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

CruelCoin

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.

Well that's ok then. Just leave them in, shure yer grand, have yer free house.

The reality is were you to welch on your mortgage and be allowed to stay in the house the person who pays for that is me, and everyone else who continues to pay what they owe.

If the house is repossessed, then at least the bank can recoup some of the value.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I wonder if people calling for no evictions would be happy to set aside 25 euro a week out of their dole/wages and pay it into a pot to pay these peoples rent and mortgage

SarahMollie

sheesh wrote: »

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)

This bit is actually critical. If they'd left the tenants in situ, they they could only sell to another big property investor/a few groups of property investors.

For people wanting to buy a family home with a mortgage, the banks will demand that the properties are vacant before they pay out the funds.

maudgonner

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.

The house goes back onto the market and gets bought by people who have saved hard for a deposit, can and will pay their mortgage. The bank recoups some or all of their money, the new owners get a house.

ThisRegard

SarahMollie wrote: »

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

- 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.

sheesh wrote: »

all the houses in tyrells town were sold as a block by nama to a group of investors a while ago

This is all wrong, developer never went under and the loans never went to NAMA. NAMA have had nothing at all to do with this.

And technically they're not evictions, just leases not being renewed when they expire, there's a fine difference, but a difference nonetheless. Evictions is an emotive word in Ireland and purposely being used in this case for political reasons I believe.

SarahMollie

ThisRegard wrote: »

This is all wrong, developer never went under and the loans never went to NAMA.

And technically they're not evictions, just leases not being renewed when they expire, there's a fine difference, but a difference nonetheless. Evictions is an emotive word in Ireland and purposely being used in this case for political reasons I believe.

OK, just double checked and correct, nama were not involved in this case. Ulster Bank sold on the loans directly.

Regardless, it makes little difference;

Developer found it uneconomical to sell the homes at the time of completion
In the meantime, the funding behind the loans was sold to a 3rd Party (Goldman Sachs mostly)
GS now want to sell, and seem to be following the rules to do so.

And agree - they're not really evictions at all. They're just not renewing anyones lease.

ThisRegard

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with the rest, just pointing out that it has nothing to do with NAMA, they've been mentioned a few times on this story, and the fact the developer went bust, neither of which is true.

SarahMollie

ThisRegard wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with the rest, just pointing out that it has nothing to do with NAMA, they've been mentioned a few times on this story, and the fact the developer went bust, neither of which is true.

Fair enough - suppose I'm just so used to seeing them mentioned in stories like this.

Sounds like a developer became an accidental landlord and now wants to get out, as is their right once they give the required notice.

A non bust developer is actually a good thing - hopefully the proceeds of this sale will then go on to fund more development.

Plus this means 200 fairly affordable units will now be for sale over the coming year - this means some families who've been saving for deposits might be able to buy them.

ThisRegard

They said as much themselves. That particular phase was the last to be built and around completion time the bust was underway. People weren't getting mortgages or buying so they weren't selling, so they put them into fund type thing for rental. Now with the improved market, and their hand being force, they're selling.

seamus

SarahMollie wrote: »

Plus this means 200 fairly affordable units will now be for sale over the coming year - this means some families who've been saving for deposits might be able to buy them.

Fat-cat 1%-ers no doubt with money from their parents, displacing all of the honest and hardworking people who did the real work to get this country back on its feet and pay back the bondholders on debts they never borrowed.

Sorry, just channeling my inner lefty.

SarahMollie

seamus wrote: »

Fat-cat 1%-ers no doubt with money from their parents, displacing all of the honest and hardworking people who did the real work to get this country back on its feet and pay back the bondholders on debts they never borrowed.

Sorry, just channeling my inner lefty.

Pretty sure there aren't too many 1%ers wanting to buy in Tyrrelstown :pac:

stoplooklisten

Because i had my head up my ass, is a valid excuse in Ireland and should be rewarded

smash

SarahMollie wrote: »

OK, just double checked and correct, nama were not involved in this case. Ulster Bank sold on the loans directly.

It seems that there's a lot of misinformation about this case. I initially thought it was NAMA, then people mentioned Ulser Bank. Ulster bank sold the loans but it's EPF who are selling the properties...

"According to Twinlite, the construction company which built the estate and is now managing the rentals, the houses were sold in 2008 to a company called the European Property Fund (EPF), which then rented them out.

EPF’s loans linked to the development were purchased by a Goldman Sachs vulture fund, Beltany Property Finance, for a reported €89m.

EPF has since decided to sell on the properties and as a result is not renewing leases on the rentals."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0314/774762-tyrrelstown-properties-eviction/

SarahMollie

smash wrote: »

It seems that there's a lot of misinformation about this case. I initially thought it was NAMA, then people mentioned Ulser Bank. Ulster bank sold the loans but it's EPF who are selling the properties...

