Second homes should be repossessed, people shouldn’t be turfed out of ther homes though.

So Shane Filan and Tom McFeely should have been allowed to keep their houses then? They were family homes.

Reg, Tom MxFeely may have lost his “family home” but the man is far from broke.

If you can’t afford something, you can’t have it. It’s that simple.

Bollix. The whole Irish economy is based on social climbing enabled through access of credit.

The banks cant afford it ,but thanks to us they still here

In Iceland, they didn’t find this, and their economy is now well into a hearty recovery.
http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2012/0410/316682-imf-says-targeted-debt-reduction-policies-can-work/
To speed things up, Iceland has introduced a debt forgiveness plan which writes down deeply underwater mortgages to 110% of the households’ pledgeable assets.
[The IMF] noted that only when a comprehensive framework was put in place and a clear expiration date for relief measures announced that debt write-downs finally took off. As of January 2012, 15 to 20% of all Icelandic mortgages have been or are in the process of being written down.

Sinabhfuil, he’s clearly talking about negative equity situations.

That was meant for thread below. Rrrrrr

People paying taxes after bailing out the same banks that are now going to take their house they may have worked all their lives for.

We bailed then out with billions !
They were up to their necks in criminal activity and fraud.
That got us in this mess in the first place.

They only reason they rammed loans and high mortgages down our throats because then from your debt they can create more debt and they can bundle that debt and have a gambling game out in the markets with that debt it’s that simple.

People vs banks
People win.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/FPKOa-5GPPg

Fair point reg.
I had “normal” people in mind though.

@ Reg, are you keen to make a knock down offer on Shane Filans home?

Would someone please explain the precise mechanism whereby mortgage repossession will supposedly help economic recovery. What uplift in GDP will we see? Just explain how may repossessions are needed, how soon and exactly how this delivers growth and recovery.

Reg agree with you with regards the “buy to let” and “second and holiday home,s”

buytolet are greedy, family homes bought boom time also rush into ‘get on property ladder’ scheme, both need to learn a lesson. but this is Ireland, people wont learn, as up to today, people like Reg still talking out of his mind, restructuring your home loan for 10000 years? Great

My partner and I did the same, we moved further away from Dublin to get a cheaper house and like yourself, we have both been out of work for a few months a couple of years ago, but we managed to pay our way as we have a smaller more managable mortgage. Even when one of us was on the dole we could manage, or struggled, but thankfully it was short lived. My heart breaks for the families that a struggling, I don’t believe repossession should be an option in all circumstances, but realistically, if people can’t afford their mortgages, I can’t see any alternative but to reposses the house.

Agreed.

It also must be asked why someone who didn’t make the prudent choice you did should get a free ride and, for example, get the 350k house “for free”. In essence, rewarding wreckless borrowing.

I should also point out that I don’t think the banks should get off scott free either — we need a system like America, where once the keys of the house are handed back the debt is cleared. As it stands, the banks take no hit on their wreckless lending and hold you to the outstanding balance after the sale of the property.

When the problem is caused by the entity repossessing, then repossess is the very very last resort.

Yeah, well that’s a fair point too. We can’t forget that alot of the thanks for this particular shitheap that we find ourselves in must go to the Banks.

These people against repossession. So I can get a loan to buy a house for €8 million, default but continue to live in it because it’s the banks fault for lending the money to me?

Get real. If you took on a mortgage too big for you, that’ your own problem. You could have rented.

Truth.

It’s slightly more complicated than that I’m sure.

let me give my oppinion as to what we need ,we need an an investigation in to our banking disaster and to find out exactly how much our regulators and goverment were tied in to criminal activity with the banks ,if this does not happen we are inviting the same problem on ourselves in the future .

@ Dermot Purcell – Is it true AIB does not have a valid Banking License? I have heard they are currently under criminal investigation by An Garda Siochana for trading without a up to date banking license, which is a criminal offence?

Yep, a man named Tom D’Arcy has taken a case to the high Court, and our state controlled media refuse to report on it

Not just the license he has evidence if criminal activity. Media cover the story all ready. Here is a clip

http://www.tnsradio.com/31/post/2013/02/truthful-irish-special-tom-darcy.html

People need to see this too :

https://www.youtube.com/embed/FPKOa-5GPPg

They’ve had some debt forgiveness in the US due to malpractice by the banks. That was in return for not being investigated by the Feds.

The banks had a major role in creating this crisis. It’s obvious there was a conflict of interest when you had banks lending money to developers to build houses, and then also lending to house buyers.

Maybe we should allow short sales like in the US. If the price is not achieved then the borrower loses their equity and the bank has to take a write down on the mortgage. The current system is ludicrous and does not encourage responsible lending.

