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

beauf · 23-07-2019 9:16pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Because of exactly what they are, they prey on the weak or struggling.

Who is weak and struggling in this story?

23-07-2019 9:32pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Because of exactly what they are, they prey on the weak or struggling.

The repossession of a house you haven’t paid anything for in 10 years is not preying on the weak or struggling.

eagle eye wrote: »

It's a vulture fund, says it all really.
I'm not saying these people deserve to keep the house but if a bank can't do their own business and sell it to a despicable crowd like this them I'm changing sides immediately.

I’m pretty sure that selling off non performing loan books was not only a condition of the bailout, it was necessary to allow the banks to keep trading.

Wtf ? · 23-07-2019 9:36pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Because of exactly what they are, they prey on the weak or struggling.

Vultures hover over the weak and dying and then pounce and pick the bones.
On every Mortgage ad, you see, ''Your home may be at risk etc etc''
Even though they buy these loans at heavily discounted rates, They are still taking a punt. Your pension fund sometimes buy into vulture funds to ensure you get your pension when it's due. Do you ever think how your pension company make their money ? Sometimes (in your case) Ignorance is bliss

TSQ · 23-07-2019 9:43pm

eagle eye wrote: »

It's a vulture fund, says it all really.
I'm not saying these people deserve to keep the house but if a bank can't do their own business and sell it to a despicable crowd like this them I'm changing sides immediately.

Vulture Fund... Throughout history ignorant people have been manipulated by by the attaching of labels to groups in society in order to create convenient scapegoats. Once you attach a nice neat label to something it seems to eliminate the need to examine facts. If someone in social housing didnt pay a penny towards their rent for 9 years and the council finally decided to repossess the house (and agreeing to wipe out 9 years of debt) in order to give it to someone who would pay rent, would you consider that to be a “vulture” behaviour?

eagle eye · 23-07-2019 10:53pm

beauf wrote:

Who is weak and struggling in this story?

The people in the house and the bank that gave them the mortgage.

beauf · 23-07-2019 11:31pm

eagle eye wrote: »

The people in the house and the bank that gave them the mortgage.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/dailybusinessgroup.co.uk/2019/02/profits-up-24-at-lloyds-bank-unveils-higher-dividend/amp/

The thing weak and struggling is your credibility and our incredulity.

23-07-2019 11:32pm

eagle eye wrote: »

The people in the house and the bank that gave them the mortgage.

At the risk of responding to someone who is trolling or doesn’t quite understand the concept of loans/mortgages, a mortgage comes with a warning that if you do not keep up your repayments, your home is at risk. Though unfortunate, this couple cannot expect to keep a house they have not paid anything for in ten years bar one repayment last February.. They are not being prayed apon, repossession was as a foreseeable and forewarned risk when they took out a mortgage. They may be struggling, but they don’t have to struggle in a one million euro house which the fund has repossessed legally.

beauf · 23-07-2019 11:40pm

As they were offered the chance to walk away debt free, they seem to have got an interest free loan of over a million, free luxury accommodation and free legal services for almost 10yrs.

Now I'm not saying this wasn't tough at times, but its probably one of the best personal debt reconciliation stories in the history of the state.

Wtf ? · 24-07-2019 12:32am

beauf wrote: »

As they were offered the chance to walk away debt free, they seem to have got an interest free loan of over a million, free luxury accommodation and free legal services for almost 10yrs.

Now I'm not saying this wasn't tough at times, but its probably one of the best personal debt reconciliation stories in the history of the state.

Acting the B---ix pure and simple. He owned Town Bar & Grill, She, A Former Ms Ireland with previous TV work, A Name, and Contacts in modelling,media etc.
I also live in Clontarf, 10 mins away from said house. I am on Disability from a broken back.I live alone, I have a deaf son who I support, I rent private and get rent allowance. I have no security, after bills,I live on 70E pw. I walk by this house and 1 of their mortgage payments would change my life forever. Gripe over. I have a very cheap chilled life and overall I am happy. Acceptance is a wonderful thing but I had to have a bitch about these 2. I,m ok now !:o

splinter65 · 24-07-2019 6:24am

eagle eye wrote: »

I doubt I could explain to you all that you need to understand.

The couple are more greedy and immoral than the vultures in this case

eagle eye · 24-07-2019 6:40am

splinter65 wrote:

The couple are more greedy and immoral than the vultures in this case

I disagree.
The problem I have is the bank who gave them the mortgage. If they repossessed I'd have no problem.

handlemaster · 24-07-2019 6:51am

eagle eye wrote: »

It's a vulture fund, says it all really.
I'm not saying these people deserve to keep the house but if a bank can't do their own business and sell it to a despicable crowd like this them I'm changing sides immediately.

