Buy house, don't pay mortgage, live rent-free for 9 years. MOD WARNING POST #268

Old diesel · 13-07-2019 12:18pm

4ensic15 wrote: »

irishguy1983 wrote: »

Fairly confused with this one...Why haven’t they paid anything for 9 years? Any valid reason? Why has it been allowed go for 9 years?

Why would they have paid anything? The house is in negative equity. When it is sold they will get nothing of what they paid into the house back. Why pay more into it?

Because they have the use of the house while they are allowed live there.

People who rent are also paying into a house but will get nothing back when it sells.

Rightly so as it's not the tenants house.

If they want to stop paying anything towards the debt on that house then it's hand the keys back time.

Landlords are rightly upset that it could take two years to get a non paying tenant out if Tenant maxes out all the options they might have to overhold.

They did very well to get 9 years with no payment. A grand deal to be fair - but I'm afraid it's time to accept that its over.

In saying that I've seen comments on facebook that they paid interest only for that time.

But I will go with the media reports of paying nothing.

Would expect Ryan and Flood to outline what exactly they paid over the last 9 years had they played ball.

Thats because showing how they paid a sum each month helps their case.

Especially if the vulture got the loan cheap.

Gimme A Pound · 13-07-2019 12:21pm

Yeah I don't get the devil's advocate stuff. Living in a house and not paying for it... mind blowing.

runawaybishop · 13-07-2019 12:23pm

Old diesel wrote: »

Because they have the use of the house while they are allowed live there.

People who rent are also paying into a house but will get nothing back when it sells.

Rightly so as it's not the tenants house.

If they want to stop paying anything towards the debt on that house then it's hand the keys back time.

Landlords are rightly upset that it could take two years to get a non paying tenant out if Tenant maxes out all the options they might have to overhold.

They did very well to get 9 years with no payment. A grand deal to be fair - but I'm afraid it's time to accept that its over.

In saying that I've seen comments on facebook that they paid interest only for that time.

But I will go with the media reports of paying nothing.

Would expect Ryan and Flood to outline what exactly they paid over the last 9 years had they played ball.

Thats because showing how they paid a sum each month helps their case.

Especially if the vulture got the loan cheap.

https://independent.ie/irish-news/courts/when-you-only-have-one-side-of-the-story-it-looks-horrific-restaurateur-ronan-ryan-on-not-having-to-pay-1-2m-debt-on-home-37900137.html

It's just one side [you hear in court], it looks horrific... it looks like we sat in a house for nine years looking for a free place to live, but we were paying interest all along until we were told not to," he said.

He said they tried to sell the house on three previous occasions but "the offers weren't high enough".

"Different people have had the loan over a different period of time. We would have been gone in 2011, 2013 and 2016 only for they wanted the asset to appreciate, which it has massively. Now they walk off into the sunset with the money. I have no animosity towards them but this is the fourth time we've tried to sell the house.

"We had to pack our bags and take my pregnant wife out of the house every Saturday so people could view it the first time around but they weren't happy and wanted the asset to appreciate and we were told to remain in the house."

^^^
Looks like it isn't just as clear cut as not paying anything for 9 years and acting the bollox.

2xj3hplqgsbkym · 13-07-2019 12:47pm

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/interiors/at-home-with-pamela-flood-i-am-a-total-hoarder-1.3333531%3fmode=amp

This whole story actually infuriates me. I live about 10 minutes away with my 3 children in a house I bought at the height of the boom also. My husband lost his job just after we moved in , and also in the last few years suffered from long term illness.
We live in a tiny two bed, all the work on it was done by us, majority of furniture is IKEA and there is still lots to do on it that we can’t afford to do. We have struggled to pay our mortgage, cried over missing repayments, borrowed from family to meet to repayments ,and asked the bank for leniency several times to no avail.

We are finally back on track in last few years and finally out of negative equity but can’t afford to extend or move to bigger house.

So it sickens me to see this family living in a huge house down the road , with expensive paintings , a range as big as my kitchen , Caroline Donnelly furnishings, a garden full of trampolines , toys and even more toys, and they haven’t paid a cent of the mortgage.