Both the borrowers and the banks need to take a hit. I know the banks are owned by “us” now, so this is unpalatable. But just look at the bigger picture, and look at what the banks have been doing with taxpayer money (e.g. AIB propping up their pension fund to the tune of 1.5 billion or so). We would have been better off as a country if we had written all mortgages down by some percentage instead of throwing money down the toilet into the banks!

That would be lovely but you don’t have a legal leg to stand on.

So it’s FG’s fault that the mortgage system operates the way it does?

They can be blame for a lot of things, but I think that they’re in the clear on this.

I’d pretty much agree with the caveat that your credit rating should basically be scorched for about 5 years or so.

So, Ciaran, if you buy a house for €230,000, paying a deposit of, say, €25,000 and then you pay it off for several years and now have let’s say, €50,000 outstanding, and you lose your work and currently can’t afford to pay the mortgage, you say you should lose all of the €180,000 you’ve paid, and the bank should get the house?
Strange logic.

No. Only if the house is sold for less than the value of the outstanding mortgage.

But in Ireland we’re like rats trapped in a cage, we’re turning on each other – rich against poor, low-paid workers against people on welfare, rural against urban, public sector against private sector, emigrants against those who stay, people who’ve paid off their mortgages against ‘wreckless’ (sic) borrowers who can’t pay because they’ve lost their work.
Until we begin to put our differences aside and stand together, this train-wreck is going to continue.

l think the answer to that is, they know they cant sell it right away so they might as well have people tending and caring for the property.

Try to think a bit harder about the situation.

You have a person in a valuable house paying nothing for years. The state/banks own this security. Now they could have people like me giving them money for this house. This is the first step into having a functioning property market. The freeloaders can settle in Longford and pay back their debts over their lifetime.

It will Neil. They are free from the debt after two years instead of the current twelve. The flip side of that is that they lose the asset the loan was secured against.

The bankruptcy period is 3 years and the banks are allowed to contest a debtor exiting bankruptcy for a further period, which is 5 years.

I stand corrected. It is 3 years but the extra 5 years is at the discretion of a judge and intended to deal with those who are not cooperating with the proceedings. Ordinary joe soaps trying but unable to pay will not be subject to this because courts have always protected the rights of householders above those of creditors in this country.

The way the deal works is that you get released from your 30-40 year mortgage and enter a 3 year period where you meet the payment schedule set by the court and then you’re free. You do lose the asset the loan is secured against (not that you ever owned it anyway because the bank held the deeds) as well as your deposit and capital paid off but you come out the other end debt-free and able to start again.

This is obviously preferable to slaving to pay a 35 year mortgage. Anybody who says otherwise is trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Morally, yes but legally no unfortunately.

I think only way to do this is both sides need to take a certain hit.

On one side you can say banks are professional but on the other side of things we are all adults, nobody held a gun to our heads and told us to get brand new cars each year, nobody told us to buy or build a massive 5 bedroom house with two sittings rooms when a 3 or 4 bedroom semi would have done the job.

People got greedy and that can be said for both sides, due to this both sides need to see that there are actions for their bad decisions.

I agree that Banks should share the risk involved in mortgages but the fact is that there is no law for that as of now, and even if one were passed tomorrow you cannot retrospectively change contract terms so it would not apply to current mortgages.
So as it stands, in order for banks to normalise their operations, the mortgage debt needs to be dealt with, and that can only happen by re-possession of a lot of the homes that are unable to pay. There might be some scope for re-mortgaging but not for everyone. The other “option” is to force everyone in the country to pay for the mortgages of others, but I would not like that to happen… it’s akin to paying back investors in a private company when it goes bust.
Of course if it was a choice between the original bank guarantee and a guarantee on people’s homes then I know which I would have chosen… but I don’t want my children paying back both.

But by your very logic, people made a gamble in an unstable market and thusly they should take the hit for their own mistakes. I’m a non home owner, I didn’t get myself into debt in the boom. Should I be responsible for all the people who don’t want to pay? Why is the first thing on this blame the bankers? I say blame the Irish psyche. We’ve always been a bunch of cute whoors after a quick buck. It happens all across society from our leaders to the very bottom. I’m even saying I’m the same. We need to get over this blaming everyone else for what we put ourselves in. Collective responsibility and change for the better.

Then surely, legally, as head of a bank, lending yourselves millions is a criminal offence. Sean Fitzpatrick, Dunn etc should be in Mountjoy. One law for the elite?

Yes that is my logic people should pay for their mistakes but the reason we are in the mess we are is banks who lend irresponsibly aren’t taking their share of the hits and if this doesn’t happen then they will once again make the same mistakes over and over again. If we wish to have a stable economy built on solid foundations then we need a systems where banks take responsibility for who they invest in maybe then they wouldn’t find themselves in a position where their customers can’t make their repayments.

