# Where is the help for those paying their mortgages?



## DB74 (9 Nov 2010)

[broken link removed]

Where is the help for those who are currently paying their mortgage but struggling to do so?

Why should those who cannot pay be afforded more help than those who can?

Why should my neighbour have thousands written off his mortgage just because he lied on his mortgage application and then lost his job?


----------



## The_Banker (9 Nov 2010)

I see the website will represent those legally who are being chased for repossession. An admirable gesture.

However, I see it is being launched by "concerned lawyers"

I doubt they are doing it for the good of society.

Plus, I suspect the majority of people who are being chased for repossession would prefer to hand back the keys and start again without having a debt hanging around there necks for life.
If the builders and banks are bailed out by NAMA then why not the ordinary homeowner?


----------



## DB74 (9 Nov 2010)

The_Banker said:


> Plus, I suspect the majority of people who are being chased for repossession would prefer to hand back the keys and start again without having a debt hanging around there necks for life.


 
So?

You borrow - you pay.

I'm sick to death of people in this country failing to take responsibility for their own failings and expecting others to pay for it




The_Banker said:


> If the builders and banks are bailed out by NAMA then why not the ordinary homeowner?


 
And how exactly are builders being bailed out by NAMA - if anything they are being bailed out out by hiding behind limited liability status.


----------



## redbhoy (9 Nov 2010)

DB74 said:


> [broken link removed]
> 
> Where is the help for those who are currently paying their mortgage but struggling to do so?
> 
> ...


 

You sound like a bitter person. Why not throw everyone who cant afford their mortgages out on the street and try and improve society that way?


----------



## The_Banker (9 Nov 2010)

redbhoy said:


> *You sound like a bitter person*. Why not throw everyone who cant afford their mortgages out on the street and try and improve society that way?


 

Your correct, he/she does sound like that.

Most countries in the developed world has a form of debt forgiveness. Ireland doesn't.

Have the banks not been bailed out by the tax payer? Or am I missing something DB74?


----------



## shanegl (9 Nov 2010)

redbhoy said:


> You sound like a bitter person. Why not throw everyone who cant afford their mortgages out on the street and try and improve society that way?



Emotive nonsense.

You don't end up on the street if you can't pay your mortgage. You rent like everyone else who doesn't own their own home.


----------



## DB74 (9 Nov 2010)

Not bitter at all. Just don't see why someone who borrowed heavily to buy a house should now be forgiven some of that debt just because they can't afford to pay while others who continue to make the repayments end up making up the shortfall in one way or another.

Let the banks repossess and let people rent their home.

Lenient bankruptcy laws merely encourage people to default on their debts. Look at David Drumm.


----------



## DB74 (9 Nov 2010)

The_Banker said:


> Have the banks not been bailed out by the tax payer? Or am I missing something DB74?


 
I never mentioned the banks. 

However you mentioned the builders and I have yet to see an explanation as to how the builders were bailed out by NAMA.

AFAIK a builder with a loan of €20m sees his loan transferred to NAMA for a discount. However he still owes the €20m and is pursued for the full amount by NAMA.

If the money is actually owed by a Ltd company (as opposed to owed personally) and he chooses to liquidate then this is not something he couldn't do anyway irrespective of who he owes his money to.


----------



## DB74 (9 Nov 2010)

redbhoy said:


> You sound like a bitter person.


 
If your best repsonse is a personal attack then maybe you should stay off the thread.


----------



## Sunny (9 Nov 2010)

What's the point of this thread? You give out about people receiving help but then you ask where the help is for people who are paying but struggling? Also there is no debt forgiveness in place so what help are you referring to?


----------



## RMCF (9 Nov 2010)

although it is very sad to see so many people struggling to pay their mortgage, you have to look at both sides of the argument here.

If you let people off with debt which they voluntarily took on themselves, it is *taxpayers *who will be bailing them out, not some mythical organisation, Gov or bank. 

And as you can imagine, this is why many get angry about it. Why should people who were sensible pay for the mistakes of others?