Even the cheek to do that article in the Irish Times , to show off their beautiful home that they haven’t paid a cent for- it’s sickening.
I really hope the judge is not lenient with them.

I know a guy in work who bought an aparthotel in boom time as an investment for €300,000, after the crash he just told the bank he wasn’t paying - gave them €20,000 and that’s it, no repercussions, then he moved to a bigger house in nicer area and built an extension, so obviously had lots of money.

BorneTobyWilde · 13-07-2019 12:57pm

I think the fact the house is worth so much more now is taking into account. Bank will sell it and make a huge profit.

Old diesel · 13-07-2019 1:02pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

Old diesel wrote: »

Because they have the use of the house while they are allowed live there.

People who rent are also paying into a house but will get nothing back when it sells.

Rightly so as it's not the tenants house.

If they want to stop paying anything towards the debt on that house then it's hand the keys back time.

Landlords are rightly upset that it could take two years to get a non paying tenant out if Tenant maxes out all the options they might have to overhold.

They did very well to get 9 years with no payment. A grand deal to be fair - but I'm afraid it's time to accept that its over.

In saying that I've seen comments on facebook that they paid interest only for that time.

But I will go with the media reports of paying nothing.

Would expect Ryan and Flood to outline what exactly they paid over the last 9 years had they played ball.

Thats because showing how they paid a sum each month helps their case.

Especially if the vulture got the loan cheap.

https://independent.ie/irish-news/courts/when-you-only-have-one-side-of-the-story-it-looks-horrific-restaurateur-ronan-ryan-on-not-having-to-pay-1-2m-debt-on-home-37900137.html

It's just one side [you hear in court], it looks horrific... it looks like we sat in a house for nine years looking for a free place to live, but we were paying interest all along until we were told not to," he said.

He said they tried to sell the house on three previous occasions but "the offers weren't high enough".

"Different people have had the loan over a different period of time. We would have been gone in 2011, 2013 and 2016 only for they wanted the asset to appreciate, which it has massively. Now they walk off into the sunset with the money. I have no animosity towards them but this is the fourth time we've tried to sell the house.

"We had to pack our bags and take my pregnant wife out of the house every Saturday so people could view it the first time around but they weren't happy and wanted the asset to appreciate and we were told to remain in the house."

^^^
Looks like it isn't just as clear cut as not paying anything for 9 years and acting the bollox.

Yet I've never heard the "the bank TOLD us stay in the house" story before from anyone else - as in other people in mortgage problems

Normally you have to try and do a deal with the bank - involving paying something.

We still dont know what exactly Ronan and Pamela paid in money terms in the last 9 years.

Two sides to every story but it actually looks like Ronan and Pamela did quite well to stay in the house this long.

lalababa · 13-07-2019 1:26pm

Restaurant business is notoriously unsolid, as is the entertainment industry unless a full time employee of RTE. I don't know the figures of the mortgage or loans but they appear to be big. Probably shouldn't have gotten approved.
But part of me says fair play to them if they can get away with rent/mortgage free for 9 years. Whatever the legal & debt recovery/eviction system s are being used they are clearly not for purpose by along shot. The boyos with the power to change that sit in Leinster house...so would not hold out much hope of these kind of messes being cleaned up. But they did bring in the personal bankruptcy law (is it 2years long?) Fair play to them.

2xj3hplqgsbkym · 13-07-2019 7:31pm

lalababa wrote: »

Restaurant business is notoriously unsolid, as is the entertainment industry unless a full time employee of RTE. I don't know the figures of the mortgage or loans but they appear to be big. Probably shouldn't have gotten approved.
But part of me says fair play to them if they can get away with rent/mortgage free for 9 years. Whatever the legal & debt recovery/eviction system s are being used they are clearly not for purpose by along shot. The boyos with the power to change that sit in Leinster house...so would not hold out much hope of these kind of messes being cleaned up. But they did bring in the personal bankruptcy law (is it 2years long?) Fair play to them.