Morally, in my opinion, the notion of a secured loan should mean that the loan is secured on an asset only. If the individual is unable to keep up the payments then the asset is there as security to cover this but no more should be sought to cover losses. Lending money entails a risk that should be borne by the lender alone.

If, on this basis, a lender is only willing to lend a smaller percentage of the original value of the asset in order to reduce their risk then that’s fine. This should lead to a more conservative approach from lenders and help avoid bubbles. Though it doesn’t seem to have prevented this in the US.

Paul, banks can be guilty of reckless lending. If you establish that [and it is hard] then the tune changes.

Yes, of course they are. That’s the point. And if they are and the borrower can’t pay then they should be able to walk away.

@ Martin Mac, your voice is a voice of reality but deniers will hide their heads in the sand. It is good to read a hard headed real comment. I can’t refute anything that you say.

Exactly, a state propped bank kicks people out of their homes, then the state helps these people to live somewhere else to live at more expense….

If the banks repossess the people’s homes what are they going to do with them sell them,who is going to buy them,the banks have got their bail out money, it is now time to look after the people,and when the economy starts to recover the banks will get their money from the homeowners.

Very good question. Also, where will the housing for the dispossessed come from? The government of course if they have home to provide. A solution would be to nationalise the homes that cannot pay the mortgages paying the banks what they are worth today. Then the people in the houses can rent them from the government at a fair rent set by an independent body.

Agreed. What good did eviction do Ireland during the 19th century? If people then weren’t able to emigrate they had to wander the roads and forage for what they could get or go into a workhouse. Putting people out of their homes won’t achieve anything other than lengthening the list for social housing.

If we had the same foreclosure system maybe the banks would not have lent the amounts they did out of fearing a foreclosure. We would then not have so large a problem

Rory, Foreclosure has in fact the opposite effect. If the bank ‘ knows’ that it has the power to seize the house of amortgage defaulter, this encourages them to lend more, the risk being passed on to the borrower. It is part of the boom and bust scenario. Countries with strong economies can tolerate the shock of boom and bust . Ireland cannot. Mass repossessions would be too late at this stage and could damage any recovery.

In general my reaction to this article is that the problem with repossessing homes is that apart from it being closing the gate after the horse has bolted, is that it will serve as a deterrant to future generations but will not solve the present crisis. The banks risked the money. They know that they will get more in not evicting a person than they will in most cases by evicting them, so I don’t see the need now at this stage to start evicting.

Not true. It encourages the bank to ensure that the property is worth the money so they don’t end up with a worthless property. The Irish system is the opposite, they don’t really look at the value of the house but only your ability to repay. The Irish are truly in debt slavery and the banks have it all their own way.

A fair, balanced and honourable view. I have 3 years to run on a manageable mortgage, it caused me sleepless nights, occasional days of hunger and, having experienced that, I would only wish such misery on the CBI watchdogs who were worse than lapdogs.

I agree.. I know a married couple ( guard and a nurse). They own…. 8 houses in a medium sized west of Ireland town. They had them packed with Poles… Many of the Poles have moved on and most of the houses are empty. A friend of this couple told me that the couple are in massive debt. Marriage about to break… no sympathy for them as the two of them thought they were the big shots with their mini empire…That’s the type of people I want to see getting their houses repocessed. I hope the banks persecute them. ( 8 polish lads in one three bedroom house all getting charged 65 a week… greedy and typical of many others during the boom).

Big time!Only problem is, if that Guard/ Richard Barrett wanna be, gets the screws put on him, he might go all angry begrudging cop on your ass if he sees you driving out of a nice house and slap you with a speeding ticket ;-)

Ok fair enough but where do we draw th

Where do we draw the line? No prob with repossessing homes that were bought to let but what about the family home? Most people here seem to agree that all houses should be repossessed but u do all realise that the tax payer (us all working or not) will have to rehouse these families, rent allowance, council housing. Another Irish solution to an Irish problem! While the bank worry about where they’ll holiday this summer.

Sorry Karolyn but the argument between home owner and capitalist with 8 houses, is still in the same boat. If you Cannot afford to keep your home – it has to go..
No shiny tin cup on society should be allowed for either soul. Shane filan with his €3m mansion is still a “family” home, but people seem to distinguish him apart from a 3 bed house worth €300k ..
The property market may never recover fully if it doesn’t happen, the 8 house (guard and nurse) mentioned dont have to pay their mortgages and yet get to keep their 8 houses.. ???
Morally it may be hard to take someones home from them but, debt forgiveness similar to the us banking system when the keys are handed back should be the case as following people for payment may never get them back into the system, and may further depress the economy if indeed social housing is needed –

I hate to say it but, the houses must go back ..