This country would still be on its knees if foreign companies didnt invest here. This is business we are 100% capitalist country. These are the rules. The couple signed up , no issues there. They agreed to move out and didnt. What of the business that he running what would he do if his customers did the same...eat their fill and walked away without paying.

Sunny Disposition · 24-07-2019 6:51am

Close to ten years without a payment and they were given a chance to walk away from the debt. Not unfair by any means. Very fortunate for them really, a decade without paying rent or mortgage but getting to live in a top class home.

No sympathy due here, phenomenal sense of entitlement if they genuinely think they are being wronged.

24-07-2019 7:17am

eagle eye wrote: »

I disagree.
The problem I have is the bank who gave them the mortgage. If they repossessed I'd have no problem.

Does the owner of the loan book change the fact that no repayments were made for 10 years? Do you think a bank would have offered them the deal they got, walk away debt free without liability for legal costs? This couple were offered a far better deal by Tanager than they would have been by a bank.

This couple lived rent free for 10 years, and were being allowed to walk away debt free even though the asset was not worth the accumulated debt they owed, many others do not get such a good offer and are pursued for the full amount owed, you should save your pity for those who are being threatened by moneylenders for loans needed to feed kids. These two don’t deserve your pity.

Shemale · 24-07-2019 7:23am

JJJackal wrote: »

It’s worth noting no one would want to be in their shoes.

House bought for 1.2 million - still only worth 800,000. At least that’s what I gather could be wrong. 3 failed restaurants in recession. Picture all over the news.

Maybe dont start businesses if you only run them into the ground and pay your ****ing bills.

Both of them must be earning good money, with no mortgage to pay.

Boils my piss people whinging about vulture fund took over our mortgage, the ones sold are the pricks that havent been paying them / engaging with the bank while pissing through their earnings on frivilous things.

I know a couple who owe a few hundred thousand are being persued and spend money like its burning a hole in their bank accounts.

beauf · 24-07-2019 8:18am

eagle eye wrote: »

I disagree.
The problem I have is the bank who gave them the mortgage. If they repossessed I'd have no problem.

That makes no sense.

Graham · 24-07-2019 8:19am

Mod Note

Reminder of previous warning.

The standard of posting on this thread is way below acceptable for the accommodation & property forum.

If you're just posting to be a d**k or a smart arse, take it somewhere else.

Do not reply to this post on thread.

eagle eye · 24-07-2019 8:32am

Dav010 wrote:

Does the owner of the loan book change the fact that no repayments were made for 10 years?

You are jumping straight past my issue. The bank that gave the mortgage should be the ones attempting to repossess imo. I'd have no issue with this and I'd be fully behind them in this particular case.
Vulture funds are exactly what it says on the tin. In this instance people are willing to dismiss what they are because of the story that the media are telling us. There are lots of cases where vulture funds show their teeth and it's not pretty.
There are many cases where these companies buy up restructured mortgages where the loanee is meeting the terms of the new arrangement. The vulture funds are just looking for the first opportunity to cancel the new arrangement and then proceed to repossession. If you think that is right then I have nothing more to say to you.
So knowing the evil side of vulture funds you'll never see me support them.

beauf · 24-07-2019 8:39am

You were asked about the fund in this specific case. Not for a general rant about investment funds.

In many cases the banks have inflamed a situation by refusing to engage, before the fund get involved. Banks behave no differently and perhaps worse than the funds do. So it makes no sense to favour banks over funds.

Banks and funds look at it as a financial transaction without the emotion. So on one hand I have no problem with this family doing the same back to them. In the middle of a housing crisis the govt should be more involved in keeping people in their homes. But the govt has assay on their hands and given the banks and funds free reign. But that's a different issue.

This story is not about the housing crisis. This family could have walked away and started over. They have the means to do so. It has taken the system 9 years to get to this point. Because both the banks and funds wanted the property to appreciate to be worth more.

Ush1 · 24-07-2019 8:41am

eagle eye wrote: »

You are jumping straight past my issue. The bank that gave the mortgage should be the ones attempting to repossess imo. I'd have no issue with this and I'd be fully behind them in this particular case.
Vulture funds are exactly what it says on the tin. In this instance people are willing to dismiss what they are because of the story that the media are telling us. There are lots of cases where vulture funds show their teeth and it's not pretty.
There are many cases where these companies buy up restructured mortgages where the loanee is meeting the terms of the new arrangement. The vulture funds are just looking for the first opportunity to cancel the new arrangement and then proceed to repossession. If you think that is right then I have nothing more to say to you.
So knowing the evil side of vulture funds you'll never see me support them.