----------



## The_Banker (9 Nov 2010)

DB74 said:


> I never mentioned the banks.
> 
> However you mentioned the builders and *I have yet to see an explanation as to how the builders were bailed out by NAMA*.
> 
> ...



Hmmm... The rumours about property developers being paid €100,000 per annum to run there defunct empires must be just that... rumours..


----------



## redbhoy (10 Nov 2010)

DB74 said:


> If your best repsonse is a personal attack then maybe you should stay off the thread.


 

Should I have to pay part of my taxes towards the cancer treatment of smokers when I dont smoke?


----------



## DB74 (10 Nov 2010)

redbhoy said:


> Should I have to pay part of my taxes towards the cancer treatment of smokers when I dont smoke?


 
What if those who didn't smoke had to pay for their own cancer treatment because only smokers get state-funded treatment?


----------



## liaconn (10 Nov 2010)

DB74 said:


> Not bitter at all. Just don't see why someone who borrowed heavily to buy a house should now be forgiven some of that debt just because they can't afford to pay while others who continue to make the repayments end up making up the shortfall in one way or another.
> 
> Let the banks repossess and let people rent their home.
> 
> Lenient bankruptcy laws merely encourage people to default on their debts. Look at David Drumm.


 

What about people who have absolutely no way of making up the shortfall? People buying modest houses at inflated prices during the boom because they wanted to get on the property ladder and have the security of a home for themselves and their families  before prices rose even further (as many people thought they would) are not the same as people who just ran up irresponsible debts treating themselves to big cars, fancy holidays, revamped kitchens, designer clothes etc.

Casually saying 'let people rent' would be fine if the rental market was properly regulated here. Because it's not, many people don't want to find themselves in late middle age living in rented accommodation with no security and limited rights.


----------



## Complainer (10 Nov 2010)

The_Banker said:


> Hmmm... The rumours about property developers being paid €100,000 per annum to run there defunct empires must be just that... rumours..


Rumours indeed - they wouldn't get out of bed for €100k pa


----------



## redbhoy (10 Nov 2010)

DB74 said:


> What if those who didn't smoke had to pay for their own cancer treatment because only smokers get state-funded treatment?


 
I think we're on the same level here, somehow.

I used to think that benefit recipients shouldnt be receiving free housing when Ive to work my posterior off to pay mortgage and associated costs but some lad on the radio explained it way better than I could. Basically you need to help the less well off in society for society not to descend into a cesspit.
The blame should be on the government and not on the 'victims' of the property bubble. Some bought when they shouldnt have because they were sold the lie that there would be a soft landing and then a plateau. Banks, Mortgage Lenders and Brokers, Government and some economists were complicit in this lie. We should focus our anger at those crooks.


----------



## micmclo (10 Nov 2010)

What about the people who borrowed the deposit from the credit union and told the bank it was savings. 
Or inflated their overtime earnings.
Many did, sure I read threads here on AAM asking for advice on it
They may have been sold a lie, I also remember the soft landing. Plenty did lying of their own on the applications.


And for those that didn't. Sure they wanted the security of their own home, I've dealt with my share of rogue landlords.


liaconn said:


> People buying modest houses at inflated prices during the boom because they wanted to get on the property ladder and have the security of a home for themselves and their families  before prices rose even further.



Property ladder you say. Ladders go up and down. 



redbhoy said:


> The blame should be on the government and not on the 'victims' of the property bubble.



I see no victims here, you signed a contract so you pay it. If you can't sell up and rent and get advice on the debt.
If you start debt forgiveness for some sure why don't I jack in my job and try to get some debt forgiveness for myself


----------



## redbhoy (10 Nov 2010)

micmclo said:


> If you start debt forgiveness for some sure why don't I jack in my job and try to get some debt forgiveness for myself


 
Theres loads of other options out there for you too. Single parents allowance, child benefit, rent allowance etc etc. Why dont you do all those too?


----------



## Sunny (10 Nov 2010)

I don't particulary want to pay for the health costs incurred by someone who smokes or drinks. I don't want to pay the cost of social housing and child benefit for someone just because they get knocked up at 16. I don't want to pay the dole to someone that hasn't worked a day in their life. I don't want to pay for drug treatment programmes for people stupid enough to take drugs. The list is endless of people I don't want to pay for....

