# Ways To Entice a Bank To Accept a Sale on a Property In Negative Equity?



## Peter54 (1 Oct 2013)

Hi

I have a cash buyer who is interested in purchasing my heavily indebted home.  NE €200,000.00 plus some.

I am anxious for the bank to accept the offer as I do not see a stampede of people knocking my door down to purchase. 

I have now ceased mortgage payments to the bank (yes I know . . . but desperate people call for desperate measures) because the bank would not accept my reduced payment offer (it's all that I could afford) so I thought if these guys weren't playing ball then why should I.  I simply do not have the money they are looking for.

If they allow the sale of the property they want me to take the NE on as another loan.  Again I simply cannot afford to repay it at the moment.

Is there any way in explaining to the bank that they should allow the sale go through? and is there any way I could make the offer look as attractive as possible i.e offer to repay x amount of NE per month after sale.

Folks, any ideas please?


----------



## Gerry Canning (1 Oct 2013)

My views are subject to what you have told me;
firstly; pay what you can reasonably afford on the mortgage, it shows you to be reasonable.
secondly; if you feel sale is your best option , agree to sell and to take on a loan.
thirdly; when sale etc is completed do a review of your positon and take it from there. 
If THEN you are still not able to realistically repay the loan , go to the Bank and try for resolution.
If no resolution it looks like you will have to go to on personal insolvency.and or bankruptcy.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (1 Oct 2013)

Tough one.

Have you asked the bank in advance for permission to sell?  

If they do agree to the sale, you have to sign the document agreeing to pay the negative equity. There is no disadvantage to signing this, it is just confirming to you the legal situation. It does not increase your legal liabilities. 

Not sure why you stopped paying altogether?  You should pay what you can afford, unless you are saving up for a PIA or Debt Settlement Arrangement, which would be fair enough. 

Is the offer reasonable? Are you connected with the buyer? Did an independent auctioneer find the buyer? Are they recommending a sale at this price? 

If they refuse the offer, then you should consider handing them back the keys and letting them get a higher offer. 

Brendan


----------



## Peter54 (1 Oct 2013)

Thank you Gerry.

Should I take on the full NE loan or would it be cheeky on my part to ask for a part write down of the NE portion or do I simply keep my mouth shut and accept the NE loan so the bank releases deeds to perspective buyer?

They have offered me the option of a split mortgage but I am unable to meet the repayment on the split.  It is still way too expensive.  I have offered them a reasonable figure but they have refused so I think sale is the only option I have left.

They have accused me of being unreasonable but every month I would hand them my earnings but it still wasn't enough so I ended up not paying them anything.


----------



## Peter54 (1 Oct 2013)

Hi Brendan

I stopped paying the mortgage all together because what I was paying them was not enough.  I am also trying to gather up money in case I need to rent.

The offer is in keeping with the values in the area.  
Auctioneer found the buyer and have recommended the offer should be accepted.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (1 Oct 2013)

Peter54 said:


> I stopped paying the mortgage all together because what I was paying them was not enough.



Sorry, that makes no sense at all. So you are happy enough to be living rent and mortgage free at the moment?  That is unreasonable. 




> I am also trying to gather up money in case I need to rent.



You only need to save up the deposit and one month's rent maximum.

I don't agree with your strategic defaulting on your mortgage. You should continue to pay what you can, with the small exception of putting together a small deposit. 

To answer the question, I don't think that this is the right strategy to "entice the bank to accept a sale". 

You may be applying for a DSA or a PIA. You should be able to argue that you behaved reasonably at all times. You don't sound reasonable to me.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (1 Oct 2013)

I see you started a discussion on this before, but didn't continue it.

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=171145

Brendan


----------



## Peter54 (1 Oct 2013)

Hi Brendan,

Re-reading what I wrote looks juvenile but I have been told that they are going for repossession shortly anyway so I don't feel inclined to pay anything to them at all.  

My quality of life is practically nil anyway.  I know what I have just said is annoying to some people but believe me I did not set out to default.  I offered the bank the amount I could afford each month and they flatly turned me down.  The figure they quoted me for _for _ a split mortgage is also not payable.  I don't earn it.

I do not mean to sound smart mouthed but please give me the pros of paying what I can when the bank wont accept my offer and will seek repossession anyway.  My good behavior is not going to go for me in this case I don't believe.

I have always been most reasonable but I am deflated in my dealings with the bank, that at all times amount to nothing.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (2 Oct 2013)

Peter54 said:


> I do not mean to sound smart mouthed but please give me the pros of paying what I can when the bank wont accept my offer and will seek repossession anyway.



You have a home. 
You should be paying rent or mortgage interest for it. You should not be living rent-free.

This is pure strategic default, which so many people deny exists. 
So, legally and morally, you should be paying for your accommodation. 

Practically, I think it's a good idea to show that you are reasonable. But I might be naive on this.  

Brendan


----------



## cremeegg (2 Oct 2013)

Brendan,

This OP cannot avoid repossession and cannot pay the NE loan that will be left after repossession.

How would he be better off if he made some mortgage payments to the bank now.

If in the 12 months before repossession he paid the bank €10,000 he would be €10,000 worse off after repossession.

You say legally he should pay, well obviously when he doesn't pay the law will take its course and he will suffer the consequences. He will loose his home and his credit rating, but those consequences will be no worse because he paid nothing to his mortgage in the period before repossession.

You say that morally he should pay something. As an opinion that is fine but you put forward no argument to support it., No where have I seen any such argument that goes beyond "he borrowed so he should pay" to address the broader issues.

For a counter argument, how many instance have we seen here where people who make every effort to pay are still repossessed by the banks with not even a thank you.


----------



## Peter54 (2 Oct 2013)

Hi Cremeegg,

I completely agree with your post.  Without a doubt the consequences will be the same for me whether I pay what I have now or pay nothing at all.  The bank have flat out refused my offer of payment to stay in the property.  

I presume I am going to be landed with the legal bills of the bank too.  Some form of a nest egg is going to be required as I may have no choice but to travel overseas.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (2 Oct 2013)

cremeegg said:


> You say that morally he should pay something. As an opinion that is fine but you put forward no argument to support it., No where have I seen any such argument that goes beyond "he borrowed so he should pay" to address the broader issues.



I really don't see what further argument you need. If adults enter into an agreement, they should attempt to keep that agreement. If people borrow money, they should pay that money back.  

We live in a Society. We should attempt to live by a set of reasonable rules. You don't steal. You keep your word. etc. 



