# Voluntary Surrender- don't do it just yet?



## gone (2 Oct 2014)

It just occurred to me today, if the bank isn't playing ball and won't write off the debt on voluntary surrender then maybe you should go through the repossession process and drag it out for as long as possible as your gaff will be appreciating and so whatever debt you're left with will be shrinking. You'd be shooting yourself in the foot if you allowed voluntary surrender without writing off the residual debt in this climate.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (2 Oct 2014)

Agreed. I have made this point at the AGM of Bank of Ireland. 

I advise people to drag it out as long as possible, as they have nothing to lose. 

Who is the lender? AIB will do a deal. ptsb might do a deal. KBC is also possible. 

Brendan


----------



## rodger (2 Oct 2014)

People,

Is there a solicitor / financial adviser familiar with boi ? Who can get through to them?

I have had three advisers helping me and so far all I get is fobbed off with : 
sign the form or else.  There is no option to discuss options. They just arrived at an arrangement and I have to sign or else. 

Is there a "big gun" who knows how to take them on? Maybe some of the big lawyer firms?

Thanks. Any advice appreciated. I'm finding them extremely difficult and unhelpful.
And mean and tight as well.


----------



## Delboy (2 Oct 2014)

gone said:


> It just occurred to me today, if the bank isn't playing ball and won't write off the debt on voluntary surrender then maybe you should go through the repossession process and drag it out for as long as possible as your gaff will be appreciating and so whatever debt you're left with will be shrinking. You'd be shooting yourself in the foot if you allowed voluntary surrender without writing off the residual debt in this climate.



You've already dragged it out for 6 years....how many more do you feel you should get away with?


----------



## Time (2 Oct 2014)

So a person shouldn't use the legal processes to his advantage?


----------



## Dermot (2 Oct 2014)

Time said:


> So a person shouldn't use the legal processes to his advantage?



And what about the morals of it all or does that matter.

Then we complain about high SVR Mortgages.

Someone has to pay.

As a society we want it every way.


----------



## gone (3 Oct 2014)

Dermot said:


> And what about the morals of it all or does that matter.


This is business Dermot , if you want morals go to church.


----------



## gone (3 Oct 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Agreed. I have made this point at the AGM of Bank of Ireland.
> 
> I advise people to drag it out as long as possible, as they have nothing to lose.
> 
> ...


BOI. Told them that I'd strip the asset of any value before I left if they refused to make a deal - wires, floors, doors, toilets, sinks, windows, kitchen etc etc.. They said "go ahead, we don't do deals period". I can understand that they don't want to open the floodgates but they have to be realistic, a substantial portion of the population simply lost the ability to service their debts over the past 6 years and that ability is still some way from returning. Deals need to be done or for some it will simply make more economic sense to strip the asset of any residual value and go bankrupt abroad.


----------



## gone (3 Oct 2014)

Delboy said:


> You've already dragged it out for 6 years....how many more do you feel you should get away with?


 I don't know, how much profit do you think you should make when you sell your house?


----------



## Steven Barrett (3 Oct 2014)

Dermot said:


> And what about the morals of it all or does that matter.
> 
> Then we complain about high SVR Mortgages.
> 
> ...



Dermot, 

Morality went out the window when the banks were lending money to people without doing the proper stress tests to see if they could actually afford the place. I've seen people who took out 35 year mortgages that they could only repay with having 2 lodgers there for the entire term. What underwriter would accept someone having lodgers for their entire working life?

Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## Bronte (3 Oct 2014)

gone said:


> BOI. Told them that I'd strip the asset of any value before I left if they refused to make a deal - wires, floors, doors, toilets, sinks, windows, kitchen etc etc..


 
This is not on, this kind of behaviour.  And I totally would not agree with it.  If you're emigrating why would you do that?  All you do when you make threats like that is cost the rest of us taxpayers more money and in addition you make banks more unlikely to do deals.  

I have no problem with anybody who cannot afford to do so going bankrupt but I wouldn't agree with what sounds like a kind of blackmail.  

I'm also aware of it happening, the selling off of everything, I've referred to it on here.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (3 Oct 2014)

gone said:


> BOI. Told them that I'd strip the asset of any value before I left if they refused to make a deal - wires, floors, doors, toilets, sinks, windows, kitchen etc etc.. They said "go ahead, we don't do deals period". .



There are a few issues here. 

I have suggested to all the lenders that they should do deals with people who agree to voluntarily surrender their house and maximise the sales proceeds. 