I don't think there should be debt forgiveness at the expense of the taxpayer but there a lot of things that the taxpayer is expected to pay for that isn't fair.


----------



## truthseeker (10 Nov 2010)

Would it not be possible, for the genuine cases, for the bank to put their mortgage 'on hold' for some agreed period - say 3 years? That way, for a genuine case who has lost their job and cant get one at the same level in the current economy, has 3 years in which to find a similar job, retrain or otherwise get back on their feet?

I think one of the big problems for genuine cases is falling into arrears and ending up in a debt trap that will take years to get out of.

Or am I just being an idealist?


----------



## Smart_Saver (10 Nov 2010)

Problem with cutting SW is there are a large body of people outta work (talking here about people who have been laid off and not the ones who have been on the dole all their lives). 
A lot of these have some savings and are repaying their mortgage etc by dipping into savings while living in the extreme off the SW. If you cut it drastically then these people will then also be sent under completley and that i think is where the crux of the problem lies. 
Finally that point by Liaconn on the rental market is a very good one. Something needs to be done quickly regards regulation here. In Europe many people live in a rental society all their lives however they have brilliant enforcement in place to protect them against unscrupulous landlords.


----------



## Caveat (10 Nov 2010)

gomayogo said:


> finally that point by liaconn on the rental market is a very good one.


 
+ 1


----------



## DB74 (10 Nov 2010)

There has been a lot of legislation in the area of rental properties over the last few years.

Reading the rental section of the forum would lead me to believe that the majority of it favours the tenant over the landlord.

I do agree that the area is a bit of a mess though.

No reason not to repossess though.


----------



## pixiebean22 (10 Nov 2010)

GoMayoGo said:


> Problem with cutting SW is there are a large body of people outta work (talking here about people who have been laid off and not the ones who have been on the dole all their lives).
> A lot of these have some savings and are repaying their mortgage etc by dipping into savings while living in the extreme off the SW. If you cut it drastically then these people will then also be sent under completley and that i think is where the crux of the problem lies.
> Finally that point by Liaconn on the rental market is a very good one. Something needs to be done quickly regards regulation here. In Europe many people live in a rental society all their lives however they have brilliant enforcement in place to protect them against unscrupulous landlords.


 
Completely agree with you there.  Our system here is absolutely ridiculous and this notion by many people that the system favours the tenant is ridiculous.  I really feel favoured by the system having had my last two landlords refuse to pay me back my deposit and even after a judgement was secured through the PRTB with the first landlord I still haven't seen a cent of that money nearly two years later and the PRTB have done all in their power and I don't have the money to bring anybody to court.  This is because I didn't buy a house I couldn't afford during "boom" times and now can't get a mortgage eventhough I can well afford one.


----------



## redbhoy (10 Nov 2010)

Have you tried the small claims court Pixie??


----------



## pixiebean22 (10 Nov 2010)

redbhoy said:


> Have you tried the small claims court Pixie??


 
Not to drag the thread off topic but... i was told by the small claims court that my application didn't qualify to be dealt with by them.  I was under the impression that tenancies could be dealt with by them once the sum is under €2,000 but apparently my tenancy and the property didn't fall into that bracket.  In fairness this happened 2 years ago so i can't really remember all the ins and outs apart from the fact that I was left out of pocket.


----------



## DB74 (10 Nov 2010)

pixiebean22 said:


> Completely agree with you there. Our system here is absolutely ridiculous and this notion by many people that the system favours the tenant is ridiculous. I really feel favoured by the system having had my last two landlords refuse to pay me back my deposit and even after a judgement was secured through the PRTB with the first landlord I still haven't seen a cent of that money nearly two years later and the PRTB have done all in their power and I don't have the money to bring anybody to court. This is because I didn't buy a house I couldn't afford during "boom" times and now can't get a mortgage eventhough I can well afford one.


 
One story doesn't mean that the system favours the landlord. And anyway you won your case - just cos you can't get the money from the landlord doesn't mean that the systems favours him.

