# BoI agrees to €152,000 write-down of mortgage debt



## DB74 (27 Apr 2012)

[broken link removed]

Might as well stop paying my mortgage now

My wife can give up work and look after the kids instead of killing herself to pay the mortgage & childcare

This time 5 years we'll be laughing


----------



## callybags (27 Apr 2012)

DB74 said:


> [broken link removed]
> 
> Might as well stop paying my mortgage now
> 
> ...


 
Where will you live?


----------



## Bronte (27 Apr 2012)

How would that be good losing a job and your home?


----------



## Time (27 Apr 2012)

Well, if you don't like it you can leave the country.


----------



## DB74 (27 Apr 2012)

Probably stay in a tent outside for a few days to drum up a bit of media support. Then hopefully Richard Boyd-Barrett or Ming will put me up (I'm not gonna chance any Shinners). After that gonna rent a house off the Kellys. Should get a good deal cost they seem to be stuck for a few pound!


----------



## DB74 (27 Apr 2012)

Time said:


> Well, if you don't like it you can leave the country.



Why should I leave the country. I've no interest in running away.


----------



## Time (27 Apr 2012)

It seems you don't like the way it is being run. There is no one forcing you to stay and accept it.


----------



## DB74 (27 Apr 2012)

Time said:


> It seems you don't like the way it is being run. There is no one forcing you to stay and accept it.



Actually there is. It's called debt. What do you propose? Up sticks and leave it all to the banks and the taxpayer to sort out?


----------



## Time (27 Apr 2012)

I left years ago and have not looked back. I even returned my passport and told them where to insert it.


----------



## Bronte (27 Apr 2012)

DB74 what we propose is that you continue to work hard, to do the right thing, to understand that there are some who can not, to understand that they need help and that we should accept that, but to know there are those who can pay but won't pay and to understand that is is not fair but to do our best to try and make it better.  And to fight to jail them bankers, regulators and politicians.  Oh yes, that would be sweet and I'm not a vindictive person.


----------



## Time (27 Apr 2012)

Ireland as a country is simply not capable of dealing with the problems it has. 

When the people elect a bunch of incompetents they deserve everything they get. 

Anyone with sense left years ago.


----------



## DB74 (27 Apr 2012)

Well I don't consider debt forgiveness to be fair. Either it's debt forgiveness for all or for none.

The woman in that article could get another mortgage in 6 years time and buy the same house for a fraction of what she paid for it originally while her neighbours who have toiled for the same 6 years to pay their mortgage are still stuck with a massive mortgage on a property that they might never ever sell.


----------



## DB74 (27 Apr 2012)

Time said:


> Ireland as a country is simply not capable of dealing with the problems it has.
> 
> When the people elect a bunch of incompetents they deserve everything they get.
> 
> Anyone with sense left years ago.



Why are you still posting here then if you're not interested?

Just cos you ran away doesn't mean we all should


----------



## Time (27 Apr 2012)

DB74 said:


> Well I don't consider debt forgiveness to be fair. Either it's debt forgiveness for all or for none.
> 
> The woman in that article could get another mortgage in 6 years time and buy the same house for a fraction of what she paid for it originally while her neighbours who have toiled for the same 6 years to pay their mortgage are still stuck with a massive mortgage on a property that they might never ever sell.



Life ain't fair. Fact.


----------



## JackMerridew (27 Apr 2012)

I really don't understand this and there has to more to it that meets the eye? If this is the case, then why would anyone in their right mind continue paying their mortgage. Surely the best course of action is to reduce payments over time and direct the excess monies into a third party account and build up a fund. In a number of years default and do a deal, write off your debt for some nominal amount and keep your lump sum!. New Beginings is right.


----------



## ClaireM (27 Apr 2012)

JackMerridew said:


> I really don't understand this and there has to more to it that meets the eye? If this is the case, then why would anyone in their right mind continue paying their mortgage. Surely the best course of action is to reduce payments over time and direct the excess monies into a third party account and build up a fund. In a number of years default and do a deal, write off your debt for some nominal amount and keep your lump sum!. New Beginings is right.


 

Because you lose your home, need to find and pay for somewhere else to live and have to pay whatever installment order the bank get against you for the next 6 or 12 years.

How much will be in your fund after that?


----------



## bugler (27 Apr 2012)

There's no question people can abuse any debt relief or forgiveness system. The same way people drive without insurance, claim welfare when they shouldn't, work cash in hand jobs etc. Society functions off good faith. 

I don't have any gripe with someone who wishes to surrender their home and negotiates a writedown of debt. In fact I think that is somewhat healthy given the country's situation. 

