What about withholding mortgage payments in protest?

Bronte;

I take it from your ? you disagree.
On first reading so did I but on (mature reflection) what about this suggestion.