I really don’t get how people think it’s fair play. I know people are angry with banks/ government etc.. and have every right to be , but why does that make it okay to steal/ live rent free/ ignore a contract.
If the restaurant business is not steady and she didn’t have a permanent job they should have bought a smaller/ cheaper house , yes the banks were wrong to give them such a mortgage but they didn’t have to take it.

seasidedub · 13-07-2019 7:31pm

Nobody goes into a shop and attempts to buy without money to pay for the goods. If you buy a car on loan and stop maki g payments, the car will be repossessed and nobody sees anything wrong with that.
If we continue to treat houses differently - as we currently do in Ireland, then we need to accept that mortgages here will always be higher than in Europe as a whole. Our interest rates are far higher because the risk to the lender is greater. This is just a fact.

4ensic15 · 13-07-2019 8:28pm

seasidedub wrote: »

Nobody goes into a shop and attempts to buy without money to pay for the goods. If you buy a car on loan and stop maki g payments, the car will be repossessed and nobody sees anything wrong with that.
If we continue to treat houses differently - as we currently do in Ireland, then we need to accept that mortgages here will always be higher than in Europe as a whole. Our interest rates are far higher because the risk to the lender is greater. This is just a fact.

Why don't we bring back the English and their battering rams altogether?

TimeToShine · 13-07-2019 8:48pm

<SNIP>

Graham · 13-07-2019 8:53pm

Mod Note

This is the accommodation & property forum. General gossip can be taken elsewhere.

seasidedub · 13-07-2019 10:11pm

"Why don't we bring back the English and their battering rams altogether?"

Seriously?

If people, no matter their circumstances simply don't have to pay their mortgages and can stay indefinitely in the property, then why would anyone bother paying? Are you seriously suggesting you should be able to stay in a property for which you clearly can't pay? Seriously?

There is no other EU country where you'd get away with this. House would be repossessed, you'd go into social housing and debt repayments would be attached to your salary. I accept there's currently no social housing in Dublin (in particular), but being able to stay somewhere you clearly can't pay for is nuts.

And bringing the British into it is just invoking Godwin's Law - it shuts down the argument.

Guy:Incognito · 13-07-2019 10:27pm

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I think the fact the house is worth so much more now is taking into account. Bank will sell it and make a huge profit.

The bank own it. Its their to sell at a profit if they want.

TimeToShine · 13-07-2019 10:27pm

<SNIP>

Graham · 13-07-2019 10:30pm

Mod Warning

If it's unrelated to accommodation & property, take it somewhere else.

Do not reply to this on thread.

Eric Cartman · 14-07-2019 4:01am

seasidedub wrote: »

Nobody goes into a shop and attempts to buy without money to pay for the goods. If you buy a car on loan and stop maki g payments, the car will be repossessed and nobody sees anything wrong with that.
If we continue to treat houses differently - as we currently do in Ireland, then we need to accept that mortgages here will always be higher than in Europe as a whole. Our interest rates are far higher because the risk to the lender is greater. This is just a fact.

Even our car leasing and reposessions are a bit out there, look at the cost of leasing a new car in the US or germany vs here, a lot less fees and lower rates and payments.

The general irish oublic have a distorted view steeped in history on having property reposessed. Those oaying a mortgage and those trying for a mortgage should be championing reposession, adds more to the housing stock and lowers banks liabilities meaning their cost to lend can be lower.

gordongekko · 14-07-2019 8:39am

4ensic15 wrote: »

A lot of people don't have a mortgage so how are they paying anything?

Lower deposit interest rates

handlemaster · 14-07-2019 9:05am

I love the lines about four kids.. and people in New York. .. all gold to the common simple folk scraping a living and feeding off tabloid news papers. ..

irishguy1983 · 14-07-2019 9:05am

4ensic15 wrote: »

Why would they have paid anything? The house is in negative equity. When it is sold they will get nothing of what they paid into the house back. Why pay more into it?

I kind of grew up thinking if I borrowed money I had to pay it back....

4ensic15 · 14-07-2019 9:14am

irishguy1983 wrote: »

I kind of grew up thinking if I borrowed money I had to pay it back....

I blame the parents.

Jane98 · 14-07-2019 9:14am

Do either of them currently have work?

I think they should have to list all their assets, thereby proving whether they were unable or just unwilling to pay any of their mortgage payments.

