# Troika and the Repossession of Properties



## Gardener (11 Dec 2012)

Interesting 

[broken link removed]


----------



## Time (11 Dec 2012)

They seem to be under no hurry to bring in the personal insolvency bill.

Also I expect new beginnings to litigate any new legislation all the way to the supreme court.


----------



## Wishes (11 Dec 2012)

It's articles like this that make me grateful for the opportunity I have to emigrate next year.

I'm in the process of selling my home.  Got an offer on Friday from a cash buyer.  The sale was for €150,000.  Last year my family made an offer of €200,000 to purchase it.  The offer was turned down but they are now prepared to take a haircut and sell to strangers.  

Moral hazard my eye


----------



## Wishes (11 Dec 2012)

Time said:


> They seem to be under no hurry to bring in the personal insolvency bill.
> 
> Also I expect new beginnings to litigate any new legislation all the way to the supreme court.



And all power to New Beginning.


----------



## Delboy (11 Dec 2012)

Fr. Ted said:


> I think new beginnings has fallen to the dark side somehow, David Hall is on twitter about Alan Shatters plans to help banks at the cost of the people of Ireland and Justice.
> 
> David has a new group going gave up on new beginnings, I don't know what its called. Rossa Fanning can't seriouly work for a bank throwing a family out of its home on one day and claim a new beginning the next day.
> 
> ...



Perhaps the casino industry, for whom he is the chairman of their representative body, will help to quicken a lot of the dying pulses around the place


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Dec 2012)

Delboy said:


> Perhaps the casino industry, for whom he is the chairman of their representative body, will help to quicken a lot of the dying pulses around the place



I don't agree with David's pronouncements on mortgage arrears issues, but to give him his due, he has a good record of involvement in not for profit groups




Beaumont Hospital Foundation
Marie Keating Foundation
Make a Wish Foundation


----------



## ClubMan (12 Dec 2012)

I don't understand the outrage in response to this reported announcement. Why should a certain group of mortgage defaulters (mainly buy to let landlords perhaps as suggested by the _Indo's _report?) be treated differently to others due to some loophole? Surely it's more equitable for the same rules to apply to all. And in any case as the _Irish Times _mentions the scale of repossessions is still quite low and has actually diminished over the past year or so.


----------



## shigllgetcha (12 Dec 2012)

ClubMan said:


> I don't understand the outrage in response to this reported announcement.


 
I thought the exact same when I read this thread yesterday and wrote a reply and didnt post it in the end.

There is an unintended loophole and the troika asked us to close it. Id imagine if the insolvency bill went through the loophole would have to be closed anyway.


----------



## bugler (12 Dec 2012)

Clubman and shigllgetcha, please do not dampen down the righteous hysterics.

People should be allowed stay in their homes, or indeed retain their investment properties, forever without making any repayments. It's only fair.


----------



## Artemis (12 Dec 2012)

Nobody is suggesting people can stay in their homes or keep their investment properties without paying nothing. It is about balance. If people cooperate with the bank, sell the asset, give up their home, that should be closure, or at least closure should be in sight.
I think that 2013 will be the year when matters explode, people have had enough. I predict that somebody will be killed in the next 12 months in the course of a repossession. There are already plenty of suicides. Judging by our track record in legislating, the government will still be debating the crisis in 20 years.


----------



## Delboy (12 Dec 2012)

Artemis said:


> Nobody is suggesting people can stay in their homes or keep their investment properties without paying nothing. It is about balance. If people cooperate with the bank, sell the asset, give up their home, that should be closure, or at least closure should be in sight.



sorry to contradict you, but there's an awful lot of people on here (a lot of them being new members of AAM) who are arguing exactly for that.....borrower gets to keep their home house, their BTL's etc and get mortgage debt write off on all. They believe there should be no repossessions at all.
Read through this forum and 1 or 2 others and this will quickly become apparent


----------



## bugler (12 Dec 2012)

> Nobody is suggesting people can stay in their homes or keep their  investment properties without paying nothing. It is about balance. If  people cooperate with the bank, sell the asset, give up their home, that  should be closure, or at least closure should be in sight.



I would agree. And I think this has occurred, though not on a wide enough scale. However, most borrowers that appear in the context of contested repossessions have no interest in surrendering the asset at all, they wish to retain the property despite having paid little to nothing in repayments over a matter of years. They typically also want a debt writedown.