The general consensus on the board is that the system favours the tenant, especially in terms of refusing to pay rent, wrecking the house etc etc.


----------



## pixiebean22 (10 Nov 2010)

DB74 said:


> One story doesn't mean that the system favours the landlord. And anyway you won your case - just cos you can't get the money from the landlord doesn't mean that the systems favours him.
> 
> The general consensus on the board is that the system favours the tenant, especially in terms of refusing to pay rent, wrecking the house etc etc.


 
I didn't say that one story proves that the system favours the landlord.  Although, it most certainly doesn't favour the tenant.  

At the end of the day for every "my tenant wrecked the house and did a runner" story there is a "my landlord never gave me back my deposit" story.  

Anyway, moving on, off topic.


----------



## Leper (10 Nov 2010)

Great to see most of the posters here are full of the milk of Human Kindness.


----------



## RMCF (10 Nov 2010)

Getting back on topic, I listened with more sadness about the property tax today on the radio.

Of course the usual suspects sound like they will escape the payment, which means that the majority of the tax will come in from the middle earners, again.

Do the Gov not realise that these folk are not overly flush with money? Many people who are classed as 'middle earners' are probably struggling under big bills too and just surviving. Yet they are the ones who will be expected to bail everyone else out.

There's only so much blood you can get out of a stone.


----------



## JP1234 (11 Nov 2010)

RMCF said:


> Do the Gov not realise that these folk are not overly flush with money? Many people who are classed as 'middle earners' are probably struggling under big bills too and just surviving. Yet they are the ones who will be expected to bail everyone else out.
> 
> There's only so much blood you can get out of a stone.



Very much agree with this.  We rent, didn't get carried away with debt, resisted buying an overpriced property despite being called stupid and laughed at by our friends and peers. If we don't pay our rent we get evicted. Simple.

We would be classed as middle earners, and we just about survive for now, come the inevitable hits we will take in the budget, plus the fact my job in March and no sign of any jobs down the line, I genuinely have no idea what how we are going to make it.   Yet people who borrowed recklessly, lied on mortgage and loan applications and treated anyone who didn't buy buy buy like a social leper now expect to be bailed out by "the government" ( do people genuinely not realised it's the tax payers who pay?!) Is this magical Government going to subsidise my rent, my electricity etc as a pat on the head for behaving myself?

It makes me sick to think what people who have never worked a day, and/ or don't and never had paid a penny in tax and prsi get away with and it's getting worse now having to listen to people calling for a "nama for the people"

it makes me wonder why I should even bother looking for a job and why my husband works so hard to keep his...we'd probably be better off sitting around sponging of the state for the rest of our lives....( except we both have a bit of self respect left...just)


----------



## Sarah (11 Nov 2010)

Just wanted to giv emy imput, We bought in 2006, a good distance away from family due to the increasing costs, we had low paid jobs but just managed to cope. We married and then had a baby, when baby ccame along we realised that the distance we moved was just too far away from family and also due to the travelling time we would never see our child. So we tried to sell the house to move back closer, no Joy even though the house was very well priced, so we rented out the house and got a second mortgage!!!!! In hindsight it would have been better to rent a place closer to our families but hindsight is a grat thing(can be said for the past 10 years!) So now with the budget looming we have two properties which we willl have to pay property tax on as well as 2 x life insurance 2 x house insurance, also have to contribute to the rental money as it dosent cover our mortgage, a mortgage on our family home and a toddler to look after with another Baby on the way!!
I would love to sell the first house so we could just concentrate on our family home and bills but its just not possible at the moment and am worried that with all the cuts and taxing on people we may well end up with no house and listening to the radio and news on tv makes the suitation worse! Both my husband and i work but are not on big money at all so it kind of feels like were in big trouble! Sometimes i feel like just skipping out of the counrty and never coming back!