"According to Twinlite, the construction company which built the estate and is now managing the rentals, the houses were sold in 2008 to a company called the European Property Fund (EPF), which then rented them out.

EPF’s loans linked to the development were purchased by a Goldman Sachs vulture fund, Beltany Property Finance, for a reported €89m.

EPF has since decided to sell on the properties and as a result is not renewing leases on the rentals."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0314/774762-tyrrelstown-properties-eviction/

Still means Ulster Bank sold the loans to Beltany, but the developer was still on board under a different name. I don't find it that strange that they would set up a new company to manage rentals if the original company only ever intended to build and sell.

[Deleted User]

SarahMollie wrote: »

OK, just double checked and correct, nama were not involved in this case. Ulster Bank sold on the loans directly.

Regardless, it makes little difference;

Developer found it uneconomical to sell the homes at the time of completion
In the meantime, the funding behind the loans was sold to a 3rd Party (Goldman Sachs mostly)
GS now want to sell, and seem to be following the rules to do so.

And agree - they're not really evictions at all. They're just not renewing anyones lease.

Listening to the developer on the radio yesterday the bank isn't forcing a sale.
The developer wants to stick to developing and doesn't want to be a landlord anymore.

Dave_The_Sheep

I don't have a problem with evictions. Generally speaking, if you're not paying your mortgage or rent, then you should be turfed out after trying to work through it with your bank - and that getting nowhere.

What I do have a problem with is the bank then getting to chase you for money afterwards. If the market value of the house goes down, the bank can't sell it for as much as they loaned to you and you still owe them the rest. That's a load of bull****. It should be a case that you should be allowed walk away from a mortgage at any time, stop paying, hand them the house (the guarantee is the house usually) and that's that. Transaction complete.

I also have a problem with the bank being able to sell your mortgage to someone else (who can then do what they like with it). I signed my mortgage contract with this bank, I didn't sign it with anyone else. If you sell my mortgage, that contract should be void and I'm keeping the house and not paying another penny. To make this worse, vulture funds - eg. in the US - who might buy mortgages here aren't restricted by the same rules our lenders are over here. Exorbitant interest rates you say? No problem.

It's a rigged game from the start in this country when it comes to mortgages. Just so happens that it's the only realistic game in town when it comes to owning property for most people (and yes, before someone points it out - no one is holding a gun to my head forcing me to own property).

SarahMollie

Deleted User wrote: »

Listening to the developer on the radio yesterday the bank isn't forcing a sale.
The developer wants to stick to developing and doesn't want to be a landlord anymore.

Precisely - the fact that the loans were sold is neither here not there really. The developer, like many in this country became an accidental landlord, but market conditions have changed and they want to get back to purely building and selling.

smash

SarahMollie wrote: »

Still means Ulster Bank sold the loans to Beltany, but the developer was still on board under a different name. I don't find it that strange that they would set up a new company to manage rentals if the original company only ever intended to build and sell.

Twinlite built houses and sold them to EPF.
EPF's loan is with Ulster Bank.
Ulster Bank decided to sell the loan portfolio to Beltany.
EPF still own the properties but their loans are now with Beltany.
EPF are now selling their properties.

Neither Beltany or Goldman Sachs owns the properties.

ThisRegard

Deleted User wrote: »

Listening to the developer on the radio yesterday the bank isn't forcing a sale.
The developer wants to stick to developing and doesn't want to be a landlord anymore.

The bank have no say in it, what they want or do not want is irrelevant as they sold their bit on to the fund. It's the fund that want their money.

SarahMollie

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

I don't have a problem with evictions. Generally speaking, if you're not paying your mortgage or rent, then you should be turfed out after trying to work through it with your bank - and that getting nowhere.

What I do have a problem with is the bank then getting to chase you for money afterwards. If the market value of the house goes down, the bank can't sell it for as much as they loaned to you and you still owe them the rest. That's a load of bull****. It should be a case that you should be allowed walk away from a mortgage at any time, stop paying, hand them the house (the guarantee is the house usually) and that's that. Transaction complete.

I also have a problem with the bank being able to sell your mortgage to someone else (who can then do what they like with it). I signed my mortgage contract with this bank, I didn't sign it with anyone else. If you sell my mortgage, that contract should be void and I'm keeping the house and not paying another penny. To make this worse, vulture funds - eg. in the US - who might buy mortgages here aren't restricted by the same rules our lenders are over here. Exorbitant interest rates you say? No problem.

It's a rigged game from the start in this country when it comes to mortgages. Just so happens that it's the only realistic game in town when it comes to owning property for most people (and yes, before someone points it out - no one is holding a gun to my head forcing me to own property).