Don’t agree that suddenly after 5 years of misery and people killing themselves to repay loans they took out in good faith (The majority of people who take out mortgages intend to repay it), and loaned by lenders who were lending money that never existed! .

A mortage is a loan albeit a huge one for most people and certainly for someone in negative equity. A loan is contractual. If a person is making efforts to repay and has done so over the last 5 years then surely the bank has an obligation to see sense and let the person have more time to repay? Restructuring debts. Thats all we hear about from the sha66ers in Europe. They have even ”restructed” the debts of private banks so the tax payer pays them.

I really don’t see the great distinction either between 2nd home and ”family home” in terms of debt. 2nd home owners are fair game but don’t attack poor little me as I can’t afford my debts either but I live in a ‘family’ home so I am exempt. A debt is a debt , and this requires two parties. One to lend after taking out necessary checks , and the borrower to ensure that he has the means to pay back the debt. Now in most cases, the two parties are at fault. I donot see how this ”morally”. (as if banks behaved to any sort of code moral or otherwise) can justify that the bank seizes the house .

I am very sceptical of the apparently sudden interest in evictions now that the banks have waited 5 years. and have been collecting payments which frankly have already paid for the ‘real value’ of the house. The banks as usual want to have their cake and eat it. As usual tha banks win (even after losing) and the citizen not only doesnt complain but participates in this robbery by saying its ok its only a second home . They probably deserved it.

@ ASN
Well said
Well said

Everytime someone has an issue with debt write-down its ‘Maggie with the 4 BMW’s and 2 houses’ or somesuch. The reality is that YES, there will be some that will be ‘Nice one, Im quids in!’, but so what? The system is never perfect. We don’t say, ‘No social welfare’ because there are a few who abuse it, or at least we shouldn’t. The fact is, some will benefit more than others, but we’ll ALL benefit if its done right.

If you have mortgages write down I understand the bank will be out of money, but what about the individual who borrowed the money, how does it effect them. Surly the individual should be left some what out of pocket too.

Would it not be more sensible to introduce a system where individuals who are making no effort to pay their mortgages are evicted, and then the house is sold. The bank take the money from the sale and write off the debt there after (i.e Dont chase the person who took out the mortgage), and then the individual who borrowed the money is put on a black list for x amount of years. This way the individual and the bank have both taken a hit, one for reckless lending and one for reckless borrowing.

Also this idea that there should be strict roles on lending is a good idea, but 3 and a half times one persons salary seems like you are punishing people on lower incomes for the mistakes of others who over borrowed. For instance a couple who are both on 30 thousand, can only borrow 115000 plus a deposit of 25, which is a 140000 which would not leave them much to buy a house in most areas.

I don’t believe we should be looking to punish anyone. Including the banks. We need to lose that attitude. Whoever we think is to blame, We need to simply ask, ‘What will work?’ And by work, I mean, what will have the best effect on society and the economy. You say that the equity shortfall should be forgiven if it comes to reposession (I wholeheartedly agree), but wouldn’t it be better, if people actually kept their homes, and had the mortgage written down instead? Its the same as what you suggested in terms of how much debt would be forgiven, except you’d keep people in their homes. I’ve said it elsewhere, but many people are not paying at all, because the banks have stated their intention to seek repossession, so why then would they continue to pay, when they could keep the money and offer it as a deal in the equity shortfall when they go to court? Also, in terms of the 3 and a half times figure, thats just a loose figure and a very rough suggestion. We’d need better people than me to work out a good system that will work for the good of the nation and prevent another property bubble. By what the government has done/not done, it sems that they’d be happy for house prices to recover to boom time. That would be an AWFUL thing.

Neasa
Did you ever care to think that maybe €140,000 or €115,000 for that matter should be enough to buy a decent family home?
Does throwing reckless overinflated, financing at a house, really make it worth more than its TRUE value??

And what about the people that only bought 1 house mary and both are unemployed now with a couple of kids? Reposess their house too? Its not a simple black and white answer mary…especially with the current bankruptcy laws here..in the states you hand over the house and thats it..here they come after you for the balance. So what hardships did the banks go through after practically destroying our great nation…NONE….and the people that helped bail them out get their houses reposessed…thats fair????? Typical greedy bankers…typical ireland

I’d agree with you. The banks were reckless (the regulator is the real villain of the piece though) but so too were people who bought into the madness.

Every single one of us remember when people thought 100% mortgages were a great idea or buying a house for 400k when they were earning 30k a year or just borrowing money for luxury items (new car, big holiday etc.).