I have pointed out that there is no advantage to anyone to surrender their home without a deal being done if they are going to pursue you anyway.

However, blackmailing them is a different thing. If I was Bank of Ireland, not only would I pursue you for the shortfall, I would try to get the Gardai to pursue you for criminal damage and fraud. 

Blackmailing does not work. If you are vacating the house anyway, go ahead and do so.  If you behave responsibly, you might get a deal at a later stage on the shortfall.  Bank of Ireland's policy might change after the stress test results are announced.


----------



## gone (3 Oct 2014)

Bronte said:


> This is not on, this kind of behaviour.  And I totally would not agree with it.  If you're emigrating why would you do that?  All you do when you make threats like that is cost the rest of us taxpayers more money and in addition you make banks more unlikely to do deals.
> 
> I have no problem with anybody who cannot afford to do so going bankrupt but I wouldn't agree with what sounds like a kind of blackmail.
> 
> I'm also aware of it happening, the selling off of everything, I've referred to it on here.


Firstly, this was a tool for bargaining, I have no intention of actually doing it but would be well withing my rights if I chose to, so blackmail? No, this is not it.
Secondly, the way (in my particular case) to minimize taxpayers losses could be for the bank to get immediate possession of my gaff and so not have spend money on court cases etc and not having to wait for the repossession process to drag through the courts and so while you may not like the method of my approach it's perfectly reasonable that it could result in the smallest losses to the taxpayer, who can say really? Property could drop by 20% over the next 16 months, in a scenario like that the taxpayer will suffer greater losses than if I had managed to convince the bank to take immediate possession.


----------



## gone (3 Oct 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> There are a few issues here.
> 
> I have suggested to all the lenders that they should do deals with people who agree to voluntarily surrender their house and maximise the sales proceeds.
> 
> ...


Blackmail, criminal damage, fraud? As long as the deeds are in my possession I'm fully entitled to do as I please with the house, no? These are serious allegations that I certainly don't want to be a part of and if true then I will immediately cease them.
I thought you were an advocate of hardball? Well this is it and if the banks are happy to lob me a rock shouldn't I lob one back in an effort to achieve my goals? I mean the banks are playing the hardest ball possible, the only thing I can do is respond in kind or not bother responding at all.


----------



## Steven Barrett (3 Oct 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> However, blackmailing them is a different thing. If I was Bank of Ireland, not only would I pursue you for the shortfall, I would try to get the Gardai to pursue you for *criminal damage and fraud*.





As long as the house hasn't been repossessed, how can he be done for criminal damage on to his own property? And fraud? 

Does the standard mortgage contract say that the house must have wiring, floorboards, doors etc? If so, they can get him for breach of contract.


----------



## Delboy (3 Oct 2014)

gone said:


> This is business Dermot , if you want morals go to church.



If it was 'business', you'd have been kicked out of that house after 3 months of not paying with a judgement for the balance following you.
You see to believe it's business if it's working in your favour. 

I'm not surprised by the examples you have given of what you'd potentially do to the house if it came to it. Your posts on this and the other thread you started re name changes and emigrating to Canada outline your modus operandi.
What I am surprised at on this thread, is the tacit approval you have been getting from some experienced posters for your actions (not the house stripping part I hasten to add) or planned actions. 

There are legal avenues you could go down to rid yourself of the house and the debt, but you'd much rather live rent/accomm free for as long as possible. You also don't seem to want the hassle of going the correct routes.
And now that there is a surge in house prices, you see the possibility of more rent/mortgage free living for a couple of more years before selling and possibly breaking even.


----------



## gone (3 Oct 2014)

Delboy said:


> If it was 'business', you'd have been kicked out of that house after 3 months of not paying with a judgement for the balance following you.
> You see to believe it's business if it's working in your favour.
> 
> I'm not surprised by the examples you have given of what you'd potentially do to the house if it came to it. Your posts on this and the other thread you started re name changes and emigrating to Canada outline your modus operandi.
> ...


Not gonna spend too much time on this DelBoy, I could be here all day correcting your logic. Suffice to say everyone except yourself and a few other high horsers has figured out it's business and so this might explain your surprise at the "tacit approval" for treating it as such.


----------



## Time (3 Oct 2014)

SBarrett said:


> As long as the house hasn't been repossessed, how can he be done for criminal damage on to his own property? And fraud?
> 
> Does the standard mortgage contract say that the house must have wiring, floorboards, doors etc? If so, they can get him for breach of contract.



Have you seen the film Moving starring Richard Pyror? 