ButtersSuki · 14-07-2019 9:18am

runawaybishop wrote: »

That's the thing, they did pay interest until they were told not to by the bank according to them.

I have never heard of any bank in Ireland telling a borrower to stop paying in relation to a property in negative equity, and I have some experience in this area. I simply do not believe that. It sounds like “advice” given to them by someone other than the bank.

rivegauche · 14-07-2019 9:24am

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Even our car leasing and reposessions are a bit out there, look at the cost of leasing a new car in the US or germany vs here, a lot less fees and lower rates and payments.

In US they are paying on average 500 dollars or more per month for cars.
In Germany there are some absolutely stonking lease deals. If I needed a car in Germany I'd lease a brand new car for under 99 euro a month and hand it back at end of lease in 2 or 3 years time.
http://www.sparneuwagen.de

Back on topic; any Judge they happen to appear before from now on will show them no sympathy and probably feel some antipathy toward them for having previously gone behind the back of one of their Brethren to game the system in another Judge's courtroom.

4ensic15 · 14-07-2019 9:35am

gordongekko wrote: »

Lower deposit interest rates

If people don't have a mortgage and have shares in a credit union, how are they getting lower deposit rates? In any event, the banks would not be paying any higher deposits that they are now even if there were no bad debts. They don't want deposits at the moment.
In this case the money was loanded by a foreign bank and any profit would have gone to the foreign bank. As it happens the loss has gone to a foreign bank.

4ensic15 · 14-07-2019 9:36am

seasidedub wrote: »

"Why don't we bring back the English and their battering rams altogether?"

Seriously?

If people, no matter their circumstances simply don't have to pay their mortgages and can stay indefinitely in the property, then why would anyone bother paying? .

Exactly. Why should people pay if it makes no sense? Why do you pay?

Guy:Incognito · 14-07-2019 9:39am

Jane98 wrote: »

Do either of them currently have work?

I think they should have to list all their assets, thereby proving whether they were unable or just unwilling to pay any of their mortgage payments.

It doesn't really matter why it wasn't paid. The bank are not there to be your friend. They lend you money, you dont pay it back, they take the asset. Very simple contract.

Mad_maxx · 14-07-2019 9:41am

4ensic15 wrote: »

Why would they have paid anything? The house is in negative equity. When it is sold they will get nothing of what they paid into the house back. Why pay more into it?

Stealing is great craic

Guy:Incognito · 14-07-2019 9:44am

4ensic15 wrote: »

Exactly. Why should people pay if it makes no sense? Why do you pay?

How does it make no sense to pay if the house is in negative equity?

Negative equity means nothing unless you plan to sell the house anyway. What effect does a value , high or low, that someone else is willing to pay to buy a house off you have if youre living in it and staying there? A house could be in negative equity 2 or 3 times over the course of a mortgage if the economy swung back and forth badly enough.

Why should the bank honour the contract if the house is suddenly worth 3 times what they lent you? Maybe they should kick the person out and sell the house for a big profit. Would that be fair?

Jane98 · 14-07-2019 9:51am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It doesn't really matter why it wasn't paid. The bank are not there to be your friend. They lend you money, you dont pay it back, they take the asset. Very simple contract.

Surely it does matter and should be taken into account as to whether you can just walk away or whether you will be left with having to pay any remaining debt after the house is sold.

4ensic15 · 14-07-2019 9:53am

Jane98 wrote: »

Surely it does matter and should be taken into account as to whether you can just walk away or whether you will be left with having to pay any remaining debt after the house is sold.

You don't get forgiveness just because you had some good excuse for not paying.

gussieg · 14-07-2019 10:04am

this thread has taught me alot.

nc6000 · 14-07-2019 10:11am

I wonder would this guy be happy if I ran up a big tab in one of his restaurants and told him I was advised not to pay when it came to settling the tab.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 14-07-2019 10:12am

irishguy1983 wrote: »

I kind of grew up thinking if I borrowed money I had to pay it back....

Debt repayments are for the little guys.

