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

beauf · 14-07-2019 12:34pm

We may see more of this as the market slows. Banks and funds might think the market has peaked. Which may have be been what they were waiting for. Only to realize by the time it get sorted they'll have missed peak

Fan of Netflix · 14-07-2019 12:37pm

It's time for the state to step in here and seize the property.

MontgomeryClift · 14-07-2019 12:46pm

beauf wrote: »

We may see more of this as the market slows. Banks and funds might think the market has peaked. Which may have be been what they were waiting for. Only to realize by the time it get sorted they'll have missed peak

I think that's what's happening. The vulture funds are moving quickly now, and you can see a steady flow of relatively new, stripped out properties going for auction. I suspect that they can see signs of a peak, and are keen to get what they can for houses while the going is good.

beauf · 14-07-2019 1:30pm

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

It's time for the state to step in here and seize the property.

They will..it just won't be the Irish state....

L1011 · 14-07-2019 1:33pm

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

It's time for the state to step in here and seize the property.

You've been told already on another thread that the state has no such powers. I'll have to assume you're trolling if you keep doing it

Fan of Netflix · 14-07-2019 1:44pm

L1011 wrote: »

You've been told already on another thread that the state has no such powers. I'll have to assume you're trolling if you keep doing it

The constitution should be rejigged, I don't understand why it should prevent seizing property. The constitution is amended regularly it's not worth much anymore. I believe if necessary a referendum would have widespread public support.

I believe the state should be allowed seize whatever property it sees fit. This case is an example of where the state must step in and seize the property.

The Specialist · 14-07-2019 1:47pm

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

The constitution should be rejigged, I don't understand why it should prevent seizing property. The constitution is amended regularly it's not worth much anymore. I believe if necessary a referendum would have widespread public support.

I believe the state should be allowed seize whatever property it sees fit. This case is an example of where the state must step in and seize the property.

You think there’d be any sizeable support for allowing the state to seize any property it feels like? Give me some of what you are smoking comrade

Graham · 14-07-2019 1:54pm

Mod Note

Fan of Netflix, feel free to start a separate thread in the appropriate forum on that unrelated topic.

Do not attempt to take this or any other threads off topic on the subject in the mean time.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 14-07-2019 2:01pm

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?

Surely if you stop paying the mortgage the interest should accrue and multiply in most cases. Therefore that policy could lead to bankruptcy.

It looks like they were holding out for a deal and knowing they could get their buddies in the media to back them.

Claw Hammer · 14-07-2019 2:26pm

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Surely if you stop paying the mortgage the interest should accrue and multiply in most cases. Therefore that policy could lead to bankruptcy.

It looks like they were holding out for a deal and knowing they could get their buddies in the media to back them.

If the property is a negative equity to begin with, bankruptcy can happen so the accruing interest isn't a big deal. If you're going bankrupt, you're going bankrupt and the amount of money you or make little difference to you. It may make some slight difference to your creditors, who will be sharing out your estate between them.

MontgomeryClift · 14-07-2019 2:26pm

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Surely if you stop paying the mortgage the interest should accrue and multiply in most cases. Therefore that policy could lead to bankruptcy.

It generally leads to insolvency on the part of the borrower. It's the interest, and in particular the sharp rise in interest rates around 2009, that made many previously manageable mortgages unpayable, even before you take into account losses in employment.

It looks like they were holding out for a deal and knowing they could get their buddies in the media to back them.

Anybody with sense holds out for a deal in this situation, with or without friends in the media. Just handing back the keys is financial suicide. If they do that, the bank ends up with the property and the mortgage, and the borrowers end up with a crippling debt and nowhere to live. They end up with nowhere to live anyway, but if they hold out at least they can go insolvent and be debt-free.

Claw Hammer · 14-07-2019 2:37pm

When the economy picked up in Ireland, their foreign bank men offering mortgages lower rates than the Irish banks were charging. The Irish banks, rather than setback letter newcomer half, started to compete. They dropped their own rates and took on foolish risks in an effort to maintain market share. That is what is caused the present crisis. Money was lent to people who couldn't afford to pay the repayments. Blaming the people who borrow the money is completely incorrect.

Guy:Incognito · 14-07-2019 2:42pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

. Blaming the people who borrow the money is completely incorrect.

Why? Are they not adults? Do people not employ solicitors when buying houses?