There is a house not far from me where everything of value was removed prior to the bank taking back the house. What did the bank do? Nothing is what they did. The shell of the house is standing there exposed to the elements.


----------



## Delboy (3 Oct 2014)

gone said:


> Not gonna spend too much time on this DelBoy, I could be here all day correcting your logic. Suffice to say everyone except yourself and a few other high horsers has figured out it's business and so this might explain your surprise at the "tacit approval" for treating it as such.



I repeat- if it was 'business' you'd have been out on the street after 3 months, not still in situ 6 years later.


----------



## gone (3 Oct 2014)

Delboy said:


> I repeat- if it was 'business' you'd have been out on the street after 3 months, not still in situ 6 years later.


Repeat away, it will not make what you say any more logical.
If it was business I would be allowed keep possession of and maintain the asset until circumstances changed enough to make it worthwhile for the lender to repossess at which point they would do so and hit me with a bill for the difference plus interest, which it what is happening. And so we can say this is business, at least it is from the perspectives of both sides of the contract.
Tbf I can understand your frustration but you're focusing it in the wrong place, I didn't ask for the banks to flood the market with easy credit ultimately obliterating the value of my asset and my ability to pay for it. What exactly do you expect me to do? My hands are tied from all directions and I got hamstrung in both legs at once. Would you like if I spent the rest of my life paying for the consequences of financial institution's relentless pursuit of short term profit? Maybe you would but that's not gonna happen, I'm gonna do what's best for me, you would to, everyone here would despite protestations to the contrary.


----------



## Jim Stafford (3 Oct 2014)

As some of the other posters have already pointed out, it can be a criminal offence to damage property. One of the definitions of property in the Criminal Damage Act 1991 is along the lines of "_*any person having a charge on property*_".  A mortgage is a charge on property. It is 100% clear from the Act that someone intentionally damaging a charged property would be committing a criminal offence.

It is also a criminal offence to threaten to damage charged property.

A criminal conviction would block any visa to Canada or the US etc.


Jim Stafford


----------



## gone (3 Oct 2014)

Jim Stafford said:


> As some of the other posters have already pointed out, it can be a criminal offence to damage property. One of the definitions of property in the Criminal Damage Act 1991 is along the lines of "_*any person having a charge on property*_".  A mortgage is a charge on property. It is 100% clear from the Act that someone intentionally damaging a charged property would be committing a criminal offence.
> 
> It is also a criminal offence to threaten to damage charged property.
> 
> ...


Thanks Jim, this is certainly helpful to know. Do you have a definition of damage?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (3 Oct 2014)

gone said:


> Do you have a definition of damage?



I think that it would clearly include


> to strip the asset of any value  - wires, floors, doors, toilets, sinks, windows, kitchen etc etc.


----------



## gone (3 Oct 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I think that it would clearly include


Wires and windows will constitute damage I'd imagine but the floors, toilets, sinks,kitchen and two thirds of the doors will be leaving with me as I put them in,at least this is what I'm thinking until I hear better.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (3 Oct 2014)

gone said:


> Wires and windows will constitute damage I'd imagine but the floors, toilets, sinks,kitchen and two thirds of the doors will be leaving with me as I put them in.



No problem with that, as long as you put back the ones they replaced. 

Brendan


----------



## gone (3 Oct 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> No problem with that, as long as you put back the ones they replaced.
> 
> Brendan


 They didn't replace any. Here's the definition of damage as per the Act - "to  destroy, deface, dismantle or, whether temporarily or otherwise, render  inoperable or unfit for use or prevent or impair the operation of " .
I suppose if I hadn't made any alterations to the house and was intending on stripping it it would probably fall under dismantling or rendering unfit for use.
So we can assume that anyone who has stripped the property before repossession has fitted all the stripped items themselves or else are facing criminal charges.


----------



## Dermot (3 Oct 2014)

gone.  I am no supporter of the Banks but your attitude stinks.  You have apparently lived in the house for 6 years without paying anything and you want to continue this for sometime into the future.  You then want to leave the house a semi wreck when you leave it and this is nothing short of spite.  Then you want to go to Canada under another name to do what.  I assume you could could have got your mortgage deemed unsustainable and got a social house here and gone the bankruptcy route.  
It might be better for your own state of mind and health in the long run.  I still hold the view that people should take some personal responsibility for their own actions.
I well realise that people got into trouble because of events outside their own control.