ToxicPaddy · 14-07-2019 10:22am

jlm29 wrote: »

They don’t need to live in Dublin if they have no jobs. The can move to Cavan or Donegal or somewhere else and live within their means. She can work in a shop and So can he, or whatever. The rest of us pay our way and don’t expect someone else to pick up the tab.

I'm not defending their behaviour or making excuses for them, all I'm saying is that they have dug a big hole for themselves and obviously believe in their own minds that their quasi fame will help them by getting the fund to back down but it wont.

The fund want them out of the property so they can sell it and the couple are probably looking at their options and realise they don't have a leg to stand on. They fcuked themselves and their financial status by doing what they did and very publicly.

The fund have a serious asset there, its worth a damn site more empty than occupied.

Once they get them out, let the government or banks tackle them for the outstanding amount, have them declared bankrupt or whatever. I'm sure the revenue is owed a few quid off them too.

beauf · 14-07-2019 11:02am

I wonder how many others will be encouraged to follow the same path after following this story in the media.

mickdw · 14-07-2019 11:11am

Surely the couple would have put a deposit of a couple of hundred thousand down to buy such a house.
If they did, it's not quite the living rent free dream.

rivegauche · 14-07-2019 11:14am

mickdw wrote: »

Surely the couple would have put a deposit of a couple of hundred thousand down to buy such a house.
If they did, it's not quite the living rent free dream.

At that time deposits weren't large and for some candidates they were being given loan approval of 110 to 120% not that these two would have qualified for that.

MontgomeryClift · 14-07-2019 11:15am

This thread demonstrates that the majority don't have a clue how this process works, judging by all the upvotes for comments like "Why didn't they hand back the keys and leave nine years ago?"

For anyone in this situation, handing back the keys is financial suicide. By doing that you lose the house and still owe the bank all of the outstanding mortgage plus accruing interest.

Nine years ago, the bank would have assessed this couples' income. The couple would have demonstrated an ability to pay X, which was probably far less than what they were earning when the mortgage was taken out four years previously. They "saved" €345,000 by not paying their mortgage since then, because they didn't have €345,000 to pay.

The bank would have looked at X, and said, "No, that's not enough. The mortgage is not viable." At that point, it makes no sense to keep making payments because the bank is going to take the house anyway. Why would they continue to make payments on a mortgage when they know they will be evicted at some point? Because the armchair economists on boards.ie might begrudge them for it?

From 2011, the couple didn't know that it would take eight years for the bank to reach a decision and, for all they knew, the bank could have reached a decision and served an eviction notice at any time, giving them six months to leave. Certain banks leave this kind of situation in limbo for years while they wait for the market to improve, which seems to have happened in this case.

If you all think that this sounds good then why don't you stop paying your mortgages so that you and your children can live in a house that you can't spend a penny on because it's not yours, from which you might be evicted at any time?

is_that_so · 14-07-2019 11:15am

beauf wrote: »

I wonder how many others will be encouraged to follow the same path after following this story in the media.

Fewer now given how quickly some of these funds are moving to resolve matters and that courts are not backing such behaviour. For all their infamous reputations they will do deals more readily than banks did.

is_that_so · 14-07-2019 11:19am

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

This thread demonstrates that the majority don't have a clue how this process works, judging by all the upvotes for comments like "Why didn't they hand back the keys and leave nine years ago?"

For anyone in this situation, handing back the keys is financial suicide. By doing that you lose the house and still owe the bank all of the outstanding mortgage plus accruing interest.

Nine years ago, the bank would have assessed this couples' income. The couple would have demonstrated an ability to pay X, which was probably far less than what they were earning when the mortgage was taken out four years previously. They "saved" €345,000 by not paying their mortgage since then, because they didn't have €345,000 to pay.

The bank would have looked at X, and said, "No, that's not enough. The mortgage is not viable." At that point, it makes no sense to keep making payments because the bank is going to take the house anyway. Why would they continue to make payments on a mortgage when they know they will be evicted at some point? Because the armchair economists on boards.ie might begrudge them for it?

From 2011, the couple didn't know that it would take eight years for the bank to reach a decision and, for all they knew, the bank could have reached a decision and served an eviction notice at any time, giving them six months to leave. If you all think that this sounds good then why don't you stop paying your mortgages and start living the good life?