----------



## The_Banker (11 Nov 2010)

Sarah said:


> Just wanted to giv emy imput, We bought in 2006, a good distance away from family due to the increasing costs, we had low paid jobs but just managed to cope. We married and then had a baby, when baby ccame along we realised that the distance we moved was just too far away from family and also due to the travelling time we would never see our child. So we tried to sell the house to move back closer, no Joy even though the house was very well priced, so we rented out the house and got a second mortgage!!!!! In hindsight it would have been better to rent a place closer to our families but hindsight is a grat thing(can be said for the past 10 years!) So now with the budget looming we have two properties which we willl have to pay property tax on as well as 2 x life insurance 2 x house insurance, also have to contribute to the rental money as it dosent cover our mortgage, a mortgage on our family home and a toddler to look after with another Baby on the way!!
> I would love to sell the first house so we could just concentrate on our family home and bills but its just not possible at the moment and am worried that with all the cuts and taxing on people we may well end up with no house and listening to the radio and news on tv makes the suitation worse! Both my husband and i work but are not on big money at all so it kind of feels like were in big trouble! Sometimes i feel like just skipping out of the counrty and never coming back!


 
If the ERSI have there way you will be paying €80 per house per month after the budget in property tax based on their recommendations this morning.
Sometimes I think these academics walk around with their heads up their arses.


----------



## DB74 (11 Nov 2010)

The_Banker said:


> If the ERSI have there way you will be paying €80 per house per month after the budget in property tax based on their recommendations this morning.
> Sometimes I think these academics walk around with their heads up their arses.


 
I would be surprised if something like this *wasn't* brought in

I see those on low incomes and social welfare would be exempt, leaving those on middle incomes to bear the brunt.


----------



## Birroc (11 Nov 2010)

Sarah said:


> Both my husband and i work but are not on big money at all so it kind of feels like were in big trouble! Sometimes i feel like just skipping out of the counrty and never coming back!


 
You're not the only ones thinking that. I expect lots of people to do it over the coming years.


----------



## grahamo (11 Nov 2010)

Birroc said:


> You're not the only ones thinking that. I expect lots of people to do it over the coming years.


 I already know people who have given up and left. In any other country it is worth your while to work and you will always better yourself. Not here though.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Nov 2010)

Hate to be a spoilsport but mortgage payers are arguably the most subsidised constituency in this country and probably on planet earth.  BoI has recently admitted that it costs over 10% for it to borrow funds.  It would cost the government over 8%.  Yet because of their electoral clout mortgagees are kept on low single figures.  

I know people who say that the only bright spot in this crisis is that at least their mortgage repayments have fallen.

That is not to deny the real hardship of those who have lost their jobs but again the one consolation is that their mortgage payments have fallen.

Negative equity is not _per se_ financially crippling.  It is of course a huge disappointment to those who understandably looked forward to their homes being an accumulation of wealth just as it had always been in the past.


----------



## Kate10 (17 Nov 2010)

The reality is that there are many people in this country in serious negative equity who cannot pay their mortgages, and there will be many more in that boat if tax and interest rates increase as expected.  

IMO it is not at all unreasonable or unjust to try to do something for those people, if at least part of the reason for those tax increases is to bail out the banks.  

Put yourself in their shoes for a moment.  

Imagine you bought your family home in 2006 for €400,000.  The last house in your estate sold for €250,000 six months ago.  There are five houses with for sale signs up but nothing has sold since.  So your home is at least €150k in negative equity but there are no buyers even at that price.   Your mortgage is €1900 per month and most of that is interest.  You are a civil engineer who has lost his job.  Your wife is a public servant who has had a reasonable salary cut (levy) but is expecting more serious cuts (and possibly job losses) coming down the line.  The family have one car loan (€120 per month), small amount of credit card debt (€100), and two children.  The family have almost exhausted their savings paying interest only on their mortgage over the last year and a half but have reached the end of the line, particularly because his job seekers benefit is up and he doesn't qualify for job seekers allowance.  

SO she's earning say €2k per month.  Food, light and heat, clothing, school expenses and general expenses for a family of four - say €1400 per month.  Leaving €600 per month to pay for car loan, credit card and mortgage.  