Not really, the bank isn't going to sell the non-performing loan if it's actually performing.

Do you understand that the "vulture" fund gave this "weak" couple a better deal than the banks ever would have?

24-07-2019 8:52am

eagle eye wrote: »

You are jumping straight past my issue. The bank that gave the mortgage should be the ones attempting to repossess imo. I'd have no issue with this and I'd be fully behind them in this particular case.
Vulture funds are exactly what it says on the tin. In this instance people are willing to dismiss what they are because of the story that the media are telling us. There are lots of cases where vulture funds show their teeth and it's not pretty.
There are many cases where these companies buy up restructured mortgages where the loanee is meeting the terms of the new arrangement. The vulture funds are just looking for the first opportunity to cancel the new arrangement and then proceed to repossession. If you think that is right then I have nothing more to say to you.
So knowing the evil side of vulture funds you'll never see me support them.

You are completely ignoring the blatant facts of this case. The bank sold the loan books to survive, it was a requirement of being bailed out and continued existence. Only non performing loans were sold, if this couple were in a position to pay their mortgage their loan would still be with the bank.

If showing their teeth means recovering assets when repayments are not being met, this was foreseeable and forewarned when the couple took out their mortgage, if you finance any purchase by borrowing and then stop paying, it is completely understandable that the lender will attempt to recover the asset, then sell it to get their money back. No economic model could function where a borrower could borrow large amounts, then repay a paltry sum. It would mean cost of borrowing for others would increase as lenders try to cover the risk.

As far as I can see, this isn’t a case of the property being repossessed at the first opportunity, this process has been ongoing for many years, and again, the vulture fund offered them a fantastic deal.

I think the fund have a right to the property, I think they were right to offer the couple a debt write off if the left the house, I think the couple were right to agree to leave by this month, I think they are wrong to believe they have a right to something they have not paid for, I think you are wrong, or you don’t understand, I’m not sure which.

eagle eye · 24-07-2019 8:55am

beauf wrote:

Yes but you were asked about the fund in this specific case. Not for a general rant about investment funds.

I have an issue with the practices of vulture funds. As a result of that I will always support the other side. As I've said I wouldn't support them if it was the bank who issued the loan.
Vulture funds are cold, uncaring money grabbers. I will take pleasure out if seeing them lose out anytime it happens.
I started this, I spoke about vulture funds as a whole and not just this case. I've made it clear on this thread that I think these people are wrong based on the information given to us. I've said multiple times that I would be on the side of the mortgage lender. I'll never be on the side of a vulture fund though.

coolshannagh28 · 24-07-2019 9:03am

beauf wrote: »

You were asked about the fund in this specific case. Not for a general rant about investment funds.

In many cases the banks have inflamed a situation by refusing to engage, before the fund get involved. Banks behave no differently and perhaps worse than the funds do. So it makes no sense to favour banks over funds.

Banks and funds look at it as a financial transaction without the emotion. So on one hand I have no problem with this family doing the same back to them. In the middle of a housing crisis the govt should be more involved in keeping people in their homes. But the govt has assay on their hands and given the banks and funds free reign. But that's a different issue.

This story is not about the housing crisis. This family could have walked away and started over. They have the means to do so. It has taken the system 9 years to get to this point. Because both the banks and funds wanted the property to appreciate to be worth more.

The couple have the right to act anyway they think that will offer them a better future , their loan has been sold on at a discount to a hard nosed US institution , if the couple see weakness in the fund s position they have every right to exploit it.

Shelflife · 24-07-2019 9:26am

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

The couple have the right to act anyway they think that will offer them a better future , their loan has been sold on at a discount to a hard nosed US institution , if the couple see weakness in the fund s position they have every right to exploit it.

Of course they do and you can see the logic of not throwing good money after bad at this stage if it’s not going to benefit them in some way.

However they made a deal and agreed to leave the premises, now they are going back on their deal and are in contempt of court.

Effectively they have gone back on their word numerous times and deserve what’s coming their way .

beauf · 24-07-2019 9:27am

eagle eye wrote: »

I have an issue with the practices of vulture funds. ...[/quote/]

That is not what this topic is about. Even if it was. There's a denial that this is a business transaction. No one is obliged to give you a good deal, especially not on a luxury property. The bank took this on then walked away from it.

beauf · 24-07-2019 9:30am

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

The couple have the right to act anyway they think that will offer them a better future , their loan has been sold on at a discount to a hard nosed US institution , if the couple see weakness in the fund s position they have every right to exploit it.