> how many instance have we seen here where people who make every effort to pay are still repossessed by the banks with not even a thank you.



There have been very few repossessions in Ireland. I have no personal direct experience of anyone who has made, even a basic effort, being repossessed.  

What we are getting now is a raft of letters telling people that they should voluntarily sell their home as their mortgage is unsustainable.  Many of these people are doing their best to pay their mortgage and should not have received the letters, but the banks were forced to send them by the Central Bank's stupid Targets Regime. 

Brendan


----------



## commonsense (2 Oct 2013)

cremeegg said:


> Brendan,
> 
> This OP cannot avoid repossession and cannot pay the NE loan that will be left after repossession.
> 
> ...



Leaving the legal and moral issues aside for a moment. Do you agree that people should pay for their accommodation if they can? 

Do you see nothing wrong with any person (not specifically the OP) with someone living mortgage free and using the money that should be paid to live in that property as a "nest egg" to rent somewhere else?

Do you not realise the implications of this behaviour? 
I can understand people's frustrations towards the banks - but this example, if followed by everyone in difficulty only exposes the taxpayer to more debt.

You both say that the banks behaviour is unreasonable, yet the OP could afford to pay something off his mortgage each month and he should have done this, not only to repay his debt, but to pay for where he lives.


----------



## orka (2 Oct 2013)

cremeegg said:


> How would he be better off if he made some mortgage payments to the bank now.


You just mean financially better off don't you?  It is a morality issue.  You could as easily say a thief is better off if he steals something - does that make it okay?  Living effectively rent-free when you can afford to pay something is a form of theft.  You think that's okay - many people don't agree.


----------



## cremeegg (2 Oct 2013)

The points raised are on a moral basis. Commonsense asks "do you see nothing wrong" that is a moral question. There is nothing wrong with asking a moral question, but that is the basis of your post.

Morality is personal. The Law is applied morality that society puts in place to regulate our dealings with each other.

Why not steal? Because it is morally unacceptable to you? Thats fine, thats admirable! But if you do steal the law will send you to prison. That is the rule society has put in place.

If the OP does not pay anything to his mortgage in the period before repossession he will suffer no legal consequences. That is the law society has put in place. You may think that the law should be different, but we must obey the law not other peoples moral concepts.

Commonsense also asks what are the consequences? We are living in the consequences. People unable to pay their mortgages. New mortgage credit more difficult to find. Unemployment through the roof. 

My moral sense tells me that when you say "If people borrow money, they should pay that money back. " You are only looking at half the picture.

If you want to make a convincing argument you must address the issue of the Irish property market in 2006 having been a pyramid scheme. Banks borrowed money from abroad to lend purchasers to buy from developers that banks lent money to buy from landowners.

We ALL took part in the pyramid scheme, even if we didn't understand it. Even people on social welfare who received 3 times the dole that is available in NI.

When the music stopped some of us escaped lightly, some of us were left holding the baby. The moral case that people who bought property in 2006 have to pay a bigger share than people who bought in 2002 say is weak. That is the further argument I would like to see Brendan.


----------



## commonsense (2 Oct 2013)

cremeegg said:


> The points raised are on a moral basis. Commonsense asks "do you see nothing wrong" that is a moral question. There is nothing wrong with asking a moral question, but that is the basis of your post.



What I said was:
"Leaving the legal and moral issues aside for a moment. Do you agree that people should pay for their accommodation if they can? "

I specifically said to leave morality and even legality aside to hear your opinion. 



cremeegg said:


> Morality is personal. The Law is applied morality that society puts in place to regulate our dealings with each other.



But what is your opinion?




cremeegg said:


> Commonsense also asks what are the consequences? We are living in the consequences. People unable to pay their mortgages. New mortgage credit more difficult to find. Unemployment through the roof.



No, sorry I didn't. I said  :"Do you not realise the implications of this behaviour? The issues you outline above are not the implications I am talking about. 




cremeegg said:


> My moral sense tells me that when you say "If people borrow money, they should pay that money back. " You are only looking at half the picture.



Unfortunately that is going around the issue. 





cremeegg said:


> If you want to make a convincing argument you must address the issue of the Irish property market in 2006 having been a pyramid scheme. Banks borrowed money from abroad to lend purchasers to buy from developers that banks lent money to buy from landowners.



it's been addressed to death.



cremeegg said:


> We ALL took part in the pyramid scheme, even if we didn't understand it. Even people on social welfare who received 3 times the dole that is available in NI.



And if we all partook then we should all be responsible. 



cremeegg said:


> When the music stopped some of us escaped lightly, some of us were left holding the baby. The moral case that people who bought property in 2006 have to pay a bigger share than people who bought in 2002 say is weak. That is the further argument I would like to see Brendan.


 
Why compare someone who bought property in 2002 and is fulfilling their moral and legal obligation with someone who isn't?


----------



## ClaireM (2 Oct 2013)

You have said the bank have offered you a split but you can't afford it. Surely the offer has to be based on your Standard Financial Statement and the Reasonable Living Expenses

Are you really going to be any better off renting after your house has been sold/repossessed? Will the rent be less than you would pay under the split mortgage.

If you try to get a Debt Settlement Arrangement on the unsecured debt after a repossession/sale it will still be based on your Standard Financial Statement and Reasonable Living Expenses?


----------



## Billo (2 Oct 2013)

cremeegg said:


> you must address the issue of the Irish property market in 2006 having been a pyramid scheme. Banks borrowed money from abroad to lend purchasers to buy from developers that banks lent money to buy from landowners.
> 
> We ALL took part in the pyramid scheme.



I wish people would stop saying that we all took part in the scheme.
It is not true.
Only a certain number took part(for their own reasons).

The problem is that we are all being forced to suffer the consequences.


----------



## Peter54 (2 Oct 2013)

ClaireM said:


> You have said the bank have offered you a split but you can't afford it. Surely the offer has to be based on your Standard Financial Statement and the Reasonable Living Expenses
> 
> Are you really going to be any better off renting after your house has been sold/repossessed? Will the rent be less than you would pay under the split mortgage.
> 
> If you try to get a Debt Settlement Arrangement on the unsecured debt after a repossession/sale it will still be based on your Standard Financial Statement and Reasonable Living Expenses?



Hi Claire, no the split mortgage is not based on SFS and reasonable living expenses it is based on the figure the bank is desired to accept.  That is why I am unable to meet my payment.  I have offered them all of what I can afford according to my SFS and this has been turned down.

I offered the bank a monthly figure that represents the rent received in the area and they most definitely are not accepting it.