----------



## gone (3 Oct 2014)

Dermot said:


> gone.  I am no supporter of the Banks but your attitude stinks.  You have apparently lived in the house for 6 years without paying anything and you want to continue this for sometime into the future.  You then want to leave the house a semi wreck when you leave it and this is nothing short of spite.  Then you want to go to Canada under another name to do what.  I assume you could could have got your mortgage deemed unsustainable and got a social house here and gone the bankruptcy route.
> It might be better for your own state of mind and health in the long run.  I still hold the view that people should take some personal responsibility for their own actions.
> I well realise that people got into trouble because of events outside their own control.



 "You have apparently lived in the house for 6 years without paying  anything and you want to continue this for sometime into the future." - Yes Dermot it's kinda hard to pay when your industry and job vanish overnight and yes I will be holding onto the house for as long as legally possible in the hope that as it appreciates my debt will shrink. This is logical and legal.
"You then want to leave the house a semi wreck when you leave it and this is nothing short of spite." - This was a bargaining tool and never going to actually happen, the house was always going to be left as it was purchased. I also thought it was legal and so not spite.
"I assume you could could have got your mortgage deemed unsustainable and  got a social house here and gone the bankruptcy route." - Even if I wanted to further burden the state by looking for social housing the waiting lists are years afaik, I would be on the streets if I went this route and certainly not looking at emigrating and removing the burden of my unemployment from the state.
" I still hold the view that people should take some personal responsibility for their own actions.
I well realise that people got into trouble because of events outside their own control." - You do see the inherent contradictions in taking responsibility for something that is outside of your control?
And finally Dermot your opinion on my attitude is of no consequence to me, an attitude that you would approve of won't put bread on the table for me or my offspring. You need to stop taking this personally, like I said this is just business.


----------



## 110quests (4 Oct 2014)

Gone : I am not a fan of banks but I do believe in trying to pay what I owe. 

Very many have been stung by the fallout of the incompetence of decision makers in financial and political circles, and will continue to take various hits.

What engages me, having read your two threads, is that you articulate, argue, plan, threaten various alternatives from going incognito to Canada to stripping your house etc but have been unable to in any way address your loan.

What I mean is that with such an active brain  you have not found an employer who would have needed someone of your ilk who can think, plan, execute a project , and pay you for your competencies.  

Your line of work died with the crash, I gather, but it is apparent that you are capable of diversifying.  Have you tried ? Or are you engaging in self indulgent argument here? 

Posters here give wonderful advice and guidance .


----------



## gone (4 Oct 2014)

110quests said:


> Gone : I am not a fan of banks but I do believe in trying to pay what I owe.
> 
> Very many have been stung by the fallout of the incompetence of decision makers in financial and political circles, and will continue to take various hits.
> 
> ...


I have nothing against banks, I have nothing against anyone involved in my demise tbh, everybody was just doing their jobs, it's the system and my financial naivete that's at fault. 
I too believe in paying my debts and have never used credit to purchase anything other than the house but a time comes when you look at your debts and you realise that you will never pay them unless you achieve the same sort of income you were getting at the time of drawdown and that's when the pressure starts building and you start getting all sorts of psychosomatic illnesses and guess what, there's no valve to release it.
I look at my friends who have spent their last resources reskilling, some of them even managed to get decent work but none will ever earn even half of what they were in construction, the problems they have with their mortgages now they will still have in 10 years time when they hit the ceilings in their industries.
I tried diversifying yeah, within a year I had a company formed but got out bid on contracts by established businesses with economies of scale. A year later a similiar story, starting a viable business in this economy with few resources is nigh on impossible, no one wants to take a risk on you.
Eventually I realised that it was highly unlikely that I would ever be able to address my problem and that it would define my life if I let it, after that the decision to flee came naturally.
All of the high horsers (not you in particular) who say they believe in paying their debts? Yeah that's because they have the ability to, put them in my situation and I guarantee you 100% of them do a variation of what I'm doing, if a person goes overboard with a rock tied around their neck then they're gonna do everything they can to get the rock off before they drown (not trying to be too dramatic but you get my drift, I can spend my life here working and will still never come near to paying off my debts unless we have another tiger driven boom and that ain't happening imo).


----------



## dub_nerd (4 Oct 2014)

Gone, I'm a fan of people paying their debts too, and I can understand why posters might feel aggrieved at the thought of somebody not doing so. After all, depending on the bank involved, we'll be paying for it. However, I also believe that people should not be burdened with unpayable debt, and I much prefer to see people going your route than internalising the stress of the situation and literally making themselves ill and incapacitated. That's no use to anyone either. I think we should all save a bit of our ire for the banks who still operate out of self interest (well, that's "business" too, but if we're going to get annoyed with people for getting on with business...) but most especially for our political class who put us in the situation of shouldering the debt, on the pretext that we couldn't live without functioning banks. Well we don't _have_ functioning banks -- if we did the OP would be out on his ear as someone else observed. I don't think we should be faulting only the borrowers for this can-kicking situation.