Any eviction case that has been reported widely has inevitably involved deceit, malice, bad faith or sometimes simple inability to honour their debts over a prolonged period of time on the part of the borrower. We had the Killiney Two who witheld rent from an extensive rental portfolio while paying nothing on the mortgage of the house; we had that Sherlock character who is a serial debt defaulter with a series of judgments made against him and his wife over the past few years; we had Eugene Dooley in Dundalk, who made negligible repayments over a number of years, including a period where the dwelling was actually rented out and rental payments were not used to make any repayment.

Inevitably those who shout loudest, and who are often the least palatable of characters, seem to profit most. And in all the cases above and others beside it there is an ignorant rent-a-mob willing to go and stand at the properties and try to frustrate lawful efforts to enforce the terms of contracts entered into willingly by grown adults.

Errors in legislation are not a desirable thing, and should be closed off as soon as practicable. I have no idea what exactly it says about our government that they have to be told by external parties to tidy up their own unfit legislation, but it isn't good.


----------



## dereko1969 (12 Dec 2012)

Fr. Ted said:


> I suppose I am one of the people Delboy’s talking about I do want to keep everything and feel totally entitled to it.
> 
> I don’t want to give anything to anyone I consider beneath contempt, liars and thieves.
> 
> ...


 
Perhaps you should explain your situation and let us know how and why you feel that debt forgiveness is appropriate in your case?


----------



## Artemis (12 Dec 2012)

Delboy said:


> sorry to contradict you, but there's an awful lot of people on here (a lot of them being new members of AAM) who are arguing exactly for that.....borrower gets to keep their home house, their BTL's etc and get mortgage debt write off on all. They believe there should be no repossessions at all.
> Read through this forum and 1 or 2 others and this will quickly become apparent


There seems to be a lot more who think people should be chased to their dying days to pay back the balance even if people give up their home. No wonder, so many choose the dole or moving abroad. 

So Delboy, can you accept the concept of reckless lending and if a bank is guilty of reckless lending, they should be held equally accountable if a loan is in trouble?


----------



## Importer (12 Dec 2012)

I dont know why people are looking for "fair play" from the banks. The banks are bust, full stop.

We all know that there is a train load of trouble coming up the track.
One in three, buy to let, properties is in trouble (my gut feeling is that the true figure is even worse). So far the banks have not dealt with this issue at all. In fact they are not able to deal with it because dealing with it will involve writing off billions of euro from their loan books at a time when their balance sheets are under capitalised. The Troika realises that this has to be dealt with and is now upping the pressure on the government and the banks to tackle non-performing loans head on.

The bottom line is that the banks will need to be recapitalised again and nobody is facing up to this. We can cry and cry about the 65 billion that has been poured into the banks already but the shocking reality is that another 40 billion will be required before too long to finish the job.


----------



## Wishes (12 Dec 2012)

Some good responses to this thread.

Fr. Ted, I've been down the same road as yourself, accept I reported the scenario.  I was fearful of doing so but was encouraged by the people around me.  Looking back, it was the best thing I done.

Importer, I agree with you 100%.  I'm guessing that they will bleed more money from the TAX payer and plunge it further into these zombie banks.  When they have everyone on the breadline they will then close them down.  Domesday scenario or what.


----------



## Bronte (13 Dec 2012)

Wishes said:


> It's articles like this that make me grateful for the opportunity I have to emigrate next year.


 
I hope it works out for you Wishes.  Best of luck with it.  Not an easy decision.


----------



## Bronte (13 Dec 2012)

Fr. Ted said:


> I do want to keep everything and feel totally entitled to it.
> 
> .


 
I too think you should explain your post as it's very vague. How can we know if what you post is correct based on that.


----------



## Bronte (13 Dec 2012)

Artemis said:


> . It is about balance. If people cooperate with the bank, sell the asset, give up their home, that should be closure, or at least closure should be in sight.
> .


 

Yes there should be closure if you give up the asset and cannot afford to pay the debt. Another solution which is a good one, particularly for family homes is that the bank instead of repossessing, writes down part of the debt to a level a family can manage and indeed AIB are apparently finally doing this. It's a win win for everybody. Family stays in home, they become a performing creditor, AIB writes off part of the debt, helping their books and they don't incur the costs of court, agents fees and various other costs which can be quite a percentage of the debt.