----------



## commonsense (2 Oct 2013)

Peter54 said:


> Hi Claire, no the split mortgage is not based on SFS and reasonable living expenses it is based on the figure the bank is desired to accept.  That is why I am unable to meet my payment.  I have offered them all of what I can afford according to my SFS and this has been turned down.
> 
> I offered the bank a monthly figure that represents the rent received in the area and they most definitely are not accepting it.



Peter do you wish to keep the house? Because if you do then it would be in your best interests to pay something, anything, off the mortgage each month.
By paying nothing at all you are making it very difficult for the banks to meet you somewhere in the middle. 

There is nothing stopping you from lodging the amount you can afford each month - regardless of what they say, at least it will show a willingness to engage,


----------



## Gerry Canning (2 Oct 2013)

Peter54.
If what you can reasonably afford equates to rent in area,then just make sure you pay that on time every time. It leaves you NO worse off.
If that sum comes in at what would be judged as fair ,it would be difficult for bank to repo.
with no payment you are a sitting duck !
Ask them to re-review split mortgage. 
I do not know the figures but since they offered a split ,both you and them have hope of resolution.


----------



## cremeegg (3 Oct 2013)

Billo said:


> I wish people would stop saying that we all took part in the scheme.
> It is not true.
> Only a certain number took part(for their own reasons).
> 
> The problem is that we are all being forced to suffer the consequences.



You say it is not true that we all took part in the scheme (the property bubble), but you do not put forward any argument for this opinion.

My opinion is that we ALL did take part in it. Here are some some arguments to support that opinion.

In 2005 public spending in Ireland increased by 10.7%, 2006 10.9%, 2007 the increase was 12.8%. See http://per.gov.ie/expenditure-trends/ for more details.

We ALL enjoyed the benefits of this, higher social welfare, higher public sector salaries, extra jobs in construction, more money in peoples pockets to spend in private businesses. 

The huge increases were entirely funded by taxes on the building boom.

We took the loot, we reelected the government that oversaw the whole thing, opposition parties were encouraging MORE public spending not less.

We are ALL to blame


----------



## cremeegg (3 Oct 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> ..If adults enter into an agreement, they should attempt to keep that agreement. If people borrow money, they should pay that money back.
> 
> Brendan



I think this is simplistic in the context of the current state of the country in general and the OPs situation in particular.

People borrowed money from the banks to buy property (whether homes to live in or as an investment), in a property market which had been rigged by those same banks.

An argument needs to be developed to respond to that situation. I don't claim to have the answer, but if I were in the OPS situation I would not make any payments while awaiting repossession.


----------



## Bronte (3 Oct 2013)

Peter54 said:


> The bank have flat out refused my offer of payment to stay in the property.
> 
> I presume I am going to be landed with the legal bills of the bank too. Some form of a nest egg is going to be required as I may have no choice but to travel overseas.


 
Without going into morals, I think a person is right to create a fund to go renting or to go to the UK for bankruptcy or a new job. This is because most people will have done their upmost to try and repay back that which they owe, and will have used all their savings or worse borrowed from credit cards or friends in the vain hope of a solution.. 

Peter, it looks to me the real problem is that you are servicing unsecured borrowings rather than your mortgage. Your investment property seemed to be doing fine. 

Can you actually tell us what you want as this is not at all clear. If you want the bank to agree to the sale, well there's nothing you can do to persuade them. It apparently takes them ages to make a decision and meanwhile the buyers give up. 

If you do get a sale, and the condition is for you to sign up to a NE loan, I would do that. After the sale has gone through, you can then look at the figures, based on your rent and other expenses and you could then decided what action to take then. Don't worry about 'signing' for the NE loan, you already owe it anyway.

I think you would get a better answer if you fully outlined what your financial situation and marital status is.  It's very hard to give advice on one particular question if posters don't give full details.


----------



## cremeegg (3 Oct 2013)

In the coming year we are likely to see family homes being repossessed, and screaming mothers and distraught children on the TV. We will be invited to disapprove of their eviction, to join protests against these evictions.

I will probably not be tempted to join these protests, but I would not expect the evictees to make mortgage repayments in the months leading up to the eviction.


----------



## Bronte (3 Oct 2013)

Morals and banks.  That's an interesting concept.  What is quite clear from this crisis is that banks are inept, cruel, unkind, exceedingly slow to acknowledge the problems, useless at solutions and burying their head in the sand for many years now.  And I suppose morally, they could be blamed for a lot of suicides, heartache and breakups.  But they couldn't care less.


----------



## cremeegg (3 Oct 2013)

commonsense said:


> What I said was:
> "Leaving the legal and moral issues aside for a moment. Do you agree that people should pay for their accommodation if they can? "
> 
> I specifically said to leave morality and even legality aside to hear your opinion.
> ...



My opinion is that the OP should not make any mortgage payments while waiting to be repossessed.




commonsense said:


> No, sorry I didn't. I said  :"Do you not realise the implications of this behaviour? The issues you outline above are not the implications I am talking about.



OK, what are the implication you are talking about?




commonsense said:


> Why compare someone who bought property in 2002 and is fulfilling their moral and legal obligation with someone who isn't?



It is more difficult for someone who borrowed to buy property in 2006 to fulfil their obligations because they bought in a rigged market, this was not the case in 2002.


----------



## cremeegg (3 Oct 2013)

Bronte said:


> Morals and banks.  That's an interesting concept.  What is quite clear from this crisis is that banks are inept, cruel, unkind, exceedingly slow to acknowledge the problems, useless at solutions and burying their head in the sand for many years now.  And I suppose morally, they could be blamed for a lot of suicides, heartache and breakups.  But they couldn't care less.



Come on Bronte, step off the fence, come in to the Bright side.

What is your opinion, should the OP make mortgage repayments while waiting to be repossessed.


----------



## Bronte (3 Oct 2013)

cremeegg said:


> Come on Bronte, step off the fence, come in to the Bright side.
> 
> What is your opinion, should the OP make mortgage repayments while waiting to be repossessed.


 
I think that the OP should make that decision himself. I won't make it for him. I will tell you this cremeegg, I've never not paid anything back, but I'm not going to judge others for what they do, not when it comes to banks. And I'll always believe that at the end of the day the individual has to make the best decision for themselves. I'm also a realist and I recognise that most people are going to build up a nest egg. We've had that debate on here before.  There is no way I'm going to tell a man to go to the UK with a family were zero money.