The courts have found against them and they agreed to move out and now they may not be. It really paints them in a very poor light and it's very hard to have any sympathy with their self-inflicted predicament especially as one of them is playing this out in the public eye.

MontgomeryClift · 14-07-2019 11:23am

is_that_so wrote: »

The courts have found against them and they agreed to move out and now they may not be. It really paints them in a very poor light and it's very hard to have any sympathy with their self-inflicted predicament especially as one of them is playing this out in the public eye.

If they have agreed to move out and then refuse to do so then they have taken things too far, and they will be evicted. By reaching an agreement with the bank to forego the house and have their debt written off, they would have signed over all rights to the house and agreed upon a date by which they will have left. That's now it works. No court will grant them the house at this point, as that would set a dangerous precedent.

beauf · 14-07-2019 11:27am

is_that_so wrote: »

Fewer now given how quickly some of these funds are moving to resolve matters and that courts are not backing such behaviour. For all their infamous reputations they will do deals more readily than banks did.

Unfortunately I don't think that's the message that will come across.

is_that_so · 14-07-2019 11:29am

beauf wrote: »

Unfortunately I don't think that's the message that will come across.

Perhaps but we are near the tail end of this stuff and most of it has been resolved.

MontgomeryClift · 14-07-2019 11:31am

Yes, on the subject of "vulture funds," pretty much anyone in this situation who wants to move on is keen to have their mortgage taken over by such a fund. They do deals readily, and they can put an end to years of heel dragging by the banks.

beauf · 14-07-2019 11:31am

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

This thread demonstrates that the majority don't have a clue how this process works, judging by all the upvotes for comments like "Why didn't they hand back the keys and leave nine years ago?" ...

People don't think it through.

I'm just baffled why the bank took so long to sort it out. Or make up their minds.

Effects · 14-07-2019 12:02pm

Niamh Horan. Always with the quality journalism.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/its-like-being-put-in-the-village-stocks-pamela-flood-breaks-her-silence-on-debt-critics-and-fighting-back-38310536.html

vriesmays · 14-07-2019 12:16pm

<SNIP>

Blazer · 14-07-2019 12:19pm

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

This thread demonstrates that the majority don't have a clue how this process works, judging by all the upvotes for comments like "Why didn't they hand back the keys and leave nine years ago?"

For anyone in this situation, handing back the keys is financial suicide. By doing that you lose the house and still owe the bank all of the outstanding mortgage plus accruing interest.

Nine years ago, the bank would have assessed this couples' income. The couple would have demonstrated an ability to pay X, which was probably far less than what they were earning when the mortgage was taken out four years previously. They "saved" €345,000 by not paying their mortgage since then, because they didn't have €345,000 to pay.

The bank would have looked at X, and said, "No, that's not enough. The mortgage is not viable." At that point, it makes no sense to keep making payments because the bank is going to take the house anyway. Why would they continue to make payments on a mortgage when they know they will be evicted at some point? Because the armchair economists on boards.ie might begrudge them for it?

From 2011, the couple didn't know that it would take eight years for the bank to reach a decision and, for all they knew, the bank could have reached a decision and served an eviction notice at any time, giving them six months to leave. Certain banks leave this kind of situation in limbo for years while they wait for the market to improve, which seems to have happened in this case.

If you all think that this sounds good then why don't you stop paying your mortgages so that you and your children can live in a house that you can't spend a penny on because it's not yours, from which you might be evicted at any time?

This makes a lot of sense. Tangiers bought these mortgages as a package from BoS 10 years ago.
If it really takes 10 years or so to get someone of a house they're not paying for its beyond ridiculous.
If you go more than 1-2 years without repaying a penny then out you go. 1 month to get out of the house.

beauf · 14-07-2019 12:30pm

Effects wrote: »

Niamh Horan. Always with the quality journalism.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/its-like-being-put-in-the-village-stocks-pamela-flood-breaks-her-silence-on-debt-critics-and-fighting-back-38310536.html

At least someone had the decency to hide it behind a paywall. They deserve a bonus for that.

Buy house, don't pay mortgage, live rent-free for 9 years. MOD WARNING POST #268

Comments