Banks need to be held accountable but it’s the height of hypocrisy for Irish people to want them to accept 100% of the blame so they can let themselves off the hook. We won’t learn any lessons from this otherwise.

Kevin, what do you propose?

We bail out house buyers? Do you realise how much more this would cost the tax payer and how open to abuse it would be to people.

Idiotic comment,especially using the term “sheep”.Most homes sold during the boom were bought as family homes,which through no fault of the home owner in alot of cases has become a liability.
The buy to let market is different,repossions should occur here.

Exactly! You cant afford something & there’s no logical way to set up an alternative repayment, but people think they’re entitled to it!?

Im no politician/expert…but the banks should take some sort of hit on the mortgages they signed off on after all it was them that approved the mortgages and people would never have got loans had bank not approved them…some sort of writedown to bring mortgage to managable payments…banks have taken no hits whatsoever since start of this crisis and are even upping their intrest rates every chance they get without government stepping in…its about time they took some sort of hit

What about those who can’t buy due to lack of supply as people are squatting in houses they cannot pay for, whilst renters are at the mercy of ever increasing rents.

The crux of it is, if you cannot pay the mortgage, you sell the asset securing it. This notion of remaining in ‘your own home’ which you cannot pay for is BS. If you cannot pay for it, it is not yours. Move out, sell, and rent. Simple

Kevin,
Banks now = taxpayer!

Kevin shared mortgage for some but in some cases people need to be allowed in move on both people and banks need to take the hit existing in a house that us can’t afford is no fun

Here we go again.
A few Spruikers that sat on the fence mudslinging, trying to vilify the victims who took the responsibility to buy a home for their family.
The same victims (namely native Irish homemakers) that are chained to the spot to pay property taxes, water charges, TV licences, bank bailouts etc etc etc.
If you would take a little time to look at the facts before you put your jealous little, ill informed brains into gear.
Eg: That most homes sold were basic (and in a lot of cases, substandard, badly located etc) not palatial Westlife pads.
Most of these mortgage holders have payed €10′s/€100′s over the past 5-10 years on mortgage payments and €10′s of thousands into the economy on upkeep improvements etc.
Also when you take into account the others involved in this travesty. Namely Corrupt/Criminal Bankers, Politicians, Developers,Regulators and Senior Civil Servants. The last person you should be pointing the finger at is the Homeowner Victim.

Matt thats not entirely true…if the banks werethe taxpayers why would we pay the ceo’s (ones that screwed the country and present) massive payoffs and pensions? If they were the taxpayers would they be upping mortgage intrest rates every chance they got???would they be holding out on credit for viable sme’s?would they have accepted the 30billion debt? And finally where is all this money theyre making by not lending and upping intrest rates and charges and when is our money going to come back into the economy to ease the budgets???thats if theyre our banks

It’s time for our useless, bought out, spineless, Europupett, Stoogeen government to grow a pair and stand up to the real culprits in all this.
and readjust the value of peoples mortgages to a true value based on REAL fundamentals, as they had the intelligence to do in Iceland.

@Kevin I didn’t buy during the boom years because I didn’t think my salary justified me being able to, especially with 100% mortgages.

During that time I was at the mercy of landlords who charged massive rents (still haven’t dropped those) and I didn’t see anyone calling for renters to be given help when we were in trouble (and at times we were in trouble).

And this isn’t some type of vendetta against landlords, this is about fairness. I’m all for investigating the banks and the regulator to see if that acted in intentional bad faith, but people need to accept that they too have a share of the blame and that no-one forced them to buy those house, take those holidays etc.

Some of us actually managed our money during the Celtic Tiger to live within our means, others didn’t, but I fail to see how it is fair to now help out those that didn’t when there was no help forthcoming for those of us who did (there still isn’t either).

Kevin, banks are not individuals, what hit do you propose?
As businesses they have been destroyed and then rescued by taxpayers.
Investors have seen their shares destroyed and some of these were ordinary people. Some were pension funds, the value of which took a major hit.
People who won’t pay they debts are having an easier ride than expected so.
Its a sorry state of affairs.
The people who were bank managers and officials are a different matter. They should be on reduced wages for a long time to come.

Gathering…. well said but alot of commentators here would rather take pleasure in their fellow man’s misery than see him be helped.

@Gatheryourmoney, so what you’re saying is, if you’re a howeowner you’re entitled to anything you like because you haven’t pulled a fast one on the general public and hung out to dry in front of the vociferous media gallery!? Your argument makes no sense!