Most bankers realise this too, as they force/entice people to rack up other debt or use their savings to pay down mortgage. But we never hear that side of it.  Or the morals of that.  Moral hazzard and all those buzz words, strategic default, they only seem to apply one way.  Not to Anglo as they lied to the government picking a number out of their .......  Those guys aren't on here on AAM looking for advice, nor will they ever be.  

Don't get me started on banks.  There's a woman on another thread in a right mess which I'm more concerned about.  Solo against a bank.  No legal aid, and being told nonsense by a solicitor and a banker, and so confused, with no help.


----------



## orka (3 Oct 2013)

cremeegg said:


> You say it is not true that we all took part in the scheme (the property bubble), ...
> My opinion is that we ALL did take part in it.
> ...public spending in Ireland increased by 10.7%, 2006 10.9%, 2007 the increase was 12.8%.
> ...We ALL enjoyed the benefits of this, higher social welfare, higher public sector salaries, extra jobs in construction, more money in peoples pockets to spend in private businesses.
> ...


You seem to be rolling up participation, benefit and blame into one big mass and saying 'we all took part in IT'.  It was difficult to avoid the short-term benefits of eg tax reductions, increases in social welfare etc. - but that doesn't mean that the recipient of the benefit was an active cheerleader for anything - and certainly not everyone shares the blame.  

Not everyone lost the run of themselves on cheap credit.  Re-elections are not by 100% of voters - there were certainly people opposed to the largesse but they were outvoted by a short-sighted majority - so how can you say EVERYONE is to blame (actually to blame, not just that they benefitted)?


----------



## Bronte (3 Oct 2013)

orka said:


> - so how can you say EVERYONE is to blame (actually to blame, not just that they benefitted)?


 
The one place we can use the word everyone is that everyone is paying for the mess.  

I wish we could start getting people out of the mess and society back on a more steady footing.


----------



## cremeegg (3 Oct 2013)

Bronte said:


> I think that the OP should make that decision himself. I won't make it for him. I will tell you this cremeegg, I've never not paid anything back, but I'm not going to judge others for what they do, not when it comes to banks. And I'll always believe that at the end of the day the individual has to make the best decision for themselves. I'm also a realist and I recognise that most people are going to build up a nest egg. We've had that debate on here before.  There is no way I'm going to tell a man to go to the UK with a family were zero money.
> 
> Most bankers realise this too, as they force/entice people to rack up other debt or use their savings to pay down mortgage. But we never hear that side of it.  Or the morals of that.  Moral hazzard and all those buzz words, strategic default, they only seem to apply one way.  Not to Anglo as they lied to the government picking a number out of their .......  Those guys aren't on here on AAM looking for advice, nor will they ever be.
> 
> Don't get me started on banks.  There's a woman on another thread in a right mess which I'm more concerned about.  Solo against a bank.  No legal aid, and being told nonsense by a solicitor and a banker, and so confused, with no help.



The situation of the woman on the other thread is similar to the OP here, she cannot pay her mortgage and she will ultimately be repossessed.

Your reply Bronte, to her on that thread was excellent and she was indeed hearing nonsense from her solicitor and bank manager. And no doubt paying her solicitor for it.

However in the time between now and her being repossessed, maybe 3 years should she pay the bank what she can afford each month.

Obviously at the end of the day that is her decision.

However none of us make decisions independent of what might be called the moral background of our society.

In the past I would certainly have suggested that she pay what she can. As Brendan points out; She borrowed the money and she is living in the house.

In todays climate the net effect of her paying what she can afford each month will simply be that she will be out that money. She cannot pay even IO on her mortgage, and will eventually be repossessed.

She must make her own decision, but I am willing to say that I think she should keep her money in the mean time.


----------



## commonsense (3 Oct 2013)

cremeegg said:


> My opinion is that the OP should not make any mortgage payments while waiting to be repossessed.



So he should live free of charge. Let me ask you this. Let's say you are in the Supermarket and the person in front of you decided to just walk out without paying and the cashier added some of the items onto your bill - would you be ok with that? 

The problem with people who see no issue here is that they do not realise that they are the one's that will ultimately pay.

You and others appear to think that this is an acceptable form of "revenge" to the nasty banks. When in fact you  are supporting behaviour that we and our children will ultimately have to pay for. 



cremeegg said:


> OK, what are the implication you are talking about?



See above - debt for mere mortals doesn't simply disappear. Somebody has to pay.




cremeegg said:


> It is more difficult for someone who borrowed to buy property in 2006 to fulfil their obligations because they bought in a rigged market, this was not the case in 2002.



Really?

It could also be the case that those who bought in 2002 either remortgaged in 2006, or perhaps they used the equity to buy another property, build a kitchen, buy a car?

Unless you have statistics that just not a reasonable argument.


----------



## cremeegg (3 Oct 2013)

orka said:


> You seem to be rolling up participation, benefit and blame into one big mass and saying 'we all took part in IT'.  It was difficult to avoid the short-term benefits of eg tax reductions, increases in social welfare etc. - but that doesn't mean that the recipient of the benefit was an active cheerleader for anything - and certainly not everyone shares the blame.
> 
> Not everyone lost the run of themselves on cheap credit.  Re-elections are not by 100% of voters - there were certainly people opposed to the largesse but they were outvoted by a short-sighted majority - so how can you say EVERYONE is to blame (actually to blame, not just that they benefitted)?



It was cheap credit that propped the whole thing up. Money borrowed by the banks to finance the property industry, taxed by the government to fund public spending. Even if you never stepped inside a bank, we all lost the run of ourselves on cheap credit.

Society as a whole bought into the Celtic Tiger.

No politician campaigned on a platform opposed to it. Because we all accepted it. Did the Labour voters want less public spending, or Sinn Fein's voters. Even Fine Gael wanted more spending.

The financial regulator was asleep at the wheel. This is a democracy, he was appointed by the politicians we elected.

And the worst thing is we are still at it. Borrowing €1bn a month to keep overpaying ourselves. Except now instead of calling it "private" borrowing to finance property investment we call it public borrowing to finance a standard of living we cannot afford.


----------



## cremeegg (3 Oct 2013)

Commonsense, I do not disagree at all with your point which I hope I can summarise fairly by saying "If you borrowed it you should repay it"

However I think that we need to go beyond that to look at the context of the Irish economy and property market of 2003 to 2007.

Do you make no allowance for people who borrowed at that time, in a rigged market.

I know I bought my house in 1999 because that was the time I wanted my own house to live in long term. That was to do with purely personal factors, my kids age, school etc.

As a result my mortgage is small.