----------



## Delboy (5 Oct 2014)

gone said:


> Eventually I realised that it was highly unlikely that I would ever be able to address my problem and that it would define my life if I let it, after that the decision to flee came naturally.
> All of the high horsers (not you in particular) who say they believe in paying their debts? Yeah that's because they have the ability to, put them in my situation and I guarantee you 100% of them do a variation of what I'm doing, if a person goes overboard with a rock tied around their neck then they're gonna do everything they can to get the rock off before they drown (not trying to be too dramatic but you get my drift, I can spend my life here working and will still never come near to paying off my debts unless we have another tiger driven boom and that ain't happening imo).



The decision to flee came naturally.....6 years later!

There are several legal options open to you to resolve this situation...bankruptcy, PIA etc
But you want to strip the house, change your name etc 

You talk about 'business' but live rent free for 6 years +, better than any homeless person.
You talk about 'business' while  mortgage rates in Ireland are the highest in the EU because of you and your ilk- thus making the likes of me pay way more than I should every month for a new mortgage.

I have no doubt that if the market had gone the in the opposite direction, but that the likes of you would be on this website asking whether Kazaksthan would be a good investment opportunity for the equity you had built up in Ireland. Such is the way of life.

So forgive my downright negativity towards your 'woe is me, I never knew what I signed up for' , 'the banks screwed little ol me over' attitude.....and you living there rent free ever since.

You want your cake...and you sure as hell want to eat it all also


----------



## gone (5 Oct 2014)

Delboy said:


> The decision to flee came naturally.....6 years later!
> 
> There are several legal options open to you to resolve this situation...bankruptcy, PIA etc
> But you want to strip the house, change your name etc
> ...


Lots of inaccuracies there Delboy but sure no point in letting the truth get in the way of a good rant, I take it you're struggling too so?
What do you think I should have done and should do now?


----------



## moneybox (5 Oct 2014)

gone said:


> I'd imagine but the floors, toilets, sinks,kitchen and two thirds of the doors will be leaving with me as I put them in,.


 

what carry then all the way to Canada??? your baggage charges will be fairly hefty so


----------



## Time (5 Oct 2014)

Rent a container would be the cheapest option.


----------



## Bronte (6 Oct 2014)

gone said:


> This is business Dermot , if you want morals go to church.


 
That's the last place I'd go for morals.  But a great business.


----------



## Bronte (6 Oct 2014)

gone said:


> As long as the deeds are in my possession I'm fully entitled to do as I please with the house, no?


 
But the deeds are not in your possession, they are with the bank, as you singned a mortgage which means really the bank owns the property if you do not fulfill the terms of your mortgage.

Signing a mortgage gives your obligations.


----------



## Bronte (6 Oct 2014)

Delboy said:


> You've already dragged it out for 6 years....how many more do you feel you should get away with?


 
Think about this differently Delboy.  Is he getting away with anything, or has he had 6 years of stress.  

And who is gaining by the 6 years, is the bank not gaining if you do the figures.  

And whose fault is it he's managed to hold onto it for 6 years.  

Forget about poster Gone for a minute and focus on what the banks are at.


----------



## Bronte (6 Oct 2014)

Time said:


> Rent a container would be the cheapest option.


 
You guys realise the people doing the stripping are selling on something called 'donedeal' or somesuch, I've been reliable informed.  

And if the owner doesn't stip it and banks appoint receivers or house is vacant, somebody else might be stripping it.  That's why banks don't want to board up houses.


----------



## Time (6 Oct 2014)

I was in a county registrars court last month and there were over 60 repossession cases on the docket. Are the banks actually taking possession of the houses or are they leaving them occupied with the possession order at the ready should conditions improve?

The reason I ask is if you leave houses unoccupied, they will get vandalised and without heat damp will set in, thus destroying the interior.


----------



## gone (6 Oct 2014)

Bronte said:


> But the deeds are not in your possession, they are with the bank, as you singned a mortgage which means really the bank owns the property if you do not fulfill the terms of your mortgage.
> 
> Signing a mortgage gives your obligations.


Yes am aware of this now and will be complying with the law obviously, was totally unaware and misinformed originally.


----------