Just absolving grown adults of blame when they sign legal documents is ridiculous.

Whats the end result of not blaming them btw? Write off the mortgage and let them keep the house or what?

Old diesel · 14-07-2019 2:47pm

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?

The problem isn't handing back the keys or not nine years ago.

It's completely taking the urine having had NINE years to try and resolve it.

They got a deal that allowed them walk away and yet here they are still resisting.

It's difficult to get a handle on what they paid back in nine years but I find the lack of a stated figure interesting.

Edit - tenants all over the country are paying big money each month into homes they could be asked to leave at any point.

Jane98 · 14-07-2019 3:13pm

They’re holding out for a deal on the outstanding interest and payments they owe. Pure greed!

I hope they do bankrupt them.

Effects · 14-07-2019 3:41pm

beauf wrote: »

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

It's not even a paywall, you just need to register for access.

Graham · 14-07-2019 4:46pm

Jane98 wrote: »

They’re holding out for a deal on the outstanding interest and payments they owe.

Don't they already have a deal?

jay1988 · 14-07-2019 4:54pm

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

It generally leads to insolvency on the part of the borrower. It's the interest, and in particular the sharp rise in interest rates around 2009, that made many previously manageable mortgages unpayable, even before you take into account losses in employment.

Anybody with sense holds out for a deal in this situation, with or without friends in the media. Just handing back the keys is financial suicide. If they do that, the bank ends up with the property and the mortgage, and the borrowers end up with a crippling debt and nowhere to live. They end up with nowhere to live anyway, but if they hold out at least they can go insolvent and be debt-free.

Judging by your posts on this matter you seem to think taking out a mortgage and not bothering to pay it is okay, what planet are you living on?

Gimme A Pound · 14-07-2019 9:05pm

"Blaming the people who borrow the money is completely incorrect" - wtf?!

Banks shouldn't have given people stupid mortgages/loans but people shouldn't have chosen to take out stupid mortgages/loans that they knew they had a huge chance of not being able to repay.

Effects · 14-07-2019 9:49pm

Graham wrote: »

Don't they already have a deal?

The deal they had was to leave the house and owe nothing.

The deal they want is to buy the house now at it's current worth.

ButtersSuki · 14-07-2019 9:54pm

The Irish Times article that was linked from here earlier seems to have been withdrawn, but was insightful as to the mindset of the occupiers - how they thought doing a feature on their 'home' when they hadn't made a payment on it in almost a decade was a good idea I don't know.

chicorytip · 14-07-2019 9:56pm

What is their current employment status ?

The Specialist · 14-07-2019 9:58pm

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

"Blaming the people who borrow the money is completely incorrect" - wtf?!

Banks shouldn't have given people stupid mortgages/loans but people shouldn't have chosen to take out stupid mortgages/loans that they knew they had a huge chance of not being able to repay.

Personal responsibility is a taboo in 2019 Ireland - everything is the “bankers” or the “gubberments” fault.

Nevin Parsnipp · 14-07-2019 10:03pm

This pair are giving the two fingers to all the hard working young folk who are working to pay off their mortgages and other bills and are being put to the pin of their collar to do so .

They gave an undertaking to the Court to vacate their house by a particular date and have reneged on that ....middle Ireland is watching this one on behalf of their kids and hard working people who get up early and believe they should pay back what they borrow !

What a croc of pure ****e !

2xj3hplqgsbkym · 14-07-2019 10:05pm

ButtersSuki wrote: »

The Irish Times article that was linked from here earlier seems to have been withdrawn, but was insightful as to the mindset of the occupiers - how they thought doing a feature on their 'home' when they hadn't made a payment on it in almost a decade was a good idea I don't know.

Still there 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
I agree, so insightful of their mindset.

Atlantic Dawn · 14-07-2019 10:05pm

We live in such a basket case country, these fookwits should be out on their hole after paying fook all for a year. We are all paying for scrotes like this, no bank with any sense will come to this country to offer mortgages.

One thing struggling family putting over what they can, then, these scrounger fookwits.

Spanish Eyes · 14-07-2019 10:07pm

chicorytip wrote: »

What is their current employment status ?

Interesting question and a good one too.

I suspect they are claiming no (or low) income and would qualify for HAP or the likes, but they just don't want to leave their trophy home.