If I were maybe 5 years younger I might have been in that position in 2006 and now I might be facing repossession.

I fully recognise the implication that we will all have to pay for the losses arising from that, well actually its not all, its just taxpayers, but that is another story. I don't see it as some form of revenge on nasty banks, as you rightly point out it is not the banks who will suffer, it is the taxpayer.

I go further and recognise that this will have negative consequences for our economy for a generation.

However the OP is losing his house because he cannot repay the mortgage. If I were in his shoes I would make no payments in the meantime.


----------



## Billo (3 Oct 2013)

cremeegg said:


> You say it is not true that we all took part in the scheme (the property bubble), but you do not put forward any argument for this opinion.
> 
> My opinion is that we ALL did take part in it. Here are some some arguments to support that opinion.
> 
> ...



I for one feel that I did not take part in the property bubble. I only bought one house my PPR. I had the opportunity to buy more houses but I did not. That is a fact. 

IMHO it is where people bought multiple properties in the expectation that prices could only go up, that the main problems arose. 

I paid all my taxes. I did not take any loot. I like many others did not lose the run of myself on cheap credit.


----------



## orka (3 Oct 2013)

cremeegg said:


> Do you make no allowance for people who borrowed at that time, in a rigged market....
> However the OP is losing his house because he cannot repay the mortgage.


You have to ask yourself though - why is the OP unable to pay his mortgage?  It can't just be because of your perceived 'rigged' market.  He has an underperforming investment property and 95K of non-mortgage debt - these are also significant differences from your 'lucky to have bought in 1999' situation.  The OP's income has also undoubtedly reduced from when he bought his properties so again it is not the 'rigged' property market that is to blame there.  Plenty of people bought in the 'rigged' property market and are managing to service their debts despite general tax increases, paycuts etc.



			
				cremeegg said:
			
		

> Even if you never stepped inside a bank, we all lost the run of ourselves on cheap credit.


Nope. I'm really pretty sure I didn't.


----------



## commonsense (3 Oct 2013)

cremeegg said:


> Commonsense, I do not disagree at all with your point which I hope I can summarise fairly by saying "If you borrowed it you should repay it"



That's actually not what I am saying because for many people they simply don't have it and have no prospect of having it in the immediate future, if at all.

This person can pay something, even if it is equal to the rent in that area. You have to pay something for the roof over your head.




cremeegg said:


> However I think that we need to go beyond that to look at the context of the Irish economy and property market of 2003 to 2007. Do you make no allowance for people who borrowed at that time, in a rigged market.



If by allowance you mean should they get write - offs, it's not that simple, the fact is that somebody has to pay and we simply can't afford it. Households have to much debt, the state has too much debt - if we want solidarity then those who can pay should.  



cremeegg said:


> If I were maybe 5 years younger I might have been in that position in 2006 and now I might be facing repossession.



I wouldn't like to be in that position myself - but I still wouldn't expect to live for free. 




cremeegg said:


> I fully recognise the implication that we will all have to pay for the losses arising from that, well actually its not all, its just taxpayers, but that is another story. I don't see it as some form of revenge on nasty banks, as you rightly point out it is not the banks who will suffer, it is the taxpayer.



And the depositors, education, health and the vulnerable in society. 



cremeegg said:


> I go further and recognise that this will have negative consequences for our economy for a generation.



For generations. 



cremeegg said:


> However the OP is losing his house because he cannot repay the mortgage. If I were in his shoes I would make no payments in the meantime.



If he can't pay it then why doesn't he move out and rent and let the banks sell it for what they can and try to negotiate a deal with them? 

I think that many people still have their heads in the sand to be honest, the position for some seems to be that they want to keep the home, keep the tracker and have a mortgage equal to today's market price. In other words they want to live as if they never made the mistake they made, while everyone else pays for it - that isn't fair to me.


----------



## cremeegg (3 Oct 2013)

Okra,

Rather than pointing at other people, here is how I lost the run of myself on cheap credit during the boom, without ever stepping inside a bank.

I worked for a private company in the construction industry, not a builder and not on house building.

Many of the projects we worked on were public buildings, financed entirely by the government on the taxes it levied from the construction industry, i.e. borrowed money cheap credit. There were too many of them, I believe that we built more Garda stations in the 2000s than in the entire previous history of the state. And they were vastly over spec'd, I can show you the €40,000 toilet bowl in a public building in Ireland. I have the invoice as a souvenir.

If it wasn't for the government spending the fruits of the boom, half of the company's staff would not have had jobs in Ireland, and the other half would have been working for a lot lower wages.

The new car I bought in 2006 was entirely financed by cheap credit. I didn't borrow the money I saved up for it, but my wages were financed by cheap credit.

So were every one else's.


----------



## cremeegg (3 Oct 2013)

Commonsense,

The costs are enormous and the costs are being borne by everybody. But not by everybody equally.

The OP here and Singmom on another current thread, lost the deposit on their houses and are losing their homes as well.

As members of society they will also suffer along with the rest of us.

I think that making mortgage payments while the wait to be repossessed is uncalled for. You can be sure that many more cynical people are not doing so.

On the other point as to who pays, I do think that it is just the taxpayer and future taxpayers.

Total govt spending in 2013 excluding interest costs is budgeted at €54.6m in 2003 it was €38.4 m. No one is loosing out through reduced Govt spending.


----------



## commonsense (3 Oct 2013)

cremeegg said:


> Commonsense,
> 
> The costs are enormous and the costs are being borne by everybody. But not by everybody equally.



How are people strategically defaulting bearing the costs? And by that I mean the future costs? 



cremeegg said:


> The OP here and Singmom on another current thread, lost the deposit on their houses and are losing their homes as well.




I have said this before in another thread - they had to pay to live somewhere, this is a cost that cannot be "excluded" in such calculations. 



cremeegg said:


> I think that making mortgage payments while the wait to be repossessed is uncalled for. You can be sure that many more cynical people are not doing so.



Again though why should some people have a roof over there head free of charge (to them only)? And why shouldn't cynical people do it - it's apparantly an accepted practice. Maybe some people are going on holidays, maybe some people are paying for private schools for their children? 



cremeegg said:


> On the other point as to who pays, I do think that it is just the taxpayer and future taxpayers.



We do not have the money. All of the emotive arguments and who bought what, when and where is not going to change that.  



cremeegg said:


> Total govt spending in 2013 excluding interest costs is budgeted at €54.6m in 2003 it was €38.4 m. No one is loosing out through reduced Govt spending.



I'm not sure I get your point here?