But I would understand why those struggling to meet their obligations would be angered by others retaining their home by putting on the beal bocht and then having debt written off, when with some adjustments and sacrifices they could have made their payments as agreed. There is an obvious risk of encouraging deception, and it is up to banks or the new insolvency regime to determine who is being honest and who is pulling a stroke.


----------



## ANORAKPHOBIA (27 Apr 2012)

Time said:


> Ireland as a country is simply not capable of dealing with the problems it has.
> 
> When the people elect a bunch of incompetents they deserve everything they get.
> 
> Anyone with sense left years ago.



Be interesting to know which particular corner of paradise you ended up in. I don't think there is a country in the world without its fair share of corrupt and inept politicians.


----------



## moneyhoney (27 Apr 2012)

This "debate" is all very interesting - but does anyone know WHY BOI wrote off this debt??? What makes this case so different to the loads of others who can't get permission to sell their house for less than the mortgage owed?


----------



## bugler (27 Apr 2012)

moneyhoney said:


> This "debate" is all very interesting - but does anyone know WHY BOI wrote off this debt??? What makes this case so different to the loads of others who can't get permission to sell their house for less than the mortgage owed?



It isn't different at all, except they agreed in this case, either because she was particularly persuasive, tenacious or it just made sense to them for whatever reason. 

It isn't clear from the article as to why this deal has been disclosed. Others here have commented that banks may force you to sign a non-disclosure agreement as part of any debt write off, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

To be frank, Irish banks should be respossessing far more properties than they are. Maybe more borrowers should be taking the intiative and forcing their hand in this manner via a similar route.


----------



## monagt (27 Apr 2012)

There could be private details that were considered.

Let them drown brigade 0 so its a good day for our society


----------



## demoivre (27 Apr 2012)

I suspect that this practice is more common than people think - doubt the banks are going to be shouting about it from the roof tops !!


----------



## ClaireM (27 Apr 2012)

moneyhoney said:


> This "debate" is all very interesting - but does anyone know WHY BOI wrote off this debt??? What makes this case so different to the loads of others who can't get permission to sell their house for less than the mortgage owed?


 

My guess is she stopped paying the mortgage and they went for repossession. She agreed to a voluntary surrender to reduce legal fees and shorten the process. They then got a judgement for the balance - or a bit less than the balance as New Beginnings were claiming the short fall would have been less if they had allowed her to sell at an earlier date.


----------



## orka (27 Apr 2012)

moneyhoney said:


> This "debate" is all very interesting - but does anyone know WHY BOI wrote off this debt??? What makes this case so different to the loads of others who can't get permission to sell their house for less than the mortgage owed?


The banks have always said that each case will be dealt with individually - that there will be no blanket formula for 'the ABC guide to getting debt forgiveness'.  It's good to see the bank being pragmatic and recognising an unsustainable debt when they saw it.  The woman involved was interviewed on RTE1 this morning but it was a very poor interview - no probing of the details which might have helped listeners understand why the bank did what they did.  When asked what advice she would give others in similar circumstances/what she had done, she said first and foremost, she prayed and had god to thank for this happening; second she was grateful that the bank were merciful.  And that was pretty much it for the advice! 


monagt said:


> There could be private details that were considered.


Having listened to her interviewed, there are undoubtedly private details and considerations.





monagt said:


> Let them drown brigade 0 so its a good day for our society


I'm pretty sure whatever the opposite to the 'let them drown brigade' is want people to get debt write-offs AND keep their homes - that didn't happen here.  Also, Bank of Ireland is only 15% owned by the state so it's less of an issue what an almost private bank does at a cost to itself - would be more of an issue if AIB/Anglo used taxpayer money to write off debts.

That said, for all banks this will have to happen more and more - surrender the home, have some overhang of debt but not so much that you can't restart your life.


----------



## 44brendan (27 Apr 2012)

This case does appear to be attracting attention because the debt relates to the client's PDH. In terms of standard bank debt collection practise, there is nothing unusual here. The main security was sold, leaving a large element of residual unsecured debt. The Bank negotiated a settlement that both parties could live with and provided the loan repayments are maintained end result is satisfactory. I.e. The Bank gets some of the shortfall back & the client has an incentive to pay the amount due. Normal debt collection procedure & Banks are regularly agrreing to deals such as this, if the alternative is a higher level of loan write off.


----------



## moneyhoney (27 Apr 2012)

ClaireM said:


> They then got a judgement for the balance - or a bit less than the balance as New Beginnings were claiming the short fall would have been less if they had allowed her to sell at an earlier date.



Is this the difference? I know loads of people who have gone to their banks & asked to sell their houses (not all in arrears though) & convert the short-fall to a loan & have been given a flat no.


----------



## ClaireM (27 Apr 2012)

moneyhoney said:


> Is this the difference? I know loads of people who have gone to their banks & asked to sell their houses (not all in arrears though) & convert the short-fall to a loan & have been given a flat no.


 

I suspect she stopped paying and the bank went for repossession. If you are willing to go for this nuclear option the bank will take your house back at a certain stage. Of course they will most likely try to get everything else they can too.


----------



## ontour (27 Apr 2012)

She borrowed 245k and presumably paid some back in the beginning and then went in to arrear.  So in the end, she possibly owed around 245k or maybe more with interest accrued. Up to 300k?

She thought the house would sell for a price that would cover the outstanding mortgage but there is a shortfall of 170k which I assume is after the house was sold.  That would mean that the house sold for anything between 60 and 130k depending on what the outstanding mortgage was?

If the outstanding amount was closer to 300k, it is likely that she has been making no effort to pay anything over the last few years although there is nothing that says that she has been out of work or that her circumstance have substantially changed to allow her to now pay €250 per month?

Too many facts missing in the story but it really gives the impression that she has got a deal that thousands would like - lose the home and mortgage for 18k.


----------



## bugler (27 Apr 2012)

It is hard to make any sense of the figures in this case. Nothing about it screams "unsustainable" to me on the available facts.


----------



## dewdrop (28 Apr 2012)

Will all this publicity make it more difficult for a person to come to a settlement as lending bodies will be fearful it will be in the media the following day.


----------



## DrMoriarty (28 Apr 2012)

Conor Pope in this morning's _Irish Times_: [broken link removed]
You can hear the interview [broken link removed].

I too sense something fishy about the whole deal.


----------



## STEINER (28 Apr 2012)

she has done very well for herself.  Surely she will never get a bank loan let alone another mortgage as a result of this massive write-off?


----------



## Time (28 Apr 2012)

No. But she doesn't care.


----------



## croker (28 Apr 2012)

> she has done very well for herself. Surely she will never get a bank loan let alone another mortgage as a result of this massive write-off?


I would hope not, but i wouldnt be so sure. My real worry is that with all of the talk of "getting the banks lending again" that the state owned banks will be pressurised into lending to people who shouldn't get loans, i.e. as a country we'll be repeating the whole banking mistake again.


----------



## Jim2007 (28 Apr 2012)

bugler said:


> It isn't different at all, except they agreed in this case, either because she was particularly persuasive, tenacious or it just made sense to them for whatever reason.



It is different in that it comes after an extensive legal battle and I'd hassard a guess that the bank had concerns about their ability to succeed...  It seems that there is some grounds to suggest that the bank failed to act in it's own best interests by selling the house in a timely manner.  If the ruling went against them it might open up a whole big can of worms.....


----------



## Wishes (28 Apr 2012)

bugler said:


> It is hard to make any sense of the figures in this case. Nothing about it screams "unsustainable" to me on the available facts.



Agree.

I am far from the let them drown brigade, but this case just doesn't make sense to me.  

Did the borrower just hand back the keys or did she stay in the property until she was evicted?


----------



## bugler (29 Apr 2012)

Wishes said:


> Agree.
> 
> I am far from the let them drown brigade, but this case just doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> Did the borrower just hand back the keys or did she stay in the property until she was evicted?



She surrendered it voluntarily. I presume there must be some sort of consent on the banks side for this to occur(?)

From what I have pieced together from various sources, it seems that she was earning 70k or so when she bought the house; she was never made redundant at any point; she seems to have voluntarily wanted to pursue a role as a prison service nurse (!) which may have resulted in a drop in salaray to 40k or so and relocation;  at some stage the house seems to have been let out.

If anyone can give a full and definitive account that would be great. But considering the lack of "hard luck" to this story it seems a strange one to be hawked in public. Or maybe that is the point. No redundancy, no failed business, no children, no one eating cardboard, a good working wage still being earned and by all accounts she seems to have got a deal an awful lot of people in worse circumstances would love to get.


----------



## Wishes (29 Apr 2012)

Gives up well paying job to pursue a less paid job = Sounds like a strategic default to me. 

Borrower continues to hold down job, admittedly less lucrative but still has the luxury of employment; surely she could have made interest only payments.

It's cases like this that give genuine, struggeling mortgage holders a bad name, myself included.


----------



## Kerrigan (30 Apr 2012)

Are there many nurses on 70k per annum?


----------



## Sunster (30 Apr 2012)

What would have been the situation if she just moved to work overseas 2 years ago instead, never to return? Would the banks still have sued her?


----------