Oh I agree. They can hard ball same as the banks and funds. They'd be stupid not to. Thus far it seems to have been the astute thing to do.

beauf · 24-07-2019 9:33am

Ush1 wrote: »

Not really, the bank isn't going to sell the non-performing loan if it's actually performing.
...

That's not always true. Sometimes they want to get out of that business or they want to get out of riskier loans.

Cuddlesworth · 24-07-2019 9:40am

beauf wrote: »

In many cases the banks have inflamed a situation by refusing to engage, before the fund get involved.

I saw that the couple claimed nobody would take their money. You would think that their would be some form of proof shown in court to go with that statement. Letters/Emails, proof of funds kept aside to go against their debt, etc.

24-07-2019 9:57am

eagle eye wrote: »

I have an issue with the practices of vulture funds. As a result of that I will always support the other side..

So, even though the fund has done nothing wrong, acted legally, offered the debtor a good deal by writing off their debt and had to wait 10 years to recover their money, you support the other side?

How is that rational?

From what I have read and heard, VFs are far more likely to offer a debt write down than a bank is, you would think that would be favourable.

eagle eye · 24-07-2019 10:10am

Dav010 wrote:

From what I have read and heard, VFs are far more likely to offer a debt write down than a bank is, you would think that would be favourable.

They are far more likely to want you out of the property. They won't be looking to help you make affordable repayments.

cruizer101 · 24-07-2019 10:14am

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I saw that the couple claimed nobody would take their money.

I didn't see them say that, but can't ever see the bank refusing to take money.

They did say that they were told to stop making mortgage payments and made it sound like the bank told them, when actually there is no way the bank would say that and it was more likely their accountant or even just some of their friends.

They really should be evicted, they agreed to a court order to leave (probably good chance knowing they wouldn't) and have refused to go.

cruizer101 · 24-07-2019 10:16am

eagle eye wrote: »

They are far more likely to want you out of the property. They won't be looking to help you make affordable repayments.

Chances are if you engaged with the bank in the first place and made reasonable payments your loan wouldn't be sold off to a fund.
Their choice to not pay for so long is what resulted in the loan being passed on.

eagle eye · 24-07-2019 10:19am

cruizer101 wrote:

Chances are if you engaged with the bank in the first place and made reasonable payments your loan wouldn't be sold off to a fund. Their choice to not pay for so long is what resulted in the loan being passed on.

As discussed be said already, there are many mortgages which have been rearranged that are then sold in to vulture funds.

cruizer101 · 24-07-2019 10:25am

And if you keep up with that re-arrangement when the loan is owned by the fund you shouldn't have any need to worry about them repossessing as no court is going to make that order if you are making a reasonable payment.

beauf · 24-07-2019 10:26am

cruizer101 wrote: »

And if you keep up with that re-arrangement when the loan is owned by the fund you shouldn't have any need to worry about them repossessing as no court is going to make that order if you are making a reasonable payment.

.. even if you are not making payments apparently....

coolshannagh28 · 24-07-2019 10:50am

beauf wrote: »

Oh I agree. They can hard ball same as the banks and funds. They'd be stupid not to. Thus far it seems to have been the astute thing to do.

Now they may have overplayed their hand , but as they have played hardball so far they may as well continue , it would set some sort of precedent if they made any further ground but the slippage in the property market may have focused the minds of the institutions who entered the game.

24-07-2019 1:19pm

eagle eye wrote: »

As discussed be said already, there are many mortgages which have been rearranged that are then sold in to vulture funds.

They may have new payment arrangements, but they are still in breach of there mortgage t&cs and are still in arrears.

Have you any studies to show VFs are more likely or quicker to evict? Considering they own most of the non performing loans, obviously they will be involved in more repossession orders than a bank which has much fewer mortgages in arrears.

I was listening to a discussion on The Last Word a couple of weeks ago where an insolvency expert who helps people in arrears actually stated that people have a much better chance of coming to an agreement and keeping there home with a VF then they ever did with a bank.

handlemaster · 24-07-2019 2:26pm

eagle eye wrote: »

beauf wrote:

Yes but you were asked about the fund in this specific case. Not for a general rant about investment funds.

I have an issue with the practices of vulture funds. As a result of that I will always support the other side. As I've said I wouldn't support them if it was the bank who issued the loan.
Vulture funds are cold, uncaring money grabbers. I will take pleasure out if seeing them lose out anytime it happens.
I started this, I spoke about vulture funds as a whole and not just this case. I've made it clear on this thread that I think these people are wrong based on the information given to us. I've said multiple times that I would be on the side of the mortgage lender. I'll never be on the side of a vulture fund though.