----------



## cremeegg (3 Oct 2013)

Quote:
Originally Posted by cremeegg  
I fully recognise the implication that we will all have to pay for the losses arising from that, well actually its not all, its just taxpayers, but that is another story. I don't see it as some form of revenge on nasty banks, as you rightly point out it is not the banks who will suffer, it is the taxpayer.

Originally Posted by Commonsense  
And the depositors, education, health and the vulnerable in society. 

My point here is that education, health, and social welfare continue to be funded at Celtic Tiger levels.

The economic crisis has not lead to reduced public spending, the cost is being borne by taxpayers not those dependant on public spending


----------



## commonsense (3 Oct 2013)

cremeegg said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by cremeegg
> I fully recognise the implication that we will all have to pay for the losses arising from that, well actually its not all, its just taxpayers, but that is another story. I don't see it as some form of revenge on nasty banks, as you rightly point out it is not the banks who will suffer, it is the taxpayer.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not sure I fully get your point, but I will say this, we still have celtic tiger expenditure, agree, but's it's being funded on borrowed money.


----------



## cremeegg (3 Oct 2013)

commonsense said:


> I'm not sure I fully get your point, but I will say this, we still have celtic tiger expenditure, agree, but's it's being funded on borrowed money.



Exactly. 

My point is that "education, health and the vulnerable in society" are not losing out, because we are borrowing to pay for these things.

It is the tax payer and future tax payers who will pay


----------



## commonsense (3 Oct 2013)

cremeegg said:


> Exactly.
> 
> My point is that "education, health and the vulnerable in society" are not losing out, because we are borrowing to pay for these things.
> 
> It is the tax payer and future tax payers who will pay



Of course they are losing out. There have been cuts to the disabled, carers etc, education budgets have been cut, SNA'a have been cut. There have been major cuts in health. 

If you borrow then you have to repay it. Your figure excluded the "interest payments". Why?

Edit to clarify - if the Government borrows then it has to repay it.


----------



## orka (3 Oct 2013)

cremeegg said:


> here is how I lost the run of myself on cheap credit during the boom, without ever stepping inside a bank.
> 
> I worked for a private company in the construction industry, not a builder and not on house building.
> 
> ...


It's quite arrogant to assume you know everyone's circumstances - how can you?

Well, here’s how I didn’t (IMHO) lose the run of myself on cheap credit during the boom, without ever stepping inside a bank:
I work in Ireland for a non-EU company. My colleagues are scattered around the world, living wherever they want to live. I could live and work from Outer Mongolia for all my employer would care. The work is 100% unconnected with Ireland and almost entirely unconnected with the EU. I just happen to live here, get paid here and pay my taxes here. The business is a quirky one which has never required loans – cheap or otherwise.

My standard of living has been fairly stable from before the boom, through the boom and now post-boom – although things are definitely a bit tighter now with higher taxes (and having older children now doesn't help either). My most recent (and only current) borrowing was for my family home in the late 1990s. [Slight digression: It’s not that long ago but when we bought our house, all we had were a few bits of hand-me-down furniture and we lived with the hideous 1960s/70s decor for quite a long time until we could afford to do things up a bit – quite a different approach to many of the boom buyers who would get a bit extra because, horrors, who would want to live in anything but a beautifully done up house – and sure, weren’t they worth it?]

I had plenty of credit and investment opportunities during the boom years but didn’t avail of any because the numbers just didn’t stack up. My income (and the equity in my existing house) would have justified a trade-up to a bigger/better house (and sure, wasn’t I worth it?), but I wouldn’t have been able to sleep at night with a big mortgage relative to income even though repayments looked totally manageable. My car is over 10 years old – I’m not a car person so I don’t really care – it’s well maintained and it gets me from A to B. 

So, do tell – where did I lose the run of myself on cheap credit during the boom?


----------



## cremeegg (3 Oct 2013)

commonsense said:


> Of course they are losing out. There have been cuts to the disabled, carers etc, education budgets have been cut, SNA'a have been cut. There have been major cuts in health.
> 
> If you borrow then you have to repay it. Your figure excluded the "interest payments". Why?
> 
> Edit to clarify - if the Government borrows then it has to repay it.



Whatever cuts there have been have not come about because we are spending less, we are not spending less, we are spending more.

The figure excludes interest to illustrate this point. Govt spending with interest included has gone way up, but even when you exclude interest government spending has gone up.

To particularise even more, spending on 

Health in 2003 was €9.3bn the revised estimate for 2013 is €14.02bn

Education & Skills 2003 €5.8bn, 2013 revised estimate €8.5bn


----------



## cremeegg (3 Oct 2013)

Just to be a complete nerd about it 

The dept of Agriculture in 2003 spent €1.23bn and in 2013 spent €1.23bn. No increase there.

The point being that education health and social protection have not suffered. They are still being funded at Celtic Tiger levels.

Here is the link. http://per.gov.ie/expenditure-trends/

There is a further link at the bottom that gives details by dept.


----------



## commonsense (3 Oct 2013)

cremeegg said:


> Just to be a complete nerd about it
> 
> The dept of Agriculture in 2003 spent €1.23bn and in 2013 spent €1.23bn. No increase there.
> 
> ...



I take your points, they are very valid. But on top of this you are advocating that people default on their mortgages, meaning that the taxpayer pays more, yet you can clearly see the pressure the state is already under to provide services such as health and education. 

The only way to bring public spending down is to reduce benefits, reduce social welfare and increase taxes. Is that a fair assessment?


----------



## commonsense (3 Oct 2013)

orka said:


> It's quite arrogant to assume you know everyone's circumstances - how can you?
> 
> Well, here’s how I didn’t (IMHO) lose the run of myself on cheap credit during the boom, without ever stepping inside a bank:
> I work in Ireland for a non-EU company. My colleagues are scattered around the world, living wherever they want to live. I could live and work from Outer Mongolia for all my employer would care. The work is 100% unconnected with Ireland and almost entirely unconnected with the EU. I just happen to live here, get paid here and pay my taxes here. The business is a quirky one which has never required loans – cheap or otherwise.
> ...



I think cremeegg makes a valid point tbh. While you (or I) may not have availed of cheap credit and incentives to buy property, we did pay lower taxes for example. Children's allowance was significantly increased, dole payments increased, huge incentives to invest in pensions for example.


----------



## orka (3 Oct 2013)

commonsense said:


> I think cremeegg makes a valid point tbh.