----------



## Delboy (13 Dec 2012)

Artemis said:


> There seems to be a lot more who think people should be chased to their dying days to pay back the balance even if people give up their home. No wonder, so many choose the dole or moving abroad.
> 
> So Delboy, can you accept the concept of reckless lending and if a bank is guilty of reckless lending, they should be held equally accountable if a loan is in trouble?



I accept the banks traded recklessly. I accept the guys at the top should be fired, and legislation should be brought in to have pensions removed from all Public Servants (which most bankers now are) who are found to have performed their roles in a reckless and incompetent manner...only the do I believe we'll see real change in the way they behave as the pension is the crock of gold at the end of their careers.

I also feel that it takes 2 to tango...a lot of people lied about their earnings using over time and 1-off payments to up their mortgage claims (usually with a blind eye from the bank).

I also feel that some people aspired to a lifestyle and took on totally unreasonable debts while the majority of people in the country bought average and ordinary houses they felt they could afford. Why should those who stretched way too far be allowed remain in houses that were way beyond their means in the 1st place while those who can still service their mortgage remain on in houses that are perhaps now too small for their family situations...and they get no write off at all even if in negative equity

I also feel a lot of people got extremely greedy and took out mortgages to buy btl's on the back of equity in their family home or on other btl's they had. Why should these people be allowed keep the btl's or even in some cases the family home...a loss of all the btl's they have or a downgrade to 1 of their btl's would be in order here perhaps

I also feel a lot of landlords with btl's in negative equity are collecting rent and no longer servicing their mortgages, as they feel a sweetheart deal is coming down the line

However, I don't believe that people who give up their family homes where the mortgage is clearly unsustainable should be chased for the next 30 years with a large debt hanging over them. If they co-operate, place all their cards on the table in terms of other assets, surrender the asset(s) as mentioned above...they should be more than entitled to start afresh after a period of time


----------



## Bronte (13 Dec 2012)

That's a very good summary Delboy.


----------



## shigllgetcha (13 Dec 2012)

Delboy said:


> However, I don't believe that people who give up their family homes where the mortgage is clearly unsustainable should be chased for the next 30 years with a large debt hanging over them. If they co-operate, place all their cards on the table in terms of other assets, surrender the asset(s) as mentioned above...they should be more than entitled to start afresh after a period of time


 
Completely agree. This is one of the biggest problems. People with unsustainable debts are between a rock and a hard place their choice is give up your home and still owe the same money or fight to keep your home so at least you are left with something.

Whereas if giving up your home meant you were released from the debt after a reasonable amount of time atleast you can move on with your life even if you had to rent for the rest of your life.


----------



## elcato (13 Dec 2012)

> People with unsustainable debts are between a rock and a hard place  their choice is give up your home and still owe the same money or fight  to keep your home so at least you are left with something


or a slight variation - people have lived rent free for two years during the process of repossession. 
Note: I would be in favour of this option being there as well.


----------



## Importer (13 Dec 2012)

@shigllgetcha, The option of giving up your house and walking away debt free is available. Its called bankruptcy................


----------



## Time (13 Dec 2012)

Which is against the ethos of many who contribute to these forums.


----------



## shigllgetcha (13 Dec 2012)

Importer said:


> @shigllgetcha, The option of giving up your house and walking away debt free is available. Its called bankruptcy................


 
It lasts too long though

Ive nothing against bankruptcy, its the way things should work, its the lenght of it in this country thats the problem and causes the rock and a hard place situation



shigllgetcha said:


> Whereas if giving up your home meant you were released from the debt after a *reasonable* amount of time atleast you can move on with your life even if you had to rent for the rest of your life.


----------



## Importer (13 Dec 2012)

The Bankruptcy Act 1986 is due to be amended shortly in conjunction with The Personal Insolvency Bill and this will reduce the time span to a minimum of three years


----------



## Time (13 Dec 2012)

But the system will still be penal in nature with the banks having their way.

I would still stick 2 fingers in the air and go to the UK.


----------



## Importer (13 Dec 2012)

The banks "wont get their way" if you go bankrupt. In fact they'll have to suck it up. They will have no input to it whatsoever.