Niall i rented too during the boom years and didnt buy a mansion either 3bedroom house in an estate and bought it just before the collapse…i have many friends that did the same but i see some of them in difficulty now financially..these arent greedy landlords theyre just a couple with kids looking to survive…the point im making is most of the people in arrears at the min are your average joe soaps that own a family home…the small minority of people in arrears are greedy landlords and theyre properties should be repossessed by nama as its a business..but to label everyone as a greedy landlord and tar everyone with the one brush is mightly unfair…most are like u and me…with a young family but struggling to get by…banks have to take some hit simple as as everyone bar tds and bankers have been suffering in this country for past 3 years and its about time they joined the party

Fabio he didn’t say that and i think you know it.

@gathering if you’re complaining about the lack of financial regulation.. i.e. anglo etc etc and then you expect people with massive outstanding loans should be given an easy ride/let off the hook? which one is it?

@Kevin, I didn’t label everyone as greedy landlords, I was making a point about fairness.

Let’s say someone hasn’t paid their mortgage for 9 months and the banks give in to people and say ‘okay we’ll let that 9 months go’. That means they have received 9 months free accommodation whilst those of us that have scrimped and saved and gone without to pay our rent or mortgages get nothing.

They basically get rewarded for overspending. How is this a fair scenario?

People applied to banks for mortgages and were assessed by on the strenght if their wages who then loaned recklessly. People took these loans because everwhere they turned the were warned to get on the property ladder or be left behind by the same banks, estate agents, builders,developers, media and every other vested interest looking for a profit. It seems now it was a crime to want your own home. Remember a repossession will see a family out on the street with the bank still seeking to be paid. Not everyone was looking to become rich most were looking for a home………….your compassion is inspiring.

Alan I spent years struggling to make rent and keep myself fed in the early to mid 00s. I took out two loans during that time, struggled to pay them back but did so. I don’t remember the home owners having an ounce of compassion for those of us paying inflated rent prices at the time, I never see any articles demanding that renters get breaks from landlords and banks to this day.

I’m just struggling to see the fairness in letting people off with overspending.

A system whereby homeowners pay off their current mortgage arrears in full and negotiate a buy to let could work, but that would still get some up in arms on here

Kevin & gathering only people talking s

@Kevin
State owned banks:
NAMA, IBRC, AIB, PTSB.
Partially state owned: BOI

Ergo banks take a hit, taxpayer takes a hit.

I applied for my mortgage in late 2005 and all I needed was €135,000 over 35 years so no matter how bad things got I would still be able to repay each month. The broker I went to basically tried to bully me into taking out a €180,000 mortgage! At the time I was earning €26,000 per annum but she told me she could massage the figures to make it look like I was earning €10,000 more per year! I said no thanks!!!

In fairness.
If you rent you can walk away.
If you hold a mortgage in severe negative equity it’s not that simple.
Renting and mortgages holders are in completely different boats.

Well said Kevin.

Niall, I rented as well but I was earning so little (as a public servant) that I didn’t qualify for a mortgage. So I didn’t buy a house and I also lived within my means. However, the pressure to own a house was unbelievable and I was made to feel a pariah for renting. There were people telling parents they should remortgage their houses so their children could get on the property ladder. House prices were rising faster than inflation in Weimar Germany. People wanted homes for their families, what were they to do? The standard of rented accommodation was poor for the price and we were being told “rent is dead money” from all sides. People were brainwashed into paying ridiculous money for houses.

Struggling families should not be left without roofs over their heads. Indeed, the way some of these properties were built they won’t even be standing at the end of the mortgage term. Why should innocent people have to pay for that?

BOI is sold

So some of you reckon “the renters” don’t get help.
Tell me this
How can that be so when the state pays a half a billion a year in rent allowance?
How does that compare with the bit of small change given out in mortgage interest supplement?
Tell me renters?
Just how much did you spend into the Irish economy last year
on
Household Charges,
2nd Property Taxes,
Home Insurance,
Painting/Decorating,
Maintenance,
Service charges,
Boiler and Gas Appliance Maintenance,
Furniture/Electrical Appliance/Furnishings Repairs, Maintenance, Replacements and Servicing,
Garden Maintenance,
Gutter Cleaning and Power Washing,
Contract Cleaning,
Chimney Cleaning,
Building levies,
Legal Fees,
Stamp Duty,
Surveys,
Valuation Fees,
Co2 Monitors,
Pest Control,
Property Damage Not Covered By Insurance,
Damage Due To Pyrite, Subsidence, Flooding Etc Not Covered By Insurance Or Homebond.
General up keep etc.
Not To Mention Physical and Psychological And Property Damage Caused By The Anti Social/Violent Renter Next Door.
Etc
Etc
Etc……..?

Decent hardworking people have committed suicide because of the heavy handed tactics of these corrupt/criminal banks
corrupt/criminal banks that bust this country.
And all some of you jealous fools want to do is dance on their graves.
Disgusting!

