayer becomes liable for their housing,the homeowner is living in a hotel or hostel, the bank gets grief and endless phone calls and paperwork to deal with.

HiGlo

listermint wrote: »

Why are people continually referring to mortgages here ?

There are scant all mortgages involved in the latest issue this week.

So you should possibly look at the facts of the case, not that i agree or disagree with the evictions but you are talking nonsense.

You have assumed that the OP is referring to the Tyrrellstown situation, but from my understanding of the original post it is not referencing that situation, just the occurrences of evictions in general.

Yes, the Tyrrellstown situation is different, but that's not what is being asked about here......

Straight Edge Punk

listermint wrote: »

The OP said this

which suggest to be the question was spurned from the reports all over RTE last night.

I suspect my powers of deduction to be very accurate in this instance or would you not agree ?

No you are wrong. This is something that I have been curious about for months. I don't watch RTE news so I have no idea what happened yesterday.

sbsquarepants

kneemos wrote: »

In nobodies interest to evict.The taxpayer becomes liable for their housing,the homeowner is living in a hotel or hostel, the bank gets grief and endless phone calls and paperwork to deal with.

It's in the interest of the owner - otherwise they wouldn't go to court to get it done.

People get all soppy and idiotic when it comes to things like housing. The evil bank is only interested in profit not housing my 6 kids, or landlords only care about the rent and I have a bad back - well fúcking duh. What business doesn't strive to make money? Why would banks or private landlords care about you and your family at the expense of their own - cop the fúck on people!

I understand the bank thing is slightly skewed by the fact that taxpayers bailed the fúckers out and so we should get a bit of leeway, but that means a bit of leeway not a free ride, at the end of the day YOU still need to pay YOUR debts, I don't want to pay them for you, why should I. And no, I didn't want to pay bondholders debts either , but just because I was forced to by a spineless government (who have thankfully now reaped what they've sown) doesn't mean I'm putting my hand up to pay everyone elses.
Pay up or get out, life is tough sometimes.

SarahMollie

To get back to the OPs question, I think there are a few things being confused, namely repossessions and evictions.

There are a number of ways in which a person can end up out of their home.

It can be repossessed if the mortgage is seriously in arrears.
- owner occupier can be evicted by the sheriff if a repossession order has been granted by the courts
- tennant can be evicted in similar circumstances, although I believe they have to give the tenant whatever notice they're entitld to, and may in some cases choose to keep the tenant in place for a period of time, ie until the housing market recovers and they could get a better sale price.

These processes are lead by the person who lent the money calling in the debt.

A person can be evicted by their landlord for the following reasons
- not paying rent
- causing damage to the property/antisocial behavior
- landlord of immediate family want to move into the property
- landlord wants to sell the property
- landlord chooses to not renew the lease for whatever reason

Obviously they have to give people notice relative to how long they've been in the property etc.

However, the evictions in the news (Tyrrelstown) are happening because of the following

- developer built estate for sale, and by the time it was complete in 2007/8, he found that he couldnt sell the last phase of the development as the property market was in freefall.
- developer decided to keep the houses and rent them out instead
- developer went under and loans went into NAMA
- NAMA sold loans to get some money back for the taxpayer, sold to private company
- private company sat on the properties as was for a number of years but have now decided to get out of the residential property market and are selling up.
- tenants are being given their legal notice periods, in some cases 6 months or more.

Nothing unlawful here that I can see. These properties are not going to be left vacant, they will be sold and other people will move in.

This sort of thing is only getting such press because of the numbers involved, but any landlord can give a tenant notice if they want to sell their property.

Its just bad timing for the tenants, who's rent hadnt been upped in years it seems, as now they're back on the rental market and according to the radio this morning, rents in Dublin are now higher than the previous peak in 2007.

kneemos

SarahMollie wrote: »

To get back to the OPs question, I think there are a few things being confused, namely repossessions and evictions.

There are a number of ways in which a person can end up out of their home.

It can be repossessed if the mortgage is seriously in arrears.
- owner occupier can be evicted by the sheriff if a repossession order has been granted by the courts
- tennant can be evicted in similar circumstances, although I believe they have to give the tenant whatever notice they're entitld to, and may in some cases choose to keep the tenant in place for a period of time, ie until the housing market recovers and they could get a better sale price.

These processes are lead by the person who lent the money calling in the debt.

A person can be evicted by their landlord for the following reasons
- not paying rent
- causing damage to the property/antisocial behavior
- landlord of immediate family want to move into the property
- landlord wants to sell the property
- landlord chooses to not renew the lease for whatever reason

Obviously they have to give people notice relative to how long they've been in the property etc.

However, the evictions in the news (Tyrrelstown) are happening because of the following

- developer built estate for sale, and by the time it was complete in 2007/8, he found that he couldnt sell the last phase of the development as the property market was in freefall.
- developer decided to keep the houses and rent them out instead
- developer went under and loans went into NAMA
- NAMA sold loans to get some money back for the taxpayer, sold to private company
- private company sat on the properties as was for a number of years but have now decided to get out of the residential property market and are selling up.
- tenants are being given their legal notice periods, in some cases 6 months or more.

Nothing unlawful here that I can see. These properties are not going to be left vacant, they will be sold and other people will move in.

This sort of thing is only getting such press because of the numbers involved, but any landlord can give a tenant notice if they want to sell their property.

A lot of the Tyrrelstown residents have negotiated a price to buy their houses I believe.

sheesh

Straight Edge Punk wrote: »

No you are wrong. This is something that I have been curious about for months. I don't watch RTE news so I have no idea what happened yesterday.

all the houses in tyrells town were sold as a block by nama to a group of investors a while ago
the investors think now is a good time to sell
the investors want to sell with no tenants in the houses
the tenants have been given their statutory notice to quit

I have just heard the investor group is granting the tenants first refusal for the houses (RTE NEWS)

CruelCoin

Dom84 wrote: »

There is also the issue that you still owe the bank once they evict you.
If you don't pay your mortgage you should be evicted but that should be the end of it.

No, you didn't borrow the house.....You borrowed the money.

You cannot take 200k of someone elses money, then get lump them with something worth 100k and walk away scot free.

endacl

listermint wrote: »

which suggest to be the question was spurned from the reports all over RTE last night.

If it was spurned from the reports nobody would have heard of it and this discussion wouldn't be taking place.

SarahMollie

kneemos wrote: »

A lot of the Tyrrelstown residents have negotiated a price to buy their houses I believe.

That would be really good news for them then. With 200 houses coming on the market in a small area, they probably got a good deal.