Big question for me is who is funding their legal reps. Think about that. Is it privately funded or on Free Legal Aid I wonder.

Surely if privately funded they could afford to pay the mortgage and get on with it.

Baffled.

Effects · 14-07-2019 10:18pm

ButtersSuki wrote: »

The Irish Times article that was linked from here earlier seems to have been withdrawn, but was insightful as to the mindset of the occupiers - how they thought doing a feature on their 'home' when they hadn't made a payment on it in almost a decade was a good idea I don't know.

They seem to have disconnected themselves from what's going on.
It seems like a very business type approach. Maybe that's how we should all view our mortgages.

Effects · 14-07-2019 10:21pm

chicorytip wrote: »

What is their current employment status ?

I could be wrong, but I thought they were operating a food business from the Hollybrook Bar in Clontarf. That whole venture seemed to close down out of the blue last week.

MontgomeryClift · 14-07-2019 10:29pm

jay1988 wrote: »

Judging by your posts on this matter you seem to think taking out a mortgage and not bothering to pay it is okay, what planet are you living on?

Welcome to the Joe Duffy mortgage outrage thread. Why talk about the facts when you can howl about how awful people are for not doing what you would like them to do?

jay1988 · 14-07-2019 10:34pm

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

Welcome to the Jo Duffy mortgage outrage thread. Why talk about the facts when you can howl about how awful people are for not doing what you would like them to do?

No, these people entered into agreement with the bank and then reneged on that agreement, then they came to an agreement with the courts and reneged that too, it's nothing to do with what I want them to do.

You seem to think that the actions of these people are acceptable. It's amazing how detached from reality some people in this country are, actions like this affect all of us.

No wonder the country is ****ed.

seasidedub · 14-07-2019 10:47pm

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

We live in such a basket case country, these fookwits should be out on their hole after paying fook all for a year. We are all paying for scrotes like this, no bank with any sense will come to this country to offer mortgages.

One thing struggling family putting over what they can, then, these scrounger fookwits.

I think that this is the point- we'll never get competitive mortgages in Ireland as foreign banks just see it as too high risk.

mikeym · 14-07-2019 10:49pm

Its hard to feel sympathetic towards them because they have dodged paying a mortgage for years and legal costs.

Either they set up a go fundme account or claim squatters rights:D

chicorytip · 14-07-2019 11:35pm

Spanish Eyes wrote:

Interesting question and a good one too.

Spanish Eyes wrote:

I suspect they are claiming no (or low) income and would qualify for HAP or the likes, but they just don't want to leave their trophy home.

Spanish Eyes wrote:

Big question for me is who is funding their legal reps. Think about that. Is it privately funded or on Free Legal Aid I wonder.

Spanish Eyes wrote:

Surely if privately funded they could afford to pay the mortgage and get on with it.

Spanish Eyes wrote:

Baffled.

How have they been managing to meet their daily living expenses for the last nine years, running a large household with four children to feed?

Gimme A Pound · 14-07-2019 11:42pm

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

Welcome to the Joe Duffy mortgage outrage thread. Why talk about the facts when you can howl about how awful people are for not doing what you would like them to do?

Yeah a lot more to it than just what we'd like them to do.

is_that_so · 15-07-2019 8:27am

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

Yeah a lot more to it than just what we'd like them to do.

Two things are known. They agreed to move out and then refused and somehow managed not to pay a penny on it for 10 years. Whatever else is unknown that kind of behaviour cannot go completely unsanctioned.

SeaFields · 15-07-2019 8:53am

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Big question for me is who is funding their legal reps. Think about that. Is it privately funded or on Free Legal Aid I wonder.
.

Free legal aid is only available for criminal matters. Debt is a civil matter. Very unlikely they are getting any assistance from the state in terms of legal representation.

facehugger99 · 15-07-2019 9:12am

The thing is, they're not even living there for free, the rest of us are paying for them through higher interest rates.

There is no competition in the Irish mortgage market because of the undue protection chancers like this are afforded.

Any debt write down people like this get is transferred over to people like me who actually bother paying our debts.

The country is a joke, the reckless and feckless are rewarded and protected, the financially prudent are punished - welcome to Ireland 2019.

Claw Hammer · 15-07-2019 9:48am

facehugger99 wrote: »

The thing is, they're not even living there for free, the rest of us are paying for them through higher interest rates.