Not on this issue he doesn't.  Cremeegg's point that I am refuting here is that EVERYONE (not just most/many/some people) lost the run of themselves on cheap credit.  I know I didn't.


commonsense said:


> While you (or I) may not have availed of cheap credit and incentives to buy property, we did pay lower taxes for example. Children's allowance was significantly increased, dole payments increased, huge incentives to invest in pensions for example.


And I agree 100% with this as I mentioned in previous posts - it was hard to avoid the benefits doled out by Bertie - but there is a distinction between passive beneficiaries, active participants and 'those to blame'.  Not everyone took part in what cremeegg calls the pyramid scheme, not everyone was happy with what was being done politically and fiscally but majority rules in a democracy, and, once more with feeling, not everyone lost the run of themselves on cheap credit!


----------



## commonsense (3 Oct 2013)

orka said:


> Not on this issue he doesn't.  Cremeegg's point that I am refuting here is that EVERYONE (not just most/many/some people) lost the run of themselves on cheap credit.  I know I didn't.
> And I agree 100% with this as I mentioned in previous posts - it was hard to avoid the benefits doled out by Bertie - but there is a distinction between passive beneficiaries, active participants and 'those to blame'.  Not everyone took part in what cremeegg calls the pyramid scheme, not everyone was happy with what was being done politically and fiscally but majority rules in a democracy, and, once more with feeling, not everyone lost the run of themselves on cheap credit!



That's not my reading orka. Creemegg says: "_We ALL enjoyed the benefits of this, higher social welfare, higher public sector salaries, extra jobs in construction, more money in peoples pockets to spend in private businesses. _"


That is my interpretation of "we all took part in the pyramid scheme".

In the 2007 GE, just as the writing was on the wall, Fianna Fail secured 42% of the vote. 

There was a 67% turnout for that election.  Over 2 million people voted. The electorate wanted to retain the status quo. Crazy house prices, crazy wages, massive social welfare payments. 

If we want to have a look at any issues now, then we can't pick and choose what we would prefer to forget.


----------



## orka (3 Oct 2013)

commonsense said:


> That's not my reading orka.


Maybe if you’d let cremeegg reply himself, we would know and not have to speculate. In my opinion, cremeegg is confusing participation, benefit and blame and saying that everyone is ‘to blame’.

This particular discussion-within-a-thread started with my reply to cremeegg’s post 22, some of which you have just quoted





cremeegg said:


> My opinion is that we ALL did take part in it. ...





cremeegg said:


> We ALL enjoyed the benefits of this, higher social welfare, higher public sector salaries, extra jobs in construction, more money in peoples pockets to spend in private businesses. ...We took the loot, we reelected the government that oversaw the whole thing, opposition parties were encouraging MORE public spending not less.
> 
> We are ALL to blame


My reply at post 30 disagreeing that EVERYONE was to blame: 





orka said:


> You seem to be rolling up participation, benefit and blame into one big mass and saying 'we all took part in IT'. It was difficult to avoid the short-term benefits of eg tax reductions, increases in social welfare etc. - but that doesn't mean that the recipient of the benefit was an active cheerleader for anything - and certainly not everyone shares the blame.





orka said:


> Not everyone lost the run of themselves on cheap credit. Re-elections are not by 100% of voters - there were certainly people opposed to the largesse but they were outvoted by a short-sighted majority - so how can you say EVERYONE is to blame (actually to blame, not just that they benefitted)?


Cremeegg disagreed – saying that we ALL lost the run of ourselves on cheap credit (post 34):





cremeegg said:


> It was cheap credit that propped the whole thing up. Money borrowed by the banks to finance the property industry, taxed by the government to fund public spending. *Even if you never stepped inside a bank, we all lost the run of ourselves on cheap credit.*


To which I replied (post 37)





orka said:


> Nope. I'm really pretty sure I didn't.(_lose the run of myself on cheap credit_)


Cremeegg then attempted to educate me about how an everyman such as himself lost the run of himself on cheap credit without ever stepping inside a bank (post 39)





cremeegg said:


> Rather than pointing at other people, here is how I lost the run of myself on cheap credit during the boom, without ever stepping inside a bank.





cremeegg said:


> .
> .
> ... *my wages were financed by cheap credit.*
> 
> *So were every one else's*.


To which I replied, taking exception to him assuming he knows how everyone’s wages were financed and how everyone lost the run of themselves with cheap credit (we were long past other benefits of the boom at this stage) – post 46:





orka said:


> It's quite arrogant to assume you know everyone's circumstances - how can you?





orka said:


> Well, here’s how I didn’t (IMHO) lose the run of myself on cheap credit during the boom, without ever stepping inside a bank:
> ...
> So, do tell – where did I lose the run of myself on cheap credit during the boom?


At which point you stepped in to say that cremeegg just meant that everybody benefitted. If cremeegg would like to confirm that he meant everybody benefitted but not everybody is to blame and not everybody lost the run of themselves with cheap credit, that would be most excellent as we can all agree and I can desist from mortal combat which is enjoyable but time-consuming...


----------



## Luternau (3 Oct 2013)

Going way off topic of OP here-suggest letting off steam is the place for this debate!



cremeegg said:


> My opinion is that we ALL did take part in it. Here are some some arguments to support that opinion.
> 
> We ALL enjoyed the benefits of this, higher social welfare, higher public sector salaries, extra jobs in construction, more money in peoples pockets to spend in private businesses.
> 
> ...



My two cent:
That is total nonsense. Benefiting from some decision taken by others does not mean you are to blame when the whole thing goes bang because of those decisions!

There are loads of examples that many people did not benefit at all. Wages went up, taxes went down, but the cost of living kept rising, even for essential food items. Are the people that bought these items to be blamed for the price inflation?


----------



## dodo (3 Oct 2013)

Peter, think you have done all you can to be honest and some person at a desk with a PC just ignores options you give them. Banks have already written down millions of euro so why not this be your write down as I know many bank workers who have told me this and they advise their own friends ,family on how to go about same process you tryng to do.As in they get first option and then expect others not to get same treatment as them. So do what is best for you and dont listen to the moral brigade as they really are starting to sound boring. These things happen in life and people will say tax payers must pay dept, remember you are a tax payer to. So maybe UK your best option, best of luck


----------



## cremeegg (5 Oct 2013)

commonsense said:


> The only way to bring public spending down is to reduce benefits, reduce social welfare and increase taxes. Is that a fair assessment?



That is certainly necessary but we could reduce public sector pay first. 

irish academics earn more than twice the European average, hospital consultants earn a MINIMUM of €215k per annum, and so on through the public sector.