Assume the house is repossessed and sold at a fire sale.  Sale price €180,000, less costs of sale and repossession - about €160,000 comes off what the couple owe.  So they are now homeless and they still owe the bank €240,000 or a monthly payment of €1,141 over thirty years!  Guess what - they still can't afford to make that payment, and now they will have to rely on the state to provide housing.  The bank writes off the loss which adds to the cost of the bail out, which she is partially funding through increased taxes!  Where is the sense in that??

So some common sense is required.

What about this as a solution:

Value of the house is assessed at say €225,000 or 56% of the mortgage.  The couple transfer 44% of the ownership of the house to the bank in consideration for forgiveness of the balance of the mortgage.  The couple now owe €225k.  They can just about pay interest only on that and agree to do so until he gets a job, at which point they will start repaying capital.  The couple agree to keep the house, maintain and insure it for at least 10 years, after which they can sell if if they wish.  On a sale the bank gets 44% of the sale price.  

Fast forward 15 years.  The house is sold for €350,000.  The bank is entitled to 44% of that or €154,000.  The couple are entitled to 56% or €196,000.  The balance due on the mortgage is €136,000.  When that is paid the couple are left with €60,000 from the sale.  The bank has been paid the following:
€109,000 in interest over 15 years.
€89,000 in capital repayments over 15 years.
€154,000 from the sale 
Total €352,000.

Obviously this is less than ideal for the bank.  It has suffered a loss of €48k excluding cost of funds. But in a repossession it suffers a loss of €240k, the couple lose their home with all the dramatic social problems that causes (and ultimately costs society).

So what's wrong with trying to find a creative solution?


----------



## redbhoy (17 Nov 2010)

Kate10 said:


> So what's wrong with trying to find a creative solution?


 
Nothing whatsoever Kate. Creative thinking is the only thing that'll help stop the untold suffering.
Heard on the radio yesterday that this crowd, http://www.newbeginning.ie/ , have had a small success in the courts with relation to a couple due to be evicted. Hopefully many more to come.


----------



## DB74 (17 Nov 2010)

I don't think I ever said that people shouldn't be helped at all.

My point was more that why should the family in Kate10's post be more entitled to a hand-out than a family who are paying all their bills but finding it tough to do so.

Why should we wait until things are at rock-bottom before we decide that people need a helping hand


----------



## RMCF (17 Nov 2010)

Do we need to keep mentioning negative equity in every example?

Surely if you aren't selling your house, this doesn't enter into the equation?
The main requirement is that you can pay your monthly mortgage. This is not linked to the value of your house.


----------



## liaconn (17 Nov 2010)

RMCF said:


> Do we need to keep mentioning negative equity in every example?
> 
> Surely if you aren't selling your house, this doesn't enter into the equation?
> The main requirement is that you can pay your monthly mortgage. This is not linked to the value of your house.


 
No, but you don't have the safeguard that if you lose your job and have spent all your savings, you can sell the house and rent for a while/move in with family because you can't afford the mortgage.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Nov 2010)

Kate10 said:


> SO she's earning say €2k per month. Food, light and heat, clothing, school expenses and general expenses for a family of four - say €1400 per month. Leaving €600 per month to pay for car loan, credit card and mortgage.


Why do you single out the mortgage repayments in this scenario? Why not require the ESB to halve its prices, Supermarkets to halve their prices etc. etc.

What about the many people who were misled to thinking that we had well regulated blue chip banks and who, acting prudently, relied entirely on bank shares for their pension? Are these people not in at least the same financial hardship as your example and haven't they been equally let down by the system?


----------



## DB74 (29 Nov 2010)

DB74 said:


> [broken link removed]
> 
> Where is the help for those who are currently paying their mortgage but struggling to do so?
> 
> ...


 
I see newbeginning are now challenging the validity of Start Mortgages' authority to lend in this country.

Does anyone take responsibility for their own inability to borrow responsibly in this country

Talk about trying to weasel out of your obligations

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/...egal-challenge-to-start-mortgages-483749.html


----------



## redbhoy (29 Nov 2010)

DB74 said:


> Talk about trying to weasel out of your obligations


 
Like the Banks and Bondholders have successfully managed to do??


----------