On the other hand, under the Personal Insolvency Bill, nothing can happen without the approval of the majority Creditors, which is where the banks will obviously be able to control the agenda quite well in most cases.


----------



## Wishes (13 Dec 2012)

Thank you very much Bronte.  Its by know means an easy decision but one that needed to be called sooner rather than later.

I was the last of the fools who continued to pay interest only.  Took on two low pay, unskilled jobs to meet the interest only payment.  Got no great thanks for it.  Health began to suffer.  Maybe I would have been better off if I'd resorted to dole payments, paid the bank nothing and said to hell with it all.   

Maybe then I would have been offered some form of restructure.


----------



## Peter54 (13 Dec 2012)

bugler said:


> Clubman and shigllgetcha, please do not dampen down the righteous hysterics.
> 
> People should be allowed stay in their homes, or indeed retain their investment properties, forever without making any repayments. It's only fair.



The only hysteric here is the fact that banking institutions (businesses), are allowed to threaten the very democracy of this country because they are upset by a couple of loopholes in the law.  Big deal is what I say.  Let them suck it up, they're running a business not a charity.

The banks are as bust as the people who borrowed from them.  The banks are a growing cancer in this country and are threatening the sovereignty of this very state.


----------



## Bronte (14 Dec 2012)

Wishes said:


> I was the last of the fools who continued to pay interest only.


 
No you weren't you did your best.  That's all anyone can do.

Unfortunately for you the insolvency regime such as it is has come too late for you and many others.  Personally so far I've no faith that the new insolvency will do much solving.  

Don't worry about going abroad, first year is the hardest   after that it's all plain sailing.


----------



## burmo (14 Dec 2012)

Bronte, would you agree that if there is a write down of the debt on the family home that they should be unable to sell it for say ten years and when sold after that date there should be a lien on the house to pay off the full debt?



Bronte said:


> Yes there should be closure if you give up the asset and cannot afford to pay the debt. Another solution which is a good one, particularly for family homes is that the bank instead of repossessing, writes down part of the debt to a level a family can manage and indeed AIB are apparently finally doing this. It's a win win for everybody. Family stays in home, they become a performing creditor, AIB writes off part of the debt, helping their books and they don't incur the costs of court, agents fees and various other costs which can be quite a percentage of the debt.


----------



## Bronte (14 Dec 2012)

burmo said:


> Bronte, would you agree that if there is a write down of the debt on the family home that they should be unable to sell it for say ten years and when sold after that date there should be a lien on the house to pay off the full debt?


 
Maybe before the current mess I might have thought something like that, but actually it's something one never had to think about before now. I've learnt a lot from AAM. My thinking has moved on. We need to get people out of their messes and the economy moving. 

My thinking now is why put hurdles in people's way. If the bank writes down the debt and a year later the family wants to sell and move to somehwere there is a job or prospects then why not. We need solutions not penalties to people. 

Prior to this complete breakdown of normal society and banking I would have always believed that people should pay their debts and take any penalties for doing so. You take the risk you pay the price. Me personally I don't intend ever to not repay a debt. So I do not come to it from a vested interest in the sense that I am not looking for debt writedown for myself. I still though believe that if you take on debt you should repay it. That society via the government should regulate so people do not overextend and that there should be proper bankruptcy procedures in place to deal with those who can not hope to repay.  That for those in the latter category, they must pay some price, such as finding it more difficult to borrow again.  But ultimately to let a person who makes a mistake to get on in life.  It does none of us any good to keep people in servitude to the banks and the mismanagment of the regulator.  

Sorry this is a bit philosophical for this thread, and all over the place, I'll have to think about it some more.


----------



## Gerbo (10 Jan 2013)

Just joined thread.  Agree with need to fix issue regardless of moral hazard as too many ordinary people , not buy to lets in over their heads and demanding blood from these stones only serve to add to general malaise in the country.  One option that to me sound like a reasonable compromise is to fix say, interest only, and house reverts to lender on death of borrower in cases of genuine principal residence.  I know I have given up hope of having anything left for my children from what in hindsight was a stupid loan, compounded, let me add by reckless lending on the part of the bank.  Who in their right mind would loan a large sum to a sixty year old on a twenty year mortgage.  I was foolish enough at the time to be delighted they gave us loan but now paying the price.


----------