The loan is owed by a foreign bank, so how can anyone else be paying higher interest rates?

facehugger99 · 15-07-2019 10:27am

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The loan is owed by a foreign bank, so how can anyone else be paying higher interest rates?

Read further down to the next paragraph in the post you quoted

handlemaster · 15-07-2019 10:58am

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The loan is owed by a foreign bank, so how can anyone else be paying higher interest rates?

Banks applying a higher interest over all the market based on the risks. Its not about if the bank if foreign or irish in origin its how the market is perceived. If the laws are stacked against the banks in collecting what it is due the expect everyone to pay more.

rivegauche · 15-07-2019 11:06am

Meanwhile, my Colleagues have got typical mortgage rates of 1.3% while one has a mortgage rate of .9%. Hard to believe but he does and they're fixed at those rates for over a decade.
If banks operating in the Irish market can't repossess then expect to be paying 1.5 to 2% more for a mortgage in Ireland and if the house is less affordable then expect to be paying the mortgage for many years longer than on the Continent.

seasidedub · 15-07-2019 11:41am

rivegauche wrote: »

Meanwhile, my Colleagues have got typical mortgage rates of 1.3% while one has a mortgage rate of .9%. Hard to believe but he does and they're fixed at those rates for over a decade.
If banks operating in the Irish market can't repossess then expect to be paying 1.5 to 2% more for a mortgage in Ireland and if the house is less affordable then expect to be paying the mortgage for many years longer than on the Continent.

Yep. My mortgage rate in Finland was 0.9%.

If I'd stopped paying, out I go.

Do people not see the correlation between inability to repossess and high mortgage rates in Ireland?

Claw Hammer · 15-07-2019 12:34pm

seasidedub wrote: »

Yep. My mortgage rate in Finland was 0.9%.

If I'd stopped paying, out I go.

Do people not see the correlation between inability to repossess and high mortgage rates in Ireland?

Mortgage rates in Ireland are high because the banks are broke and are trying to repair their balance sheets. Blaming innocent people is not going to change that.

15-07-2019 12:47pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Mortgage rates in Ireland are high because the banks are broke and are trying to repair their balance sheets. Blaming innocent people is not going to change that.

How do you propose a bank repair it's balance sheet for this item?
It has an asset (mortgage given out) that it has received no income from, has had no repayments on, and hasn't been able to get the original money back by seizing the house and selling it.
What value should it put on this asset?

rivegauche · 15-07-2019 12:53pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Mortgage rates in Ireland are high because the banks are broke and are trying to repair their balance sheets. Blaming innocent people is not going to change that.

If this were true then European banks with good balance sheets would have entered the market and driven the broke banks out of business or those resident in other E.U. countries would be applying for mortgages on Irish product from their own country. My bank won't do that as they can't secure good title on the asset in Ireland if I were to default.

Graham · 15-07-2019 1:01pm

Deleted User wrote: »

How do you propose a bank repair it's balance sheet for this item?
It has an asset (mortgage given out) that it has received no income from, has had no repayments on, and hasn't been able to get the original money back by seizing the house and selling it.
What value should it put on this asset?

Hasn't the mortgage on this particular asset already been removed from the banks balance sheet when it was sold at a significant discount to the current mortgage owners?

handlemaster · 15-07-2019 1:05pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Mortgage rates in Ireland are high because the banks are broke and are trying to repair their balance sheets. Blaming innocent people is not going to change that.

Blaming Innocent people ? what does this mean ? Innocent do you mean people who dont know what they are doing when signed 50 different docs to get a mortgage and who also employ the services of a solicitor while doing to.

This playing with words in order to make out that if you borrow a large sum of money and dont pay it back its ok just doesnt work in 2019.

mariaalice · 15-07-2019 1:07pm

I can't see what they hope to get out of it now?, they are going to lose the house its very near the end of the line they would be better to cut them loses they have got 9 years out of it.

padd b1975 · 15-07-2019 1:11pm

ButtersSuki wrote: »

The Irish Times article that was linked from here earlier seems to have been withdrawn, but was insightful as to the mindset of the occupiers - how they thought doing a feature on their 'home' when they hadn't made a payment on it in almost a decade was a good idea I don't know.

It was a gig I suppose.

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

Comments