It is probably better to reduce the pay of academics earning 3 times the rate of their British counterparts before reducing the dole of those receiving 3 times the rate of their counterparts.

And just to round out the point, if we do not do this voluntarily now it will be forced on us in the years to come, we simply will not have the money.

If we don't act now. Ireland's position in future will be like that of Greece today


----------



## cremeegg (5 Oct 2013)

orka said:


> ... it was hard to avoid the benefits doled out by Bertie - but there is a distinction between passive beneficiaries, active participants and 'those to blame'....



Is there such a distinction? Certainly it would be comforting to think so, but I think that such a distinction cannot be sustained.

Let me offer an analogy.

Maybe a group of people are together in a supermarket and some members of the group steal from the supermarket. Our hero is part of the group, but not aware of the theft in advance, and certainly does not agree to it.

Afterwards the proceeds of the theft are shared out among the group. Our hero receives some of these proceeds. Lower taxes, child benefit.

Any court would convict our hero of theft just the same as the person who actually planned the theft.

Some of us may not like the fact that we live in the same country as Bertie, but we do. 

In a democracy we are all responsible for the decisions and actions or inactions of that society.

And we all continue to be responsible for borrowing €1bn a month to fund our current standard of living. Including me, who regularly tells anyone who will listen that we should stop.


----------



## cremeegg (5 Oct 2013)

Luternau said:


> Benefiting from some decision taken by others does not mean you are to blame when the whole thing goes bang because of those decisions!



In a democracy if those "Others" are elected political leaders then we as members of that democracy are responsible.

If they are civil servants appointed to responsible positions by those politicians, (I am thinking about the financial regulator and the central bank in 2003 to 2007), them we are responsible.

We cannot be members of a democratic society and then disown the decisions produced by that democracy when we don't like them.

Don't get me started on extending that thought to the Catholic church!


----------



## Luternau (5 Oct 2013)

cremeegg said:


> In a democracy if those "Others" are elected political leaders then we as members of that democracy are responsible.
> 
> If they are civil servants appointed to responsible positions by those politicians, (I am thinking about the financial regulator and the central bank in 2003 to 2007), them we are responsible.
> 
> ...



Thats a skewed/warped view of things-and in my view, incapable of being proved. However If thats your view view, its your view. 

Regarding your supermarket case, perhaps in america they would all go down, but if a group of people go to a supermarket, and one person steals, without the knowledge of the others, no court in this country could convict them for the simple reason that there would be no evidence to convict them. The same holds for your views on liabliity for decisions/ or benefiting from decisions-there is just no evidence to support that view.


----------



## commonsense (5 Oct 2013)

Luternau said:


> Going way off topic of OP here-suggest letting off steam is the place for this debate!



We are, but I do think that there are valid points being raised so there is no reason why they can't be discussed. 





Luternau said:


> My two cent:
> That is total nonsense. Benefiting from some decision taken by others does not mean you are to blame when the whole thing goes bang because of those decisions!



I don't think it's nonsense.  People in this country were only more than willing to accept all/any benefits that derived directly from the housing bubble. 
Higher wages, lower taxes, sellers made stupid money on property, buyers had access to cheap credit, money was pumped into the HSE/education instead of the problems being solved, new roads were built that led nowhere. Child benefit majorly increased to offset ridiculously high childcare costs.

Major tax incentives to decrease the cost of buying investment property, the SSAI,tax incentives to invest in pensions.




Luternau said:


> There are loads of examples that many people did not benefit at all. Wages went up, taxes went down, but the cost of living kept rising, even for essential food items. Are the people that bought these items to be blamed for the price inflation?



But these weren't "problems" during the bubble because there was money to throw at them.

This perception that "many people" did not benefit is incorrect. You only have to look at the unemployment register to see that. It was around 4% and that is perceived as "as good as it gets", as you will never have zero unemployment for a number of reasons.


----------



## Peter54 (6 Oct 2013)

Thanks to everyone for all the replies.  

A few people have thrown around the morality card which is a sore subject with me.  Where is the morals of our Government who continue to cut, slash and steal from the very pockets of every citizen of this state?  

Where are your morals if you want to see families put out of their homes?

As Dodo mention bankruptcy maybe my only option.  Now there's an even bigger problem for the tax payer.


----------



## cremeegg (6 Oct 2013)

What happened to the entirely reasonable Peter54 who started this thread?

That Peter54 was facing the repossession/sale of his house because he couldn't pay the mortgage, and was asking if he should pay what he could afford before the house was repossessed/sold, or keep his money to save for rent/deposit on a new property.

I suggested that that Peter54 not pay toward the mortgage in the meantime so that he could rent in future and because the legal consequences seemed non-existent.

This Peter54 seems to be coming from a very different place.

As Commonsense says it is not the "nasty" banks who will suffer for your failure to repay your mortgage. It is the rest of us.

No-one wants to see families put out of their homes, but YOU borrowed the money, YOU got the house and now YOU can not pay it back.

I think that the loss of your house is sufficient consequence for this and that you should not be further pursued, but I certainly do not think that you should keep your house.

As for the morals of the Government, if they have a failing it is that they are continuing to borrow to finance a standard of living the country cannot afford. They are certainly not stealing from the pockets of the citizens, they are borrowing to stuff the pockets of the citizens.


----------



## Cantalia (7 Oct 2013)

Can I ask a question similar, my bank has refused to accept the sale of two apartments, two beds, for 60k each in Galway town. The one purchaser will buy them both for 120k. They think they can get more. Now I have to hand in my keys etc to "surrender" the property so that it can convert to unsecured debt so as to go through the insolvency process. Can I force them to sell???


----------



## Luternau (7 Oct 2013)

You are not in a strong place to force them to agree to a sale to this buyer. Maybe the bank are thinking the purchaser maybe buying at firesale prices? What are similar properies going for? Are they buying with cash? If so, they will expect them at prices lower than Market rate. If they think the price is too low, they can block the sale.


----------



## Bronte (8 Oct 2013)

Cantalia said:


> Can I ask a question similar, my bank has refused to accept the sale of two apartments,
> 
> Can I force them to sell???


 
No you cannot force them to sell. They can decide to do what they want. In your case, they have decided the price is too low.  I must say, unless that apartments are awful that does seem like a low price for a 2 bed in Galway.  It sounds like a high price if you were talking about Waterford.  Have you seen what similar properties have sold for?


----------



## Cantalia (8 Oct 2013)

I will have to do some more research on the property price register. Thanks everyone.


----------