Your first point is tricky - who would pay the difference then? If enough people simply hand back the keys and the banks need bailing out, we know who ends up paying for that! This is how it works in America - and thats why their market also got into trouble and basically set in play the Global financil crisis of 2008.

Dave_The_Sheep

SarahMollie wrote: »

Your first point is tricky - who would pay the difference then? If enough people simply hand back the keys and the banks need bailing out, we know who ends up paying for that! This is how it works in America - and thats why their market also got into trouble and basically set in play the Global financil crisis of 2008.

Indeed, that is the case.

Ideally, we'd have had the balls to let any bank who ****ed themselves by giving out stupid mortgages go to the wall, similarly in the US. Otherwise they'll keep doing the same thing over and over again. As a result, we're in a society that serves the economy and not the other way around (I realise how lefty that sounds, yes).

It's the whole "too big to fail" thing, really isn't it? They know they're too big to fail, we'll bail them out and as such they know they can keep doing what they've been doing. No lessons will be learned this way.

[edit] In case my answer to your question wasn't clear, it is: "The banks themselves do. And if they can't, like any other business, they go under. Too-big-to-fail basically means do-what-you-want".

mickoneill31

SarahMollie wrote: »

Your first point is tricky - who would pay the difference then?

The remaining customers. Isn't that how it's done now. Our mortgage rates are well above the European average.

[Deleted User]

It is a fairly unique look that the Irish have on this.. Somehow, foolishly signing a mortgage that was too large entitles you to live in a nicer house than me for free while I pay rent.

Like it or not, even if the country had been perfectly managed, an awful lot of people would have still had a rough time and missed repayments due to the whole world going into recession. Less people screwed for sure but still plenty due to their own short-sightedness.

Apparently, my cousin who I don't bother with anymore is banging on about his bad luck and the fact he's gonna lose his gaff. Good. It's fuking huge and beautiful and luxurious and for successful people and now he doesn't deserve to live there. He thought he was the beez neez a decade ago though.

SarahMollie

mickoneill31 wrote: »

The remaining customers. Isn't that how it's done now. Our mortgage rates are well above the European average.

Follow that to its logical conclusion.

Sure, the bank uses profits to offset losses, but if this happens once too often and the bank becomes insolvent - then the tax payer has to step in again.

The other consequence would be a tightening of credit, meaning its harder for people to get a loan. This would have a very negative impact on our economy.

Theres not a hope of your suggestion actually happening anyway. If you want rampant capitalism on that scale then the US is your best bet.

Carlos Orange

Jayop wrote: »

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

Then they don't have a right to a home. Having a right to a home if you can afford it isn't much of a right.

SarahMollie

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

[edit] In case my answer to your question wasn't clear, it is: "The banks themselves do. And if they can't, like any other business, they go under. Too-big-to-fail basically means do-what-you-want".

You know that won't happen though.

If we didnt burn the bondholders last time, no way we'll do it again. No matter who's in government, I don't see anyone standing up to the ECB etc when they start to turn the screw.

Dave_The_Sheep

SarahMollie wrote: »

You know that won't happen though.

If we didnt burn the bondholders last time, no way we'll do it again. No matter who's in government, I don't see anyone standing up to the ECB etc when they start to turn the screw.

Oh, of course I know that. This is just how I think it should work, I'm not for a second thinking it'll happen.

Nobody capable of getting into power has the political will to take the **** that would come their way if they tried to take on the financial institutions (from our local banks all the way up to the ECB and IMF). They can't let it happen even once, otherwise it's open season.

SarahMollie

psinno wrote: »

Then they don't have a right to a home. Having a right to a home if you can afford it isn't much of a right.

Agree.

Here is the link to the declaration of Human rights by the UNHCR; http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Now obviously this is International Law and a bit aspirational, but however.

No where does it say that people have a right to be a home owner.

A person does have all sorts of rights though, like freedom, bodily integrity, education, life, liberty, security of person..... I could go on. The purpose of these rights from what I can see is to ensure that people are free to go out, do their best and ultimately support themselves without being oppressed. This doesnt absolve anyone from needing to work to support themselves and contribute to society.

People confuse rights with their own sense of entitlement.

maudgonner

Jayop wrote: »

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

psinno wrote: »

Then they don't have a right to a home. Having a right to a home if you can afford it isn't much of a right.

Own is the key word in Jayop's post that you quoted, psinno. Nobody has a right to own a home - you must be able to pay if you want to buy it.

If you cannot afford to buy then you should rent. If you cannot afford to rent, then the state should provide social housing (which obviously is a hot topic at the moment).

Jayop

psinno wrote: »

Then they don't have a right to a home. Having a right to a home if you can afford it isn't much of a right.

The key word I said was "own". People who can't afford to buy or rent themselves have to be housed by the state. That doesn't mean that the state should give them an asset.