@Fabio
The only people that have been let of the hook with massive outstanding loans, are NAMA developerers, the Banks and the bondholders.

We are talking about their victims here.
The only ones who contributed some real money, in this whole disgusting travesty.

Firstly lets stop being a nation of begrudgers – if you are currently employed and able to pay your way good for you – BE GRATEFULL and stop worrying about the neighbour getting one over on you.

Secondly – common scenario – household income of 40,000 a year – been that way for last 6 years and your on a fixed contract. You’ve just started a family so you decide to buy a 200,000 to 250,000 house THEN the shit hits – you loose your job and end up unemployed – you manage to pay a small proportion of your mortgage each month, but not enough and so the arrears build up and up and all you’re ever paying off is a tiny bit of the interest cause the banks keep upping that!

Wake up – yes some people spent recklessly but others didn’t -look at the unemployment figures – there’s your answer to why people are in arrears!

Nobody wants complete debt forgiveness and their loan wiped completely as that would be unfair on those just about getting by, but the Govnt and banks need to work closely with the likes of MABS to come up with a payment plan – but they’ve done nothing like this, they’ve not done a single thing for those struggling – and remember If you chuck a family with 5 kids out on the street who do you think pays to rehouse them? This situation is far from black and white!

stupid stupid comment

People should pay their mortgages.
However they should only pay them based on a value based on fundamentals.
Similar to the Iceland model.
Why should a stinking vulture pick up someones €500k home for €100k when the distressed homeowner probably paid at least 100k to the corrupt bank already and god knows what in furnishings and fittings??

Especially when the stinking bank broke liquidity laws, which is a criminal jail able offense.

Shush Seamus the economic geniuses here don’t want to hear that.

Or look at the other extreme, why should I bother working – free housing + dole for all. How about that, genius?

It won’t help the banks either,by repossesing houses they finally have to realise their losse’s.Also they will not be able to sit on the house’s they will have to sell,bringing down further the price of houses.

Which is exactly what should have happened. Instead, we (taxpayers) ended up pumping money into the banks to sustain their artificial loan book values.

I guess they were right about paying peanuts. Are you the new financial regulator by any chance?

How many Skinhead Hi Vis “security guard” thugs have you got Kenny??
Cmon Kenny!!!
Bring it on!!!

I don’t think the issue is throwing family’s out of there homes where they are making an effort to pay some of the mortgage. The issue is people who have made no effort. There were people on rte news a few months back saying that they had not paid anything off there mortgage in three years, not even interest, they don’t deserve to keep there house because they are making no effort. But people who are making an effort by paying off x amount per month should be given a chance.

TBH, the not paying the mortgage thing, was usually a method of saving a bunch of money so that when the bank evicted you, you’d offer the money you saved as a deal on the equity shortfall. As no real solutions were put in place, and there was little in the way of reasonableness from the powers that be, people done what they had to do.

Hear Hear James.
Spot on.
When your bank, your government, the media and your country deserts, ignores, vilifies , criminalizes and punishes you and your children.
It is time to take things into you own hands.
Everyone in their right mind would do the same.
Hear Hear.

Like it or not, thats what was happening. Just like people going to Her Majesty across the water to claim bankruptcy. The government wimped out, and did NOTHING to help the situation. This meant that people had no cards when going before the banks. People were telling the banks, ‘I can pay such and such’, but the banks would then say, ‘No’. So certain members of Joe Public would say, ‘Well if the bank are starting the ball in motion to kick me out, why am I paying the little I can pay now? I’ll keep all my money, and will offer it with my house when they come to kick me out.’ What idiot would keep on paying them, knowing that they were going to be kicked out in 2 years, AND be lumbered with the shortfall too? And what idiot would continue with the, ‘You should pay back what you owe’, in these circumstances, where the banks, only in existence because EVERYONES money has been given to them, are not cutting the customer slack? People need to cop the heck on! You are not being moral by saying its ok for a bank, who has been bailed out to the tune of billions, by tax payers, to seek repossession of peoples homes when they have shown little in the way of mercy or accountability in their own actions in this mess! People will do what they need to do, until our government bring in an ACTUAL solution. Until then, people will continue to try think of anything they can to stop themselves from drowning. It would be great, if as a people, we could for once stand united, not caring if Joe from down the road got a better deal than you did. Just be happy if YOU are not in the mess, and hope that those IN the mess get out of it. Even if that means, God forbid, they might get something that you never did :O

Nothing of the sort, are you ok with sticking the tax payer with even more debt because thats what will happen if you want to bail out mortgage holders.