Its a business we are all involved in. Your pension fund is linked directly or in directly to such companies. We are all feeding off the same system.

vriesmays · 29-07-2019 5:35pm

splinter65 wrote: »

The couple are more greedy and immoral than the vultures in this case

But not as greedy as Frank and Theresa.

nc6000 · 15-08-2019 10:16pm

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/deliberate-attempt-to-obstruct-court-order-judge-rules-vulture-fund-can-immediately-take-ronan-ryan-and-pamela-floods-home-38406614.html

JMMCapital · 16-08-2019 12:38am

Arthur Daley wrote: »

It's got to be fairly obvious at this stage that Ireland is some sort of experiment in this regard. Go across the water to Britain, and you'll be out on your ear after 90 days past due (not 9 effin years), and little to no public sympathy for your sob stories either.

that's the only job. this country is run by a bunch of leftist teachers we need the same stance can't let these scumbags live rent free.

dalyboy · 16-08-2019 2:20am

Im no fan of hedge funds however this judge made a good decision. A great decision would have been to ensure a reasonable payment be made by the couple to cover the 9 years of pure and utter ignorance of their agreed responsibility to service their mortgage. If I missed my mortgage repayments like they did I’d be on my ear in 9 months or less NOT 9 years. Total P@&s take.

Car99 · 16-08-2019 6:40am

dalyboy wrote: »

Im no fan of hedge funds however this judge made a good decision. A great decision would have been to ensure a reasonable payment be made by the couple to cover the 9 years of pure and utter ignorance of their agreed responsibility to service their mortgage. If I missed my mortgage repayments like they did I’d be on my ear in 9 months or less NOT 9 years. Total P@&s take.

Yould be surprised how long you could drag it out for especially if there are kids involved.

Henry Ford III · 16-08-2019 11:38am

They aren't out yet.

pc7 · 16-08-2019 11:54am

Henry Ford III wrote: »

They aren't out yet.

Id say they are coming to an agreement to get out, doubt the fund want any more publicity with this. Reckon it'll all go quietly, surely the family have been looking or have somewhere to go.

Lux23 · 16-08-2019 12:29pm

JMMCapital wrote: »

that's the only job. this country is run by a bunch of leftist teachers we need the same stance can't let these scumbags live rent free.

Yes, Fine Gael, the great bastion of left leaning politics in Ireland. :rolleyes:

overkill602 · 16-08-2019 12:45pm

pc7 wrote: »

Id say they are coming to an agreement to get out, doubt the fund want any more publicity with this. Reckon it'll all go quietly, surely the family have been looking or have somewhere to go.

After 9 years am sure they have accumulated wealth under many an off shelve company and enjoying the lime light while new mortgage holders subsidized.
will they try a book on this later...

Shelflife · 16-08-2019 2:02pm

pc7 wrote: »

Id say they are coming to an agreement to get out, doubt the fund want any more publicity with this. Reckon it'll all go quietly, surely the family have been looking or have somewhere to go.

They already had an agreement to leave and they didnt stick to it and then tried to frustrate the bank by getting a court order without disclosing that they had already agreed to leave.

I wouldnt trust them at all.

If I was the MD of the fund/bank Id be sending in the bailiffs today and have them on the side of the road with no regrets.

ongarboy · 16-08-2019 2:17pm

Shelflife wrote: »

They already had an agreement to leave and they didnt stick to it and then tried to frustrate the bank by getting a court order without disclosing that they had already agreed to leave.

I wouldnt trust them at all.

If I was the MD of the fund/bank Id be sending in the bailiffs today and have them on the side of the road with no regrets.

And this is what pissed the judge off because they were taking the proverbial piss at this stage and removed any further chance of leniency or grace period extensions being granted to them. I sense the tide has turned even more against this couple now since this latest development. There are a lot of angry people out there who suffered immediate consequences with no leeway when they entered hard times and missed a payment and it must have been galling to them (as it is to all of us who struggle and sacrifice to make our mortgage payments every month) to see this lot having glossy spread features about their home and designer furnishings when they were 7 years into defaulting on their mortgage without a penny paid as per this 2017 article. I've absolutely no sympathy for them and they deserve what comes to them!

Just google the price of the Lacanche cooker Flood gushes about in the article (5k).... or The Icaras painting which cost €2300

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/interiors/at-home-with-pamela-flood-i-am-a-total-hoarder-1.3333531

Darando · 16-08-2019 2:44pm

Better start clearing that attic

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

Comments