# Caroline Lennon Nally   Posterwoman for mortgage arrears



## Brendan Burgess

I have copied this from this thread "Frotline Programme on mortgage arrears and negative equity" 
and edited out comments not related to Caroline Lennon Nally
 

*The public servant who has not paid her mortgage since December 2010.  *She was in her early fifties and put all her savings into a house. She could not get the bank to agree anything and her income has reduced as a "professional public servant". So her response has been to put €1,000 a month into a separate bank account until the bank agrees. Every option that the bank discusses involves repossession. It is very unusual for a bank to suggest repossession, so we were not getting the full story. Mind you, if she has not paid anything towards  her mortgage for 10 months, then there should be a fast-track court procedure to repossess her house.


----------



## Firefly

The "professional" civil servant really got on my nerves. Just because a "substantial" amount of her savings into doing up her house (which I'm sure she bored her dinner guests with) and her income (which I'm sure is still pretty decent) has been reduced, she has decided not to pay her mortgage. If her salary had not been cut but instead interest rates went up, would she have stopped paying her mortgage also? It's people like her IMO who are not helping those in real need here....if someone like her were to get a writeoff then every Tom, Dick and Harry would stop repaying their mortgage.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

The Ghoul said:


> I'm normally pro public servant and defend what I see as attacks on public servants' pay, pensions and conditions by the gutter media. But that woman did the public service no favours.



I agree fully with you. In fact, a conspiracy theorist might think that she had been put up by those opposed to debt forgiveness to give the perfect example of why it should not be entertained. 

But she is not typical of the public service and don't allow her to influence your attitudes.


----------



## csirl

The Ghoul said:


> Agree 100%, an appalling programme. I nearly put my foot through the TV at the "professional public servant" and "win win win" comments.
> 
> I'm normally pro public servant and defend what I see as attacks on public servants' pay, pensions and conditions by the gutter media. But that woman did the public service no favours.


 
What job does this woman do in the public service? This €50 per week in clothes/grooming requirement does not sound like a normal p.s. job, even for higher management. It's so incredible and false looking that I'm beginning to wonder if this is a real person, or just an actress playing a part to get a rise from the audience?


----------



## DerKaiser

Brendan Burgess said:


> *The case studies were simply not probed at all *.


 

Public servant - I suspect this is a case of having a very nice/saleable house. People who invested a lot of effort & savings into their home need to face up to the fact that all their effort and money has been wiped out. If they're fortunate enough to walk away to rebuild their lives with a mangeable debt, then they should suck it up.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

The public servant was on the News at One today on RTE.

She is a mother of 1. 

She appears to be Caroline Lennon-Nally a Resource Officer with the HSE. (They also called her Celine) 

She bought her house(in Kilkenny I think?)  for €320k in 2007 and has been paying interest only since then ( €50k in interest since 2007) 

She has invested a lot in the house. 

She is involved in something called "Irish Homeowners Unite"


----------



## hastalavista

Brendan Burgess said:


> The public servant was on the News at One today on RTE.
> 
> She is a mother of 1.
> 
> She appears to be Caroline Lennon-Nally a Resource Officer with the HSE. (They also called her Celine)
> 
> She bought her house(in Kilkenny I think?)  for €320k in 2007 and has been paying interest only since then ( €50k in interest since 2007)
> 
> She has invested a lot in the house.
> 
> She is involved in something called "Irish Homeowners Unite"



Could be this lady
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/caroline-lennon-nally/14/906/653

The bit I heard was even less coherent than on frontline


----------



## thedaras

Brendan Burgess said:


> The public servant was on the News at One today on RTE.
> 
> She is a mother of 1.
> 
> She appears to be Caroline Lennon-Nally a Resource Officer with the HSE. (They also called her Celine)
> 
> She bought her house(in Kilkenny I think?)  for €320k in 2007 and has been paying interest only since then ( €50k in interest since 2007)
> 
> She has invested a lot in the house.
> 
> She is involved in something called "Irish Homeowners Unite"



Home owners unite on Facebook;
"	
This page is dedicated to all those Irish homeowners who are struggling to pay their mortgage and at risk of losing their home.
Description	
"If one family defaults on its mortgage, they are pariahs: if 200,000 default they are a powerful political constituency. There is no shame in admitting that you too were mauled by the Celtic Tiger after being conned into taking out an unaffordable mortgage, when everyone around you is admitting the same". 

She was getting lots of compliments on her page.


----------



## thedaras

Brendan might be interested in viewing this;
http://www.irishexaminer.ie/ireland/mortgage-plan-vague-and-lacking-in-urgency-170517.html

I’D RATHER BURN MY HOME THAN RENT IT OFF THE BANKS’
Struggling mortgage holder hits out at report - By Claire O’Sullivan 

CAROLINE LENNON-NALLY has been in mortgage arrears for the past 10 months, and is one of the thousands of distressed mortgage holders Declan Keane refers to in his report into the mortgage debt crisis, which was published yesterday. 

But the idea of becoming a social housing tenant in "her own home", as the report recommends, sends her into a tailspin. 

She said she has already paid about €50,000 in mortgage repayments to her bank, a size-able deposit when she bought her home, as well as stamp duty. 

"I’d rather burn it than rent it back off the banks," she said. "I have put huge amounts of my own money into this house. I worked my whole life for it. Anyway, it’s only worth about €200,000 to them now." 

She paid €385,000 for the property, but her bill came to €412,000 by the time she had paid stamp duty and legal fees. 

Stuck in a 5.5% fixed-rate mortgage, negotiated in 2007 when she bought her home, she found it increasingly difficult to meet her €1,470 mortgage repayments, which were fixed at interest only until 2012. 

Last winter, Caroline realised she could only afford to pay €1,000 per month and told her bank, which said she would have to pay €8,000 to break the agreement. For the past 10 months she has paid €1,000 into an account every month to prove she is willing to pay — but not on their terms. 

Caroline has founded Irish Home Owners United, which will meet legal group New Beginning and the Defend Our Homes alliance later this week. 

- Irish Homeowners Unite can be contacted through Facebook at http://exa.mn/homes. 

Picture: Caroline Lennon-Nally has made mortgage repayments of €50,000 to her bank since she bought it for €385,000 in 2007. She found it increasingly difficult to meet her €1,470 monthly mortgage repayments and offered to pay €1,000 instead. Picture: Robert Redmon
This appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Thursday, October 13, 2011


Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.ie/ireland...-lacking-in-urgency-170517.html#ixzz1aei9c6R1


----------



## truthseeker

thedaras said:


> 'I’D RATHER BURN MY HOME THAN RENT IT OFF THE BANKS’


 
Without commenting on the particular case mentioned, I can see this being the attitude of many people with regards to the new schemes.


----------



## onq

thedaras said:


> Stuck in a 5.5% fixed-rate mortgage, negotiated in 2007 when she bought her home, she found it increasingly difficult to meet her €1,470 mortgage repayments, which were fixed at interest only until 2012.




Was she under the impression that she could afford the fixed rate for five years?
What changed since 2007 to make it unsustainable for her to pay this?

One major issue seems to be the fixed rate mortgage.
The other seems to be this figure of €8,000.


----------



## Luternau

onq said:


> Was she under the impression that she could afford the fixed rate for five years?
> What changed since 2007 to make it unsustainable for her to pay this?
> 
> One major issue seems to be the fixed rate mortgage.
> The other seems to be this figure of €8,000.



Finally more detail on the professional civil servants case. 

What changed since 2007? Everything.  Austerity-lots of it for everyone. For public servants this meant penion levy, income levy and USC.
As the article last says she got into trouble last winter and is borne out by stating she is in arrears for 10mths.
Was she stress tested-I would say she was and at @ 5% based on her income, which in 2007, or even 2006 when her application could have been made, would have been expected to remain constant or increase (based on historical data of Public Servant pay). If it could be paid in year one-it shoul dbe payable for the five years-the most expensive years of any mortgage. So she was given the money. Then 3 years in everthing changed for her financially.
Not in defense of her stance, but if she is in genuine difficulties, she should be able to restructure her mortgage, just like everyone else. But the bank says there is a redemption on the remaining fixed rate contract to pay first. On the face of it this seems unfair. If she had 8k -would she want to restructure?
However, I wish she would stop this Professional Public Servant talk- Public Servant seems adequate detail. And as for the €50 per week on clothes and grooming, perhaps she should cut this back in line with the cutback in salary and offer the savings to the bank. I doubt she would loose her job over poor grooming!


----------



## onq

€50 in clothes and grooming PER WEEK?!
€2,500 per year on this when she can't pay the mortgage?

I agree that she may have standards to maintain in terms of her deportment and personal appearance.
But I'm beginning to form the opinion that centres more about the extra-over due to the fixed rate, which would gall me too.

Is it possible to determine what this persons likely salary range is, Luternau, to give some better background to the dilemma - is that being too prying?


----------



## DerKaiser

It's quite easy to see how she could be €500 pm down from 2007 with pay cuts, tax hikes, pension levy, etc.

She probably should have allowed herself a buffer when taking out the mortgage, but with a fixed rate and a steady job, she would have been seen as a very safe bet.

No point in dwelling on whose fault it is that her disposable income has taken a hit (arguments will range from casino capitalism overseen inept policticians to benchmarking leaving public servants on unrealistic salaries to unsustainably low taxation rates during the boom to overly generous public service pensions that must now be paid for by incumbants).

Is there a chance of her taking in a lodger under the rent a room scheme to close the gap in repayment ability I wonder?


----------



## Luternau

_*[Original post removed] *

Moderators' note 

I think what needs to be said about Caroline Lennon Nally has been said. If someone has some new information to add on her case,by all means please do add it. But please stop discussing her make-up bill, her civil service salary etc. 

Thanks

Brendan
_


----------



## Luternau

DerKaiser said:


> Is there a chance of her taking in a lodger under the rent a room scheme to close the gap in repayment ability I wonder?



But the spare rooms are probably over flowing with clothes... (Awful to suggest, but I have seen it else where!)


----------



## Luternau

onq said:


> €50 in clothes and grooming PER WEEK?!
> €2,500 per year on this when she can't pay the mortgage?
> 
> Is it possible to determine what this persons likely salary range is, Luternau, to give some better background to the dilemma - is that being too prying?



Yep-thats what she said. Said it was needed for her job. ???? If thats so, then it should be a deductable expense?

I would love to know her position-then its easy to get the salary range. Based on what she was approved for, guessing her age , and assuming no mortgage would be advanced beyond age 65/70. So at 5 times earnings, and at a guess, based on her saying she was 'professional' between 70 and 85k.


----------



## DerKaiser

Luternau said:


> But the spare rooms are probably over flowing with clothes... (Awful to suggest, but I have seen it else where!)


 
Classic - I've a good mental image of the poor lodger pinned into a corner by a mountain of clothes and "grooming" essentials!


----------



## onq

Luternau said:


> Yep-thats what she said. Said it was needed for her job. ???? If thats so, then it should be a deductable expense?
> 
> I would love to know her position-then its easy to get the salary range. Based on what she was approved for, guessing her age , and assuming no mortgage would be advanced beyond age 65/70. So at 5 times earnings, and at a guess, based on her saying she was 'professional' between 70 and 85k.



Thanks Luternau.

This is what I'm thinking, that its around a fifth of her gross salary, which might appear to suggest on the face of it she should be able to pay it and pay her bills.

I don't think we've heard the last of this one.


----------



## onq

DerKaiser said:


> It's quite easy to see how she could be €500 pm down from 2007 with pay cuts, tax hikes, pension levy, etc.
> 
> Is there a chance of her taking in a lodger under the rent a room scheme to close the gap in repayment ability I wonder?



A 20% cut in costs affects the bottom line more than a 20% rise in gross profits.

Anyone in this position would need to look at both and, with reference to your other comment, perhaps sell a few clothes to make space for the lodger.

Unless it turns out that he's a cross dresser, in which case there might be a rental option there too


----------



## thedaras

onq said:


> €50 in clothes and grooming PER WEEK?!
> €2,500 per year on this when she can't pay the mortgage?
> 
> I agree that she may have standards to maintain in terms of her deportment and personal appearance.
> But I'm beginning to form the opinion that centres more about the extra-over due to the fixed rate, which would gall me too.
> 
> Is it possible to determine what this persons likely salary range is, Luternau, to give some better background to the dilemma - is that being too prying?



From the article I posted earlier;

*She paid €385,000* for the property, but her bill came to* €412,000* by the time she had paid stamp duty and legal fees. 

Stuck in a 5.5% fixed-rate mortgage, negotiated in *2007 when sh*e* bought her** home*, she found it increasingly difficult to meet her €1,470 mortgage repayments, which were fixed at* interest only* until* 2012*. 

Re The 2.5k you mention;
Wouldnt she have to earn approx 5 thousand euro to service this grooming bill?


----------



## Firefly

thedaras said:


> From the article I posted earlier;
> 
> She paid €385,000 for the property, but her bill came to €412,000 by the time she had paid stamp duty and legal fees.
> 
> *Stuck in a 5.5% fixed-rate mortgage*, negotiated in  2007 when she bought her home, she found it increasingly difficult to meet her €1,470 mortgage repayments, which were fixed at_ interest only_ until 2012.
> 
> Re The 2.5k you mention;
> Wouldnt she have to earn approx 5 thousand euro to service this grooming bill?



This bit bothers me. She's not stuck at all, she's nearing the end of an agreement she entered into.


----------



## DerKaiser

Firefly said:


> This bit bothers me. She's not stuck at all, she's nearing the end of an agreement she entered into.


 
True.  With her LTV ratio she's lucky not to be subprime!


----------



## onq

thedaras said:


> From the article I posted earlier;
> 
> *She paid €385,000* for the property, but her bill came to* €412,000* by the time she had paid stamp duty and legal fees.
> 
> Stuck in a 5.5% fixed-rate mortgage, negotiated in *2007 when sh*e* bought her** home*, she found it increasingly difficult to meet her €1,470 mortgage repayments, which were fixed at* interest only* until* 2012*.


She cannot now afford the interest-only for five years per her agreement.
Notwithstanding any "hits" she may have taken financially in the interim, how was she going to proceed after 2012?


> Re The 2.5k you mention;
> Wouldnt she have to earn approx 5 thousand euro to service this grooming bill?


You mean in terms of gross income and taxable income? 
Depends on what she earns but putting it at 40% - yes, something like that.

It equates to the cost of a good holiday for one person somewhere reasonably well kitted out.
I cannot help feeling that we're not seeing the whole picture being reported in relation to this story.


----------



## Gekko

Folks,

You're being a bit hard on the woman.  Any of us who have to dress professionally probably spend more on our appearance than we actually think we do.

A professional guy has to buy suits, shoes, shirts and ties and get his hair cut.  She spends €2,500 per annum and is being pilloried for it.  She's a woman for starters so hair is far more expensive and she has to buy makeup too.

There's a hint of a witchhunt here.  Those who haven't been stung by Ireland's property collapse are coming across as very smug.  In most cases, such people have just been lucky - They were either at the right age or stage of their life during the boom.


----------



## monagt

> There's a hint of a witchhunt here. Those who haven't been stung by Ireland's property collapse are coming across as very smug. In most cases, such people have just been lucky - They were either at the right age or stage of their life during the boom.



+1 Very well put, it captures the essence of this thread.


----------



## onq

The point is not that she's spending €2.5K on maintaining her appearance.
That was symptomatic of how this woman's predicament was presented.

The point is that she looks like she cannot pay her mortgage after 2012.
I'm not smug about it but it puts her current concerns into perspective.

I agree that discussing this article may have dragged us off topic.
However it enlightened me re the presentation of such issues.

In that sense it supported the original topic.


----------



## Gekko

onq said:


> The point is not that she's spending €2.5K on maintaining her appearance.
> That was symptomatic of how this woman's predicament was presented.
> 
> The point is that she looks like she cannot pay her mortgage after 2012.
> I'm not smug about it but it puts her current concerns into perspective.
> 
> I agree that discussing this article may have dragged us off topic.
> However it enlightened me re the presentation of such issues.


 
I saw the programme.

She wasn't happy at having a bank employee give her grief over spending €50 per week on work related grooming.  The question is not whether €50 a week is excessive.  I think when you analyse it, it's not excessive but it's certainly inflammatory in a discussion such as this.

I do not think it's appropriate for the bank employee to give the woman grief over that level of spending.


----------



## DerKaiser

Gekko said:


> She wasn't happy at having a bank employee give her grief over spending €50 per week on work related grooming. The question is not whether €50 a week is excessive. I think when you analyse it, it's not excessive but it's certainly inflammatory in a discussion such as this.
> 
> I do not think it's appropriate for the bank employee to give the woman grief over that level of spending.


 
I'm not sure here either. She was pretty indignant about it, but for me that's misplaced pride. She can't honour her debts and is in danger of losing her home that she worked hard for. She needs to swallow her pride and accept the people she owes €400k to (ultimately us) cannot let her continue in a bubble where rather than adjust her lifestyle she simply stops paying back the people who lent her money in good faith.

Saying she'd rather burn the house is another indicator of an inability to swallow her pride.

A lot of people, like the cork couple in property shock, have instinctively done the right things i.e. accept your means have been cut and try adjust your lifestlye expectations.  For me, the impression I got from most of the frontline examples was one of people burying their head in the sand and refusing to accept, or even take contol of, their new circumstances.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

I think what needs to be said about Caroline Lennon Nally has been said.  If someone has some new information to add on her case,by all means  please do add it. But please stop discussing her make-up bill, her civil  service salary etc. Overall this thread is raising important issues. Please stay on topic. And please calm down a bit. If someone posts something inappropriate, ignore it or  report it. Don't let fly at them.


----------



## onq

Brendan Burgess said:


> I think what needs to be said ... has been said.



It needs to be summarized.

This situation appears to be as follows, couched in very carefully constructed language Brendan and not naming names overtly - this is in fact a general case scenario.

 - somebody may have decided to jump on the property ladder for five years on an interest-only mortgage
 - somebody may have borrowed way beyond what they could afford on a normal mortgage to maximize their putative "gain"
 - somebody may have therefore intended to "flip" the house as an investment vehicle
 - somebody may have intended to minimize capital gains tax because the property was used as a sole domicile.

 Now that disaster is looming because of the crash, a Facebook page is started on which all sorts of things are being claimed.
 One things that doesn't appear to be claimed is - "I speculated on the bubble and got caught".
How many people are this position because of speculation?

Now let's review those people living in large expensive houses.
The distillation of this thread gives us a tool with which to view their situation - a simple pair of questions.

"Was this a genuine attempt to purchase a home with the mortgagee having a reasonable expectation of being able to pay for it?"

"Was this an attempt to make a vast profit on a rising market, the bigger the mortgage amount, the bigger the anticipated gain?"


----------



## Sunny

Brendan is right. It is not fair to pick on one individual without knowing her. AAM is not hello magazine. Post comments on her facebook page if people want.


----------



## ontour

I was amazed by Caroline Lennon-Nally's attitude of entitlement.  She doesn't seem to realise that all the money she put in to the house is gone, she is looking for it to be someone else's money.  This is the same person that told the bank that she needs €2,600 per year for personal grooming.  I was entirely unsurprised to find that she worked in HSE management.  I suppose that we have all created the environment that has led to her deluded state.

She is a very bad example of the real suffering and anxiety of mortgage holders.


----------



## gaius

Brendan Burgess said:


> The public servant was on the News at One today on RTE.
> 
> She is a mother of 1.
> 
> She appears to be Caroline Lennon-Nally a Resource Officer with the HSE. (They also called her Celine)
> 
> She bought her house(in Kilkenny I think?) for €320k in 2007 and has been paying interest only since then ( €50k in interest since 2007)
> 
> She has invested a lot in the house.
> 
> She is involved in something called "Irish Homeowners Unite"


 Well done on tackling her last night Brendan.


----------



## Bronte

gaius said:


> Well done on tackling her last night Brendan.


 
What programme was that please?  Also is that the lady who was on another programme about a year or two ago?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

gaius said:


> Well done on tackling her last night Brendan.



Thanks gaius.  This thread was excellent in preparing me for the discussion. 



> What programme was that please?


The Late Debate   starts at around 11 minutes in



> Also is that the lady who was on another programme about a year or two ago?


She was on the Frontline - unchallenged. 
She has been in the Indo - unchallenged
She has been in the Examiner - unchallenged
She has even been in the Financial Times - unchallenged 
She was on last night's Six One News - unchallenged
She was on last night's Nine O'Clock News - unchallenged. 

So, I redressed the balance a bit by challenging her. 

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess

I got a lot of extra information about Caroline Lennon Nally last night. 

She is now €50,000 in arrears. 

She paid €1,000 a month up to the end of 2011 and hasn't paid anything since. 

I suggested that she had traded up and she told me she hadn't. I had assumed she had, as she had paid so much stamp duty.

Later she said "I sold a house" but when I pressed her on this, she said that she didn't trade up. She had mortgages since she was 20. 

Her current interest rate is 1.9%.  But she is still refusing to pay anthing. 

Her annual interest would be €6,000 or €500 a year, but paying that would make her a "glorified renter". 


In my opinion she is a classic case of a strategic defaulter who is hoping to get some deal by being difficult.  As I said on the programme, the bank should be able to repossess her home, get a judgment for the shortfall and they should get some form of charge on her salary to make sure she pays the shortfall. 

There are so many people really struggling - it is most unfortunate that the case for debt write-off is damaged by the likes of Caroline Lennon Nally.l


----------



## jdwex

Listened to it. She refused to say what she was actually earning, only that it went down by X%. She knows damn well she'd lose any sympathy if people knew what she was earning, as she can well afford to pay to pay her mortgage, but - "Boo Hoo I want my Nama".
Strategic defaulter, feeling sorry for herself as she is in negative equity.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

> Stuck in a 5.5% fixed-rate mortgage, negotiated in 2007 when she bought  her home, she found it increasingly difficult to meet her €1,470  mortgage repayments, which were fixed at interest only until 2012.




Mortgage|€320k
Original fixed rate|5.5%
Annual interest|€17,640
Monthly repayment|€1,470 
Current rate|1.9%
Annual interest|€6,000
Monthly repayment - interest only|€500
Monthly repayment over 15 years|€2,000So the interest cost of her mortgage has dropped from €17,640 to €6,000 a year i.e. a 65% cut.  

She just does not want to pay the capital. 

I am trying to reconcile the figures 



Cost of house|€385k
stamp duty @ 6%|€23k
Legal costs|€4k
Total cost|€412k
Mortgage|€ 320k
so deposit must have been|€92kIf her salary was €80k, then she was borrowing 4 times her salary
If her salary was €60k, then she was borrowing over 5 times her salary - high, but certainly not considered reckless at the time. 

She said that had worked since the age of 18 and had mortgages since the age of 20. So presumably she has benefited in the past from house price increases.

If her house had increased in value since she bought it, you can be quite sure that she would be able to meet her monthly repayments.


----------



## Marion

I suspect that she wants her debt dealt with before she retires as she may have to use her lump sum on retirement to clear the debt and she clearly does not wish to do that. I can't say that I sympathise with her case. I take care of my own debts. I don't try to unburden myself of them and impose them on the taxpayer. 

It wouldn't be too difficult to figure out what her salary scale is. Her name is rather unusual and she says she's a public servant.

Marion


----------



## Ceist Beag

Well done on the show Brendan. I think she is clever in that any time you got close to a bit more truth she went off on a tangent to avoid revealing more than she wanted, as in when you found out about the house she sold, instead of revealing how much, if any, she gained from the sale of the house, she brought emotion into the story by stating it was due to a breakup. As you say, this type of story is dangerous in that it is portrayed as typical of the cases where help is needed when it is anything but.


----------



## Bronte

Brendan Burgess said:


> Mortgage|€320k
> 
> 
> She just does not want to pay the capital.
> 
> I am trying to reconcile the figures
> 
> .






I must say it feels odd talking about someone on here when she is identified but I guess she's become a public figure and she is lobbying with her group. 

There are long threads on this, but I'm not sure if I've missed why is she not paying capital? And why is her interest rate so low?

It would have been interesting to do this as a clean case study maybe without all the other detail on this thread? And then put in back in here. Like someone did with Mrs. Cornflake.

The benefit from previous house sales was presumably the deposit, an even higher clothing allowance, holidays, cars and home improvements. Unless some of it was eaten up by a divorce settlement.


----------



## ontour

Was Pascal Donohoe very sympathetic towards her in his comments on the programme?  edit: He does come back and quiz her about paying at the end.

Caroline said that she is not looking for a debt write down.  I am completely confused what she expects to happen.


----------



## bugler

She doesn't want to say the words "I am looking for a debt write-down" - but she clearly wants it. She prefers to deal in smoke, mirrors (or should that be "make-up mirrors") and fluffy language lest people see through her.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

From her article in the Irish Independent  8 April 2012



> Caroline Lennon Nally, a public servant who is fast sinking  into mortgage arrears, is one of those still waiting for a tangible  helping hand from the State. "I'd love to see something happening. All  we have seen is a lot of talk," she said this weekend.
> 
> 
> She  bought her home for €385,000 in 2007, and has since invested €150,000  in it between mortgage repayments and stamp duty. She can no longer  afford her €1,470 repayments s*ince pay cuts and levies cut her income by  €1,500 a month. *A year ago, she offered to repay a sizeable sum to her  lender but the bank refused to accept it. A financial adviser helped her  come up other repayment proposals, but those too have been rejected.  "I'm exhausted at the moment in that I really don't seem to be making  any progress with my lender," she said. "I actively pursued my lender  before I ever got into difficulties, knowing what was coming down the  tracks, and it is just like banging my head against a brick wall."



Elsewhere, she says that she has taken a 25% pay cut. So she must still have a net salary of €4,500 a month.


----------



## Time

And why has the bank not turfed her out at this stage?


----------



## Luternau

I cringe everytime this person gets airtime.

I think that no matter what the scenario or event, she will have a distorted view of it. Her views on her debts are distorted. Her view on the property are distorted. Her view on her entitlements are distortored.
I should clarify-distorted by her!

How else can one describe calling stamp duty and mortgage interest as an investment in ones home? They both add no value and are non transferable. Rather than being investments, they are just costs of buying a home or paying a mortgage.

I see no reason why a bank should not move to repossess here. She clearly has money, has signed a contract obliging her to pay monthly and has publically said she is not paying. If she was in the same situation income wise but as renter she would have to pay rent to keep her tenancy, so why does she not pay a bank the equivalent in interest at least? 

That she paid stamp duty or x% interest rate, or that the banks destroyed her asset value or had her salary cut, are irrelevant arguements.

As I said, she has a distorted view on matters.


----------



## Delboy

I listened to this live last night Brendan and if I knew a thread already existed here, I'd have posted at the time to say well done.
About time someone pulled up people like CLN.....she's been getting away unchallenged for years. I even think David Hall was knocked off stride for a few minutes as he's not used of seeing anyone on his side being challenged (though he did recover!!!)

She shrieked when she asked if she wanted a debt write down, saying thats not what she was after. But it clearly is despite all her claims of only wanting 'communication', whatever that is.
She seems to be also angling to say the loan was illegal in the 1st place....she said she's had her mortgage claim examined and the bank 'gave' her 50k too much. 
There's no arguing with people like this

Her 'group' consists of 2,500 people she keeps on claiming but all I can find is her facebook page which has.....2,500 likes or followers or whatever it is you call it!!!

I get angry every time I hear her (or David Hall, or Ross Maguire, or Monica Leech and her new group, or The Freemen, or the Free Legal Aid people, or Geroge Mordaunt, or etc etc)...but perhaps it's no harm giving her airtime.....it really shows up the kind of people seeking debt write downs.


----------



## Marion

Brendan

It's not clear if her pay cut (€1500) at that particular time was Gross or Net. The Gross figure always looks more attractive when used to make a case.


Marion


----------



## Dermot

Delboy +1. David Hall and Ross Maguire to be honest are pure opportunists and self promoters. There is no doubt that we will be having more "hard luck" stories from other characters.  I can see people with 800k and 900k mortgages with a house valued at 450k wanting the mortgage written down to the current value of the house or less and who could not contemplate the idea of having to live in normal decent estate where houses might be valued at 250k. This would be intolerable for a tennis/golf/rugby club member to have to have to change their membership address to this new address.


----------



## thedaras

Fair play to you Brendan,and thank God someone made the challenge.
It is utterly frustrating to hear CLN go on about her situation.
A couple of things struck me,
;1) some posters mentioned something along the lines of it being strange posting about her,and once or twice posters were requested not to speak about her being a public servant,her make up ,clothes,expenditure etc.

My thinking on this is that she has put herself out there as a poster child for those in debt,as mentioned she has been on a lot of media,and Facebook.
She also uses these items of expenditure and has mentioned on numerous occasions that she is a public servant,to justify not paying her debt,she obviosly sees this as relevant enough to be worth a mention,so I see no issue with anyone challenging it.
A bit like the Guards wife who said the child had to eat the cornflakes box! lots of people questioned that and suggested ways that wouldn't entail eating cardboard! Point is,if you put information into the public domain,don't be surprised or offended that people question/query it.
2). I would love to know what she would do if the interest rates had increased!

I do have sympathy for those who have no job,live in the middle of nowhere,have major issues with the property,pyrite,etc,but having CLN speak as one of those burdened with debt,does them no favours.


,


----------



## thedaras

Dermot said:


> I can see people with 800k and 900k mortgages with a house valued at 450k wanting the mortgage written down to the current value of the house or less and who could not contemplate the idea of having to live in normal decent estate where houses might be valued at 250k. This would be intolerable for a tennis/golf/rugby club member to have to have to change their membership address to this new address.



Indeed..
 I'd imagine the fact that their house has devalued,they are dealing with negative equity,may have lost their jobs and can no longer afford to keep their home is not a priority,
You have nailed it,it has to be the rugby/tennis club membership address.

Mind you I know someone who lives in a house worth 250k,and wouldn't dream of living in an area where the houses were worth a quarter of that....something to  do with being in a particular parish,meaning her kids get into the local school,imagine that..tut tut...


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Delboy said:


> I get angry every time I hear her (or David Hall, or Ross Maguire, or Monica Leech and her new group, or The Freemen, or the _*Free Legal Aid people*_, or Geroge Mordaunt, or etc etc)...but perhaps it's no harm giving her airtime.....it really shows up the kind of people seeking debt write downs.



Hi Delboy

I wouldn't lump all of those guys together. 

I fully agree with you on  Caroline Lennon Nally, David Hall,  The Freemen, George Mordaunt
I mostly agree with you on Ross Maguire - but maybe I am being fooled by his articulateness 
I haven't heard of Monica Leech's group.

But I completely disagree with you on FLAC.  



They provide free legal information and advice to people who can't afford it.
Based on their experience, they have campaigned responsibly for years on the debt issue.
They have successfully backed legal challenges to ptsb's weird interpretations of HP agreements
They have produced well researched reports on debt.
They have devised protocols with the IBF on unsecured debt
The have run conferences on mortgage debt where they brought in experts who added hugely to the debate. After listening to them, I changed my mind on two fundamental issues.
Their submissions and proposals have always been reasonable and balanced.
FLAC and I don't always agree, but I always listen to their point of view and I am prepared to learn from their expertise and experience.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

thedaras said:


> ;1) some posters mentioned something along the lines of it being strange posting about her,and once or twice posters were requested not to speak about her being a public servant,her make up ,clothes,expenditure etc.,



Hi dara

The original thread was about bias in the Frontline programme. She was only one of 4 participants, and she had made a once-off appearance on a TV programme.  I deleted many of the posts as they were personalised and some were nasty. 

I have restored some of the deleted comments as she is no now a public figure and we know much more about her. She is refusing to pay anything towards her mortgage interest of €6,000 a year, yet she spends €2,600 a year on "clothes and grooming".


----------



## Bronte

thedaras said:


> A bit like the Guards wife who said the child had to eat the cornflakes box! lots of people questioned that and suggested ways that wouldn't entail eating cardboard!


 
Just to clarify this, the Garda wife said there were days the family could only eat cornflakes as their main meals.  That story was dissected and the conculsions were I think that they had salary cuts (like everybody) that they probably over extended on their mortgage but didn't want to reduce their lifestyle and deal with the new reality that most people have had to cope with.  And their new reality was still a lot lot better than most people.  

The eating the cornflake box was a separate story (Kerry I think) and it was a pure nonsense story.  Something about a child who was so hungry they had tried to eat the box.


----------



## Bronte

Ms. Nally Lennon. Having listened to the beginning of the pod case and seen her on TV about a year ago I think it's fair to comment on her. 

I actually feel sorry for her now. In this sense only. She has a fine salary, (auditor with the HSE must pay well surely, even with 25% cuts) she will no doubt be entitled to early retirement with a large lump sum, presumably too her pension will also by high. So the bank have her number. How can she not see this ?

One fine day now as her non payments make her savings grow, as she continues to live without paying back her debts which are mounting the bank are going to slap her with orders to freeze her bank account to get the savings, a repossesion notice to seize the house, and an installment order on her salary to pay the NE, the court costs, the interest on interest and legal fees. And they will probably go after her lump sum and pension too. 

And for a women who says she is so resilient, reasonable, prudent, not stupid, and intelligent she comes across as someone who will not acknowledge and deal with the simple reality of her own incorrect investment decision. She wants us to pay for her mistakes, even thought she actually can afford it and we certainly do not want to pay for her.

And she's making the classic mistake of considering the 150K she 'invested' in the propery as an investment. It was a cost of borrowing and transaction (mortgage repayments of capital and interest and I think she's lumping in stamp duty and legal fees there).

I did not understand her logic of not agreeing even to pay the interest only of 7K annually (Mortgage of 350K at 1.9%). That's not even 600 a month and pressumable a fine house, her own. I did not understand how she thinks interest only is 'glorified' renting with out the perks and here too she herself has decided it should be half that. I see no logic. She wants a write down plain and simple. To all her talents she forget to add honestly. Why can't she honestly tell us that she wants a write down of her bad investment which she can actually afford.

What is really really sad about all this is that there are genuine people who really need write downs. How do the media manage to put up this women as someone who deserves a write down. What is wrong with the media and investigative journalism.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Delboy said:


> I even think David Hall was knocked off stride for a few minutes as he's not used of seeing anyone on his side being challenged (though he did recover!!!)



To be honest, I think he was quite embarrassed by her.  I thought he might come in or start sniping at me, but he kept his head down, literally and metaphorically, for the first part of the programme while Caroline and I analysed her position. 

If I recall correctly, I don't think that he defended her at all during the programme, but of course he did generally attack the banks for not negotiating with borrowers.


----------



## ontour

Even though I may not agree with David Hall's views, I have always perceived him to be more constructive than many of the other 'defenders of mortgage holders'.  He has tended to engage with the instruments of the state such as the courts as opposed to other people's strategy of talking to the archbishop!  Maybe I am influenced by the fact that he has a successful business and less of a personal vested interest.


----------



## elcato

I think Bronte has hit it on the head. The best tool one can hold is keeping confidentiality. She is basically on a loser and any chance she had was blown once she stopped paying and going public about it. She is in the same mold as our friends in Killiney.


----------



## ontour

She reminded me more of Ann Marie Glennon Cully, the lady with the 'five star insurance claim' in Dublin 4.  Underlying both situations is an understandably difficult circumstance but both have an incredible level of delusion.  Maybe there is a curse of double barrel surnames?


----------



## elcato

> Maybe there is a curse of double barrel surnames?


Oh oh. My second name is _Felis silvestris._


----------



## Dr.Debt

I listened to Catherine Lennon on this interview and I did actually understand her position, irrespective of how illogical it might appear.

This is a person who bought at the top of the market and like a lot of other people at that time made a very bad property buying decision. It seems that she is in significant negative equity and she is concerned about her future.She tells us that she is in the 2nd part of her working life.

Catherine Lennon is  thinking to herself - What should I do now.
If she continues to repay her mortgage for the next fifteen years to retirement, she will probably arrive at a situation (at best) where she manages to eliminate the negative equity on the mortgage. If this happens she arrives at retirement age when the value of her house = the value of her mortgage. So in other words she works her butt off for the next fifteen years to retirement and will have nothing at all to show for it at that time. She might quite justifiably conclude that she is merely working for the bank over that time. The bank would really love her to repay her mortgage for the next fifteen years but whether you like it or not, she is right when she says that there is nothing in that scenario for her. She would end up having to sell her house at retirement time to repay the mortgage.

So she is challenging the bank to understand her predicament. If the bank repossesses her house now, the bank will lose out to the extent of her negative equity. She doesn't want to pay interest only because this is more than it would cost to rent the house in the current market. She has withheld all payments to force the matter to a conclusion.

So, on one hand she is saying, if she continues to pay her mortgage she will end up with nothing at retirement and the bank will lose nothing.
If she continues to withhold her mortgage, the bank will repossess her house and lose a large sum of money due to the negative equity. She is asking the bank to meet her somewhere in the middle "a deal"

Many commentators have made a point that negative equity is not a problem as long as the mortgagee keeps paying. I have always made a point that negative equity is a huge problem as people will not want to continue paying if there is no ray of sunshine at the end of the tunnel.

This post is not about the rights or wrongs of the situation. We have thrashed through that thousands of times already. People like Catherine Nally are not going to take their medicine just to keep the banks happy.
Human nature is human nature. We cant expect her to take all the pain and have nothing to show for it at the end. In theory "Yes", In practice "No"

A better outcome would be for the Mortgagee to continue payments and for the bank to agree to writing off 50% of the negative equity (as measured in todays terms) at the end of the mortgage term.
There are thousands of cased like Catherine Lennon, who can afford to keep up payments but have littkle appetite to continue paying into the black hole we know as negative equity. There is very little said about this category of borrower at the moment but it will be a problem before too long.

Take the "what if" one step further. What if Catherine Lennon arrives at retirement and has made regular payments over the ensuing fifteen years. Lets say that the negative equity has reduced somewhat but she is still in negative equity of 100K.
She retires from her public sector job. She can no longer afford her mortgage. The bank then repossesses her house and also takes her retirement gratuity to defray the remaining negative equity. I assume that this is what she means when she says that "I am not stupid" She knows that any solution must be balanced and she cannot be allowed to get backed into a corner by her bank.


----------



## Bronte

When she originally got the mortgage if she had stuck to the terms at that time would she have had her mortgage paid back by the time she reached retirment. Was her mortgage term based on payments beyond retirement age. Was the lump sum on retirement factored into this. Or was there an assumption that capital appreciation would actually mean she could have sold and made a profit. 

If she can afford to do so should she not continue to pay the mortgage after retirment. Many people managed to get mortgages to 70 years of age. (I don't agree with that but other people did). 

Are you saying that people in NE should have their mortgages written down?  Because if you are I'm going to the top of the queue.


----------



## TRS30

Dr.Debt said:


> A better outcome would be for the Mortgagee to continue payments and for the bank to agree to writing off 50% of the negative equity (as measured in todays terms) at the end of the mortgage term.
> There are thousands of cased like Catherine Lennon, who can afford to keep up payments but have little appetite to continue paying into the black hole we know as negative equity. There is very little said about this category of borrower at the moment but it will be a problem before too long.



A better outcome for who? 

Ultimately we the tax payers will pay for her write off/ bad investment decision. 

If I borrowed to buy shares and they lost 50% of their value would you give me money to repay the money I borrowed? 

No; you would tell me it's my problem, I made a decision so need to face up to the consequences.


----------



## Dr.Debt

What I'm saying is 100% of nothing is nothing. 50% of something is something. Something is better than nothing for the bank and for the tax payer

If the bank says "No deal" and Catherine Lennon sticks her heals in (as she is doing now) presumably the house will be eventually repossessed and the bank loses out to the full extent of the negative equity.
If Catherine Lennon loses her house , she can rent another one for less than the interest on her mortgage. She is putting it up to the bank and from what I can see she is holding some of the aces. 

If the bank says that we will write off 50% of the NE and Catherine Lennon agrees to this, then the bank and the tax payer is better off to the tune of 50% of the NE.

@TRS30 you might be right that the tax payer ends up paying for some of the bad investment decision. Do you want to pay 50% or 100% ?


----------



## Bronte

Dr.Debt said:


> If the bank says "No deal" and Catherine Lennon sticks her heals in (as she is doing now) presumably the house will be eventually repossessed and the bank loses out to the full extent of the negative equity.


 
I believe that you are wrong on this.  It will by Ms. Lennon who ultimately loses out.  She is a permanant employee on a good salary.  She has no wriggle room. Bank can throw the book at her and then some.


----------



## Dr.Debt

Do the maths, Bronte...


----------



## callybags

> If the bank repossesses her house now, the bank will lose out to the extent of her negative equity.


 
This is where your whole argument falls down, as pointed out by Bronte.

She is in a permanent well paid job with a guaranteed income going forward. She also has a guaranteed lump sum on retirement with a guaranteed reduced income afterwards.

Notice my continued use of "guaranteed". Banks love this and would have no problem selling the house out from under her and recouping the negative equity over time.


----------



## ontour

Dr.Debt said:


> So in other words she works her butt off for the next fifteen years to retirement and will have nothing at all to show for it at that time.



What is retirement age?  I know lots of people working in their 70s and 80s, some because the like to and others because they need to.



Dr.Debt said:


> She would end up having to sell her house at retirement time to repay the mortgage.



In her situation it is more likely that she would need to use her retirement lump sum.  Luckily she has that.



Dr.Debt said:


> If the bank repossesses her house now, the bank will lose out to the extent of her negative equity.



Please explain why you think that the bank can not effectively pursue her for the shortfall?

I also have been hit by a bad week with Cheltenham results, please tell me where I recoup 50% of my losses.


----------



## Dr.Debt

First of all let me just say that I am not here to represent or defend Catherine Lennon, just trying to explain her thought process as i picked up on it listening to her.

A permanent full time job is all very nice and dandy but no pleasure at all 
if you're paying most of it down a black hole. Why not just take a voluntary redundancy and skip off abroad for a few years and come back later for your pension.

You might be right that the bank believes that they have such people over a barrell. I dont believe it will work out like that.


----------



## Dermot

Bronte. I wholeheartedly agree with where you are coming from in the last two posts. My sympathies and views as expressed in your last two posts would coincide. Strange view that the lady is taking for an AUDITOR.


----------



## callybags

Dr.Debt said:


> So in other words she works her butt off for the next fifteen years to retirement and will have nothing at all to show for it at that time. .


 
Another major flaw in your argument.

What value would you put on having a safe, secure roof over your head; able to come and go as you please; take in lodgers if you wish etc. for 15 years?

Hardly nothing at all.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Dr Debt

She borrowed €320k 

She is now on a cheap tracker mortgage. 

The interest rate is 1.9% - or around €6,000 a year on a mortgage of €320,000. With repayments of €2,000 a month,  she would be repaying €18,000 a year in capital.  Depending on how house prices move, she could be out of negative equity in around 5 years. She could own her home mortgage-free by retirement. 

She could probably have done a deal to pay the  interest and some capital and extend her mortgage beyond retirement. She would still be able to afford the repayments on her guaranteed pension. 

Brendan


----------



## Dr.Debt

Well her reply to that would be that she could rent a similar place for a small fraction of her mortgage repayments over the same time period.

In both cases she ends up with nothing at the end

She says that the if she is going to keep on making these repayments 
then she wants to own it at the end. She doesn't want to keep up the repayments if its just rent by a different name.


----------



## Dr.Debt

Hi Brendan

I dont remember seeing the exact negative equity figures anywhere but I gathered that it was a lot higher than 90000. I also didnt realise that she was on a tracker ?
I also missed the fact that she has mortgage repayments of 2000 per month. I dont think thats the case at all ?


----------



## TRS30

Dr.Debt said:


> Well her reply to that would be that she could rent a similar place for a small fraction of her mortgage repayments over the same time period.
> 
> In both cases she ends up with nothing at the end
> 
> She says that the if she is going to keep on making these repayments
> then she wants to own it at the end. She doesn't want to keep up the repayments if its just rent by a different name.



If she pays off the mortgage as Brendan has outlined above she will have have her house mortgage free and a comfortable pension to live off. 

In many ways she is far from the 'post child' for debt forgiveness and those in true difficulty must be fuming that she is supposedly representing them.


----------



## irishmoss

Just curious to see what age she is. She said to Brendan she has mortgages since she was 20. Looks like she moved from Skerries (nice area) to Carlow and bought this 4 bed detached house possibly after a seperation. Was she not being naive in paying 385k as a single person in the first place.? The house must been impressive to coomand that figure too in Carlow even at the height when 3 bed semis in fairly ordinary parts of Dublin just about reached those prices. I think she bit off more than she could chew from the start but now want the rest of us to pick up the tab


----------



## Dermot

From reading the post she puts mortgages etc down as a cost that she has had to bear for owning this house but puts no value on the quality of the accommodation that she enjoyed over this period. It is possible that she got tax relief on the Interest on the mortgage and this is not mentioned. Did she ever pro actively seek out a person under the rent a room scheme which is a tax friendly scheme or would this be too great an inconvenience. She is a very poor candidate for any write off. I would say that her bank manager would not be too nervous about laying out a few home truths to her.  This is the type of shenanigans that I fear that will be going on while genuine people are waiting to get a barely tolerable deal. As soon as some people feel there is negative equity in their property they instantly feel they have to have it all written off. There are varying degrees of negative equity and each case will have to be dealt with individually. Negative equity does not always mean an unsustainable mortgage.


----------



## elcato

Well as regards holding the aces, as soon as she went public she blew her hand. She has one final ace she could play though. Take early retirement, throw the keys at the bank and leave the country singing the Bay City Rollers song. I think also her advisor may be the same as Pearse Doherty's.


----------



## Dermot

Yes Pearse loves LaLaLand. Nobody should lose their home no matter what. That is his stated position. They will soon climb to 45%+ in the Polls with this policy and nobody will have to pay for it.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

I would like to keep this thread to the topic of Caroline Lennon Nally as she is very likely to appear again. 

I have moved the discussion of the Prime Time programme here: 

Monica Leech and George Mordaunt on Prime Time

I don't think that George Mordaunt is in the same category as she is.


----------



## AgathaC

Well done on the programme,Brendan. I don't think she really expected to be challenged. I feel sorry for those genuinely struggling,and definitely agree that they need to be helped. However I don't think this lady is in that category,and I am sure she isn't the only one who will try to avail of a write down, based, as far as I can see,on the fact that she doesn't want to pay back what she borrowed, rather than genuinely not being able to afford it.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

There is an excellent post on The Property Pin which estimates her gross income and net income 



net income 2009|49,719
net income 2013|42,526
Drop |€7,193

Her income may have dropped by more since she bought the house in 2007. 

In any event, she is still earning  a high net salary so can afford her repayments.


----------



## commonsense

Brendan Burgess said:


> Dr Debt
> 
> She borrowed €320k
> 
> She is now on a cheap tracker mortgage.
> 
> The interest rate is 1.9% - or around €6,000 a year on a mortgage of €320,000. With repayments of €2,000 a month,  she would be repaying €18,000 a year in capital.  Depending on how house prices move, she could be out of negative equity in around 5 years. She could own her home mortgage-free by retirement.
> 
> She could probably have done a deal to pay the  interest and some capital and extend her mortgage beyond retirement. She would still be able to afford the repayments on her guaranteed pension.
> 
> Brendan



But did she borrow 320k Brendan? I checked out an amoritisation calculator and using her figures, this does not appear to be the case.

The facts as she has given them:

She is now mid 50's.  
Meaning that in 2007, she was almost 50.

She says her repayments were 1,470 per month.  

She said her agreed interest rate fixed from the start of the mortgage was 5.5%.

Now assuming that she got a 20 year mortgage then the most she could have borrowed, according to the calulator, at that interest rate for that repayment is[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]10k.[/FONT]*[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]*[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This [/FONT]would have put her at almost 70 at the end of the mortgage. 

A 25 year mortgage would put the amount borrowed at 240k and her at 75.

It looks to me like she put a huge deposit on the house and wants it back. Please..


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Brendan Burgess said:


> Cost of house|€385k
> stamp duty @ 6%|€23k
> Legal costs|€4k
> Total cost|€412k
> Mortgage|€ 320k
> so deposit must have been|€92k



Her loan was interst-only for the first 5 years. 
€320k @5.5% = €17,600 per year
= €1,470 per month.


Brendan


----------



## commonsense

Thanks Brendan, this confused me.  

"Stuck in a 5.5% fixed-rate mortgage, negotiated in 2007 when she bought  her home, she found it increasingly difficult to meet her €1,470  mortgage repayments, which were fixed at interest only until 2012."

I have to say I'm still confused. 

How could she take out a mortgage on a fixed rate and then renegotiate it to a tracker prior to the pay cuts? 

Sorry to be a nuisance, but it doesn't make sense to me. She repaid 50k, which I took to be in 07-08-09, she only got into arrears in December 2010, one year later, then how can she claim that the paycut caused her problems?

Thanks.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

> How could she take out a mortgage on a fixed rate and then renegotiate it to a tracker prior to the paycuts?


It was quite common for people to take out tracker mortgages, but fix for a few years. There was no renegotiation - it was agreed at the start. 



> She repaid 50k, which I took to be in 07-08-09,


Where did she say she repaid €50k? 

Maybe she _paid _€50k interest? €17,600  for 3 years would be around €50,000, which would have been late 2007 to late 2010.  

On _The Late Debate_, she said she paid €1,000 a month during 2011, but nothing since. (On _the Front Line_ in November 2011, she said that she had been putting €1,000 a month into a bank account instead of paying it to the lender. So that seems to conflict with what she said on _The Late Debate) _


----------



## Bronte

The only 50K she mentioned was arrears. She mentioned it's value was 170K and NE was 180K. So she currently owes 350K. 

She also mentioned that she had paid 150K. But it was never ever clear whether this was interest, capital, deposit, legal fees etc.  She also said she didn't want to pay 60K over the next 5 years (this works out at 12K a year - presumably 7K interest at 1.9% and some capital).


----------



## commonsense

Thanks for taking the time to reply Brendan. 



Brendan Burgess said:


> It was quite common for people to take out tracker mortgages, but fix for a few years. There was no renegotiation - it was agreed at the start.



This isn't what she did though, I listened to her again to try and decipher what her position is. You ask her about what she has paid since 2010, she says "I paid 1k  per month for the first year and at the end of that it was reverting  back to IO, *which was always 1500*".

She says " unfortunately I was prudent and fixed for the first 5 years at 5.5%".

In fairness to you, you try to sift through this and she says "I had Interest only for the first 5 years."

Now this is where it does not make any sense. If we go back to the start, the 320k @5.5% over 25 years was close to 2k. She was IO on this from the start. Are we to believe that as soon as she drew down this mortgage for 5.5%, that she immediately looked for Interest only and the bank agreed? 

The bank then offered her the 1.9% interest rate which was 100 euro less than the 5.5% Interest only, but it would have been repaying the capital, so her assertion that this was "twice the price of renting" was incorrect. 

And even at that, this very kind offer meant that her total repayment (interest and capital) was 700 euro less than the original agreement of 320k @5.5%. 




Brendan Burgess said:


> On _The Late Debate_, she said she paid €1,000 a month during 2011, but nothing since. (On _the Front Line_ in November 2011, she said that she had been putting €1,000 a month into a bank account instead of paying it to the lender. So that seems to conflict with what she said on _The Late Debate) _



She then goes on to say, "If I pay them another 60k over the next 5 years, I have 5 years less to work....what I owe is not sustainable over the length of time I have left working. But she thought it was sustainable until she was 75. For some reason she has knocked 10 years off the original agreement that she entered.

She is mid 50's now, she was close to 50 when she took out the mortgage over 25 years. 



Brendan Burgess said:


> Where did she say she repaid €50k?



Article in the Examiner. 

"She said she has already paid about €50,000 in mortgage repayments to her bank, a size-able deposit when she bought her home, as well as stamp duty. "

Lots of holes, you were also correct to point out to her that she absolutely gained from selling her marital home at the top of the boom. 

Finally, where did she get the sizeable sum of money to offer the bank? Maybe next time you meet you may ask her this? 

Thanks.

CS


----------



## dub_nerd

Listen, there's really no great mystery to this. Like a lot of people at the time, she wanted a house as both a home to live in, and an "investment" for retirement. The bigger the house, the bigger the investment, and the banks were willing to lend silly multiples of income which she took advantage of.

Now that the investment has gone bad, she still wants a home to live in, but wants out of the investment. Her circumstances haven't changed all that radically -- it just doesn't suit her to pay for something that will no longer leave her as comfortably off in retirement. In her self-absorbed version of  reality, that's not "sustainable". By that, she means that she'd like the rest of us to pay for her failed investment, while she keeps her home.

Quite simple really.


----------



## Mrs Vimes

I believe dub_nerd has hit the nail on the head!


----------



## commonsense

I think it's clear to many here what her motive is. But to many others she is hailed as a hero, a crusader against the banks. 

She has put herself out there as someone who has a distressed mortgage due to paycuts. She is claiming inability to pay. 

People have a right to go through the information she has supplied and question it. Too few journalists bother to do it, so it's left to others like Brendan to tease out the finer details.


----------



## dub_nerd

commonsense said:


> But to many others she is hailed as a hero, a crusader against the banks.


 
Is she really, though? Her 2,500 "followers" seem pretty ephemeral -- no more than viewers of her Facebook page. I'm sure plenty of people will be interested in the outcome she achieves. I'm equally sure nobody will be surprised when her ploy is ultimately unsuccessful.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi dub

She has gone unchallenged on the Front Line, The Independent, the Examiner, and the News.  A huge number of people have seen her and cheered her and would have believed her story. People believe anyone who criticises the banks. 

As far as I know, the only programme she was challenged on was _The Late Debate.  _I don't know how many listeners it has.

Brendan


----------



## Dermot

If people like the lady in question want to become poster girls/boys they should be prepared to put the full facts including the loan and income paper work on the record. It is a lazy and sloppy media who do not demand this and they are not doing either their readers or listeners any service. The least that the media should demand is accuracy and if the proof is not forthcoming do not publish. 
I get the impression from reading this thread that everything that the lady said on the show was not totally accurate for whatever reason.


----------



## Purple

Brendan Burgess said:


> I would like to keep this thread to the topic of Caroline Lennon Nally as she is very likely to appear again.
> 
> I have moved the discussion of the Prime Time programme here:
> 
> Monica Leech and George Mordaunt on Prime Time
> 
> I don't think that George Mordaunt is in the same category as she is.



I listened to that link last night and I agree 100% with you Brendan. 
Ms Nally is a very bad poster-child for those she claims to speak for.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Purple said:


> Ms Nally is a very bad poster-child for those she claims to speak for.




And that is why I have such a problem with her. 

Those of us who make the case for people who have unsustainable mortgages and need an exit solution have our case weakened by people like CLN. The lenders claim that if they do deals with people strategic defaulters like CLN will take advantage of them. 

Brendan


----------



## Marion

Are the people commenting in the media totally independent of the  issue?

Are people, for example Caroline and George, being given a free ride by high-profile members of the media because there is a hope that strategic defaulters will become the norm/acceptable rather than the pariahs in society?

Marion


----------



## Delboy

Marion

probably some of the media are in debt also and deals for all would benefit them. And the rest of the Irish media are probably just too inept to bother asking or even thinking of the questions!!!
All my opinion of course!


----------



## Brendan Burgess

In my experience, the media does try to get a bit of balance. But it's very difficult to get people to talk about mortgage arrears on live TV or radio. 

Having said that, I don't think that the public would be very interested in someone coming on air to say "I was in difficulty and AIB have rescheduled my debt handy enough" . 

Brendan


----------



## Marion

I disagree.

I think the public would be very interested to hear of members of the media who have a high profile who might be in a position to  have a debt rescheduled.


And, one would have to ask why there was no great commitment to having strategic defaulters exposed.

Marion


----------



## commonsense

dub_nerd said:


> Is she really, though? Her 2,500 "followers" seem pretty ephemeral -- no more than viewers of her Facebook page. I'm sure plenty of people will be interested in the outcome she achieves. I'm equally sure nobody will be surprised when her ploy is ultimately unsuccessful.




As Brendan said, not many people are willing to go public with their arrears/mortgage problem. While CLN may only have 2,500 "likes" on FB, I beleive that there are 1'000s of others in a similiar position sitting and watching this unfold.  

Personally I think that those like Caroline, who are in severe NE with somewhat reduced incomes, but still able to pay, outnumber those in genuine mortgage distress.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

commonsense said:


> Personally I think that those like Caroline, who are in severe NE with somewhat reduced incomes, but still able to pay, outnumber those in genuine mortgage distress.



There are many people like Caroline Nally who are in severe negative equity and who have somewhat reduced incomes who are still able to pay, but ... the vast majority of them are continuing to pay, unlike Caroline Nally who can afford to pay but just won't. 

There are around 600,000 households with mortgages. I would imagine that between 1% and 2% are strategic defaulters or around 10% of those in arrears.  Greg Connor of Maynooth estimated that it was around 35% of those in arrears - which I think is a bit high. But no one knows. 

I think it was George Mordaunt said recently that he had never met a strategic defaulter.


----------



## Bronte

Marion said:


> Are people, for example Caroline and George, being given a free ride by high-profile members of the media because there is a hope that strategic defaulters will become the norm/acceptable rather than the pariahs in society?


 
Caroline is quite clearly trying to default in the hope the bank ie taxpayers will pay off her debt. Dermot summed it up very well in post 95.

So far George is not in the same category at all. He is in talks with his banks and presumable paying down his debt. 

We need to have some debt writedowns for sure, and those that are willing to come to arrangements with their banks rather than saying outright I am not going to reduce my living standards are two completely different categories of people. I'm only a very small taxpayers in Ireland but I don't mind paying for some but others I am not at all happy to pay for so that they can write off their debts because they made a bad investment decision, unless they cannot afford it of course, then it can be written off.

(On your point about a person whose debts have been rescheduled, they cannot talk to the media because the banks are making them sign non disclosure agreements, these documents will have been drafted by the best lawyers, they cannot probably even say they have signed the non disclosure document)


----------



## commonsense

Brendan Burgess said:


> There are many people like Caroline Nally who are in severe negative equity and who have somewhat reduced incomes who are still able to pay, but ... the vast majority of them are continuing to pay, unlike Caroline Nally who can afford to pay but just won't.
> 
> There are around 600,000 households with mortgages. I would imagine that between 1% and 2% are strategic defaulters or around 10% of those in arrears.  Greg Connor of Maynooth estimated that it was around 35% of those in arrears - which I think is a bit high. But no one knows.
> 
> I think it was George Mordaunt said recently that he had never met a strategic defaulter.




I think my point is that that her "support base" if you, like outnumbers those in genuine difficulty. 

They won't come forward, won't speak out but they do support her views. The people I refer to are pretty much like her, they overpaid (because that is what NE means does it not?) for a home and that fact underpins why they do what they do. 

CLN is a classical strategic defaulter.

Strategic defaulters crunch the numbers (as she has done), realise the situation they are in, plan ahead and clear the decks (loans etc..) prior to defaulting. 


Her "negotiating" tactic appears to be - "this is what I can pay and am willing to pay, now work around this". It's crystal clear that the only solution she is prepared to accept is to have the NE written off. 

The banks offered her a lower interest rate, that she is not on this can only be that she refused to accept it.
They offered her IO and she refused that as well.

Personally I wish CLN would take some better advice than what she has  been getting. I think she has put herself in a very vulnerable  position. 

I wish someone would tell her that the sooner she works with the banks for a solution, the better off she will be in the long run.

What she appears to want is a write-down, keep the house, keep her income, her pension and her lump sum on retirement. 

I do not see that scenario. She is in a lose lose situation.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

> They offered her IO and she refused that as well.



I got this impression from her as well, but I think I misunderstood her.

Her mortgage seemed to allow IO for the first 5 years. 

I doubt very much if they are agreeing to IO now, when she has a cheap tracker. 

Brendan


----------



## commonsense

Brendan Burgess said:


> I got this impression from her as well, but I think I misunderstood her.
> 
> Her mortgage seemed to allow IO for the first 5 years.
> 
> I doubt very much if they are agreeing to IO now, when she has a cheap tracker.
> 
> Brendan




I don't think you misunderstood her at all. 

Her mortgage allowed IO for 5 years on the 5.5%, that was the 1,470.

It was this amount that she could "not" pay after December 2010. 

Now bear in mind that she has "unrelentlessly" been in contact with the bank both prior and after she got into difficulty. 

She says on the programme "I paid 1k per month for the year and this was to revert back to IO", so this implies to me that the 1k repayment was agreed with the bank for one year.

"I said to the lender if they don't sit down with me to work out something that was long term and sustainable I will cease paying my mortgage".

It appears that at this stage the lender offered the 1.9%, which she says is the current interest rate.

But this still meant a repayment of 1,350pm. Not only that but this was more than likely again, over 12 months.  

Caroline gives the impression that the banks won't deal with her. But what she really means is that they won't deal with her for a final one off long term solution, which is a write-down. 

The banks _are_ dealing with her, however she does not want them reviewing her situation every 12 months. She wants a one-off solution. But the banks know that in the next 10 years the following things will happen:


1) Wage increase.
2) House price Increase.
3) Lump sum on retirement.

Not too mention the "substantial" sum she already has to offer them off the mortgage.

Also, and if we take it that her income is in the region of 3,500pm, that's a net income of 42k per annum, which over 10 years is 420k, plus approx 150k lump sum on retirement.

This is how the banks view her situation.  I really wish someone would point this out to Caroline.


----------



## Delboy

Bronte said:


> So far George is not in the same category at all. He is in talks with his banks and presumable paying down his debt



that's a huge presumption Bronte....did he not say on Primetime he was about to reach a deal with the banks i.e. debt writedown. His debts according to media reports and his own book are beyond him and he cannot ever hope to pay them off.

He also made it clear on the radio with Brendan that he saw no reason to leave his lavish home and the thought of moving into a regular 3 bed-semi sent shivers down his spine, saying 4 people could'nt live in that type of accommodation. 
So as a small tax payer as you say, you will be helping to keep this man in a certain lifestyle...probably much better than your own or mine or most other folk out there


----------



## SPC100

Brendan Burgess said:


> The Late Debate   starts at around 11 minutes in
> 
> She was on the Frontline - unchallenged.
> She has been in the Indo - unchallenged
> She has been in the Examiner - unchallenged
> She has even been in the Financial Times - unchallenged
> She was on last night's Six One News - unchallenged
> She was on last night's Nine O'Clock News - unchallenged.
> 
> So, I redressed the balance a bit by challenging her.
> 
> Brendan



Brendan, thank you for supporting the other side of this argument, there seems to be few people willing to do it at the moment. As a citizen I am grateful to you.


----------



## gaius

Marion said:


> Are the people commenting in the media totally independent of the issue?
> 
> Are people, for example Caroline and George, being given a free ride by high-profile members of the media because there is a hope that strategic defaulters will become the norm/acceptable rather than the pariahs in society?
> 
> Marion


 NAMAWINELAKE did an article on Pat Kenny on that very issue.
http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/pat-kennys-property-dealings/

Seeing the airwaves flooded with people whose hard luck stories don't really add up and them being allowed to spread their propaganda almost unchallenged doesn't do much to dispell the notion.


----------



## gaius

More bias from Pat Kenny on his show yesterday.

"But they'd have no house!!" says Pat.

Pat does not know or care about the concept of renting.


----------



## orka

The other mantra of CLN that I would like to see her pulled up on is 'I'm an intelligent woman, why would I keep paying this money?' - well, how about the fact that you are legally obliged to?  No-one seems to have pointed that out to her!  She talks as if it's optional - or something to be negotiated and the banks are being mean to her by not 'communicating' - aka negotiating some debt forgiveness.  Mortgage repayment is not a negotiation - you don't get a loan and after the fact negotiate how much you feel like paying back.  You signed a contract, it's a legal obligation, you can afford to pay it so you have to.

If I was her bank, I would launch a mega-communications campaign with her - bombard her with 'communications', have all the meetings she wants, but be firm in the communication that the debt is 100% owed and WILL be pursued, to retirement and beyond.

[I have to say I cringe when I hear her saying ad nauseum 'I'm an intelligent woman, I'm not a stupid woman' (she said both in one sentence on the Late Debate).  She may not be stupid but she sure is a silly woman.]


----------



## Time

The sad thing is that she will probably get away with it.


----------



## bugler

CLN is representative of a nascent debt-riddled middle class interest group who are above all concerned with preserving the key pillars, as they see them, of middle class status. Not all of the following may apply to CLN herself, but she and others such as David Hall are focused on obtaining a debt write down for themselves or others while also:

1. Retaining what may well be a very impressive primary residence in a "respectable" area.
2. Retaining private school education for their children.
3. Retaining a nice car, or more than likely *cars* in the case of a family.
4. Retaining the entitlement to a holiday abroad, at least once a year.
5. Retaining a single income household. That is to say that despite having a second household member fully capable of working, they do not believe this person should have to work to service their debts.

They provide sound-bites every now and again about making "sacrifices", or how they are "willing to compromise", but really these concessions are negligible and only come after the above entitlements have been granted. They are willing to pay a fair amount to the bank - just don't ask about the cars, the holidays or the schools. Don't even mention the house!

They will however take every opportunity to make their demands sound as though they are based on firm moral ground. They will rail against the banks having any say in how someone lives their life, claiming this is to be morally repugnant while glossing over their own moral failings (lack of honesty, lack of will in honouring their signatures and debts, a willingness to dump the negative consequences of their decisions on others). They will invoke grotesque and indefensible parallels with history, that portray them as impoverished and disenfranchised.

But the nub of it all is this:

No one is to fall out of their middle class lifestyle. No one should be subjected to the indignity of living in an area beneath them, or in a house they believe beneath them. No one should be forced into the unbearable hell of the rental sector (or heaven forbid, be cast as a "glorified renter" in their own home). There is to be no accountability for this element of Ireland's greedy and spoilt middle class, and certainly no downward social mobility.


----------



## burmo

She must have been a headcase to live with... she certainly doesn't demonstrate the ability to have a rational discussion. (I heard on the Late Debate that she is separated). Is she getting maintenance on top of her salary?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

orka said:


> The other mantra of CLN that I would like to see her pulled up on is 'I'm an intelligent woman, why would I keep paying this money?' - ...
> 
> [I have to say I cringe when I hear her saying ad nauseum 'I'm an intelligent woman, I'm not a stupid woman' (she said both in one sentence on the Late Debate).  She may not be stupid but she sure is a silly woman.]



Hi orka

I think I acknowledged on the Late Debate that she was not stupid and then I got interrupted. What I was planning to say was "Well you understood the concept of borrowing money and repaying it. You understood that there was a risk involved in buying a house. You are an intelligent person, you knew exactly what you were doing"

Brendan


----------



## Marion

If I were Caroline:I would certainly be worried. But not overwhelmed. 

She has a very good net salary and she doesn't have to retire until she is 65. 


She probably wanted to retire earlier.

The reality is - she can't.

She  took out a mortgage for whatever number of years at the time because nobody could have forecast a massive  pay cut in the public sector. I didn't and my mortgage provider didn't either. 

I had hoped to pay it off sooner. 

But now, the chickens have come home to roost and I realize that I am not going to retire when I am 67. I have no choice in this matter. I have to go at latest 65.

I need to make adjustments. And so does Caroline.

Marion


----------



## AgathaC

orka said:


> The other mantra of CLN that I would like to see her pulled up on is 'I'm an intelligent woman, why would I keep paying this money?' - well, how about the fact that you are legally obliged to?  No-one seems to have pointed that out to her!  She talks as if it's optional - or something to be negotiated and the banks are being mean to her by not 'communicating' - aka negotiating some debt forgiveness.  Mortgage repayment is not a negotiation - you don't get a loan and after the fact negotiate how much you feel like paying back.  You signed a contract, it's a legal obligation, you can afford to pay it so you have to.



Exactly! None of us foresaw that our salaries would be frozen/cut etc, or the many cases where people have been made redundant, but we are obliged to pay what we owe,and not what suits us to pay. Unfortunately she could well damage the cause of those who are genuinely struggling, and who do need help. Her campaign, in my opinion,is for the 'can pay but won't' brigade. I cannot understand why she has gone unchallenged on this,until now.


----------



## Luternau

Lot of unknowns with this case.

How do we know that the bank are not standing up to her and saying no? After all, her position does not seem to have gone forward from the last time she was on TV! The fact that she is still on about the same thing means to me that while she may keep on knocking-there is nobody listening to her!

I do think for a so called intelligent woman, she is doing a lot of self inflicted damage to that claim! 

Perhaps she believes that the interest rate payable and the amount repaid, should be linked to the inteligence of the borrower, the higher the intelligence, the lower the rate, and the less that has to be paid?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Luternau said:


> Lot of unknowns with this case.
> 
> How do we know that the bank are not standing up to her and saying no?



Hi Luternau

I would be fairly sure that the banks are not doing any deal with her. 

I would  hope that the irritation factor here would not make them conclude that she is more hassle than it is worth and they just do some deal.


----------



## irishmoss

Luternau said:


> Lot of unknowns with this case.
> 
> How do we know that the bank are not standing up to her and saying no?


 

Personally I don't care how the banks deal with her, they will have all the facts and base a decision on that but the irritation I have is she is trying to represent the ordinary person who is in trouble and by doing so hopes to get a deal along with the rest. 

The problem for the media is there is no-one to represent these people other than Caroline.

 I hope they are reading this forum and try and look for a spokeperson that is geniune to represent those geniunly in need of debt forgiveness


----------



## commonsense

irishmoss said:


> Personally I don't care how the banks deal with her, they will have all the facts and base a decision on that but the irritation I have is she is trying to represent the ordinary person who is in trouble and by doing so hopes to get a deal along with the rest. The problem for the media is there is no-one to represent these people other than Caroline, I hope they are reading this forum and try and look for a spokeperson that is geniune to represent those geniunly in need of debt forgiveness




The banks have dealt with her.

Let's say she wants the NE or part thereof written down (just for the purpose of this example), say she said to them "I can only repay a 160k -220k mortgage", well then she has given the banks two options:

Option 1.

Give this woman who has a secure job, a steady stream of income, a lumpsum and pension on retirement, a write - down, therefore losing a great deal of money, or:

Option 2. Repossess the house, sell it for 160k, attach an order to her earnings, pension and lump sum for the balance. 

The banks have and were negotiating solutions with her for 5 years. In that time she had one demand one goal if you like. 
During the final negotiations she was made an offer of a reduced interest rate. 

Her response? A threat to cease payment on her mortgage if her one demand was not met.

When she did this she effectively ended the negotiations. That she went through with the threat killed off any chance for the bank to continue in it's negotiations with her. 

You cannot negotiate if you will only accept the one solution that you do not need, and the banks cannot offer.


----------



## Luternau

Re:


commonsense said:


> You cannot negotiate if you will only accept the one solution that you do not need, and the banks cannot offer.



Is that not what I said when saying;



> *How do we know that the bank are not standing up to her and saying no?* After all, her position does not seem to have gone forward from the last time she was on TV! *The fact that she is still on about the same thing means to me that while she may keep on knocking-there is nobody listening to her!*


----------



## commonsense

Luternau said:


> Re:
> 
> 
> Is that not what I said when saying;



More or less yes.
Except to me it's not that no-one is listening to her.

She paid 1k a month to the bank in 2011, this was to revert back to the IO payment of 1500pm after that year. She went to them again before the arrangement ended and the bank offered her a reduced interest rate of 1.9%. 

This wasn't good enough for her so she responded with an ultimatum.

Either concede to my demands or I stop paying. By virtue of the fact that she has not paid them a cent since then, it is clear that they said no. 

 To me the negotiations are over.  Why she is still in the house is a mystery to me.


----------



## Bronte

commonsense said:


> To me the negotiations are over. Why she is still in the house is a mystery to me.


 

Probably because of her high profile.  She'd have all the anti eviction people surround it with the news cameras and reporters all over the place.  Look at what happened in the Killiney couple's story, where they called out the media as far as I could tell.  But it spectacularly backfired in that case.


----------



## honest

commonsense said:


> The banks have dealt with her.
> 
> Let's say she wants the NE or part thereof written down (just for the purpose of this example), say she said to them "I can only repay a 160k -220k mortgage", well then she has given the banks two options:
> 
> Option 1.
> 
> Give this woman who has a secure job, a steady stream of income, a lumpsum and pension on retirement, a write - down, therefore losing a great deal of money, or:
> 
> Option 2. Repossess the house, sell it for 160k, attach an order to her earnings, pension and lump sum for the balance.
> 
> The banks have and were negotiating solutions with her for 5 years. In that time she had one demand one goal if you like.
> During the final negotiations she was made an offer of a reduced interest rate.


 
The bank should definitely go for option 2, without delay.  The woman is still relatively well paid.  My brother and his best friend both work in the public servive, one south of the border, one just north of the border.  They both have the type of work and have the same qualifications, but the person who earns on the southern side of the border is paid much more.  Public servants are still relatively well paid in this country, and still have jobs and pension (inc lump sums ) to look forward to.   Many people in this country are far worse off.    The borrower could take in lodgers or adjust her lifestyle if she is living beyond her means.  The bank should sell the house for 160k, and attach an order to her earnings, pension and lump sum for the balance.  She has little to worry about, at least still still has a ssecure pensionable job.


----------