Read my post carefully,i did not say a “bailout”.But if someone cannot pay their mortgage(i’m olny referring to family home) the banjs have to engage everyway they can.They were bailed out by us and have been capitalised to cover them potential mortgage debt writedowns.I believe the figure was between 6 and 8 billion.
It wouldn’t be to hard to identify geniune cases.
I would rather see a family being allowed stay in their paying what they can,when they can instead of throwing them out onto to the housing list and giving them upto 800 euro per month in Rent Allowance.

Barry, how do u feel about paying rent allowance and council houses for the families we throw out? Because we the tax payer will! Higher parking fee’s, household tax will have to be higher to cover these costs, more business lost due to higher rates and less money in our pockets, do u see the knock on affect? While more council housing estates will have to be built. Because anyone I know who has lost their family home from this crisis is either in rent allowance and waiting to be housed or is council housed and paying 30 quid a week while the council I.e us pay the rest of the mortgage for them. Think outside the box on this one.

Barry, your view in blinkered. Its not as simple as, ‘We burden the tax payer’. The tax payer, of which those in debt are too, have already been burdened with the mortgage crisis (on top of everything else). It was part of the bailout package for the banks. Also, there are so many knock on effects to simply saying, ‘Just let them get evicted if they cant pay their mortgages’. ALL of the consequences are going to have knock on effects to tax payers. Be it rehousing, increased crime etc. Fact of the matter, is that we need pragmatism, not begrudgery. We should be asking, what is the best solution for these unprecedented events, and we need to think economically AND socially. These things are not mutually exclusive neither. NONE of these things are nice. We are all getting bashed for the gamblings of private enterprise and inept government. Its really about being pragmatic and conscientious now.

Spot on Jenny,
Oldest trick in the book . Divide and rule. Soon it will the unemployed over 2 years will go to the workhouse. It’s only right isnt it! But as long as its not my ‘family’ home the banks can take what they want. This mentality is not only short sighted, but it will only encourage the bank & their employees in the government to erode more freedoms. At least in Greece they protested.

We are seeing hypocracy on a massive scale in Europe. They ” restructure ” European bank debts so that the taxpayer pays. But 5 years after the taxpayer has exhausted himself keeping his job to pay off the mortgage repayments due to buying a house with monopoly money that banks were lending each other ; money that never existed, As soon as this tax payer has problems repaying, can he ‘restructure his debt’ ?? Not a chance. The banks have sat on the Irish homeowner for 5 years they have been repaid now they want to take the house that has already been paid for. A mortage is contractual, both parties are at fault . I f ail to see where the banks have been penalized for their errors.

Evictions now are too late, the deterrant effect won’t be felt until the next generation of idiots buy a celtic tiger 3 work of fiction.

Let’s be careful here. Repossessing homes and effectively making people homeless doesn’t make sense – ultimately they may have to be housed by the State or may end up in rented accommodation which is subsidised by the State. In such cases (provided the house is not extravagant) every effort should be made to allow people remain in their home – rental, shared equity, etc. In the case of investment properties repossession is a given. Either way, however unpalatable, the losses on these mortgages need to be crystalised by the banks so they can move on. It also means that mortgage holders have their positions definitively clarified and can move on with their lives. Living under the burden of debt, wondering what’s going to happen and wasting time with interest only arrangements is placing people under enormous strain. The sooner this is cleaned up the better – it has been allowed to drag on for far too long.

Karolyn Cassidy : If thats what tax payer have to do , then its healthy. if people can live in houses without paying the mortgage, destroying the banking system, then economy, and we all doomed anyhow. so start repo asap like the rest of the world. in rental market, you dont pay rent, you get kicked out you will not be able to live for over 3months – 2years without paying your rent, correct? thats life
for people havent bought house which caused not seeing the true value, do you think its fair for others still renting? kop on and save your fake sympathy, thats how Irish people all of sudden when economy going through the boom, everybody think they are some finance expert. Ireland wont recover unless you see the real economy

Repossession is absolutely the right thing to do in many cases. Should Shane Filan and Tom McFeely be allowed to keep their homes? Absolutely not! And what about the strategic defaulters?

Yes, efforts should be made for many people to keep their homes but lets get real!

@ Reg, thank you for that wholly representative sample. Good for you. Stick the boot in. I like your fair and considered basis of opinion formation. You are a true Irish man! You make me proud to be an Irish man.

Wow. All emotion, no brains. These measure are necessary if the country is ever to get back on its feet.

The people who run the bread and circus show that this country has been for the last 70 years are the same ones that are paying off the bondholders and also keeping our economy in limbo by keeping these people on life support, and pretending that they’re “protecting the family home”.

What’s the big deal? Some kind of debt forgiveness, you lose the house, and you move on and start again without the millstone around your neck. OR you stay put for the next 30 years in debt slavery. Irish people need to cop on and get some kind of financial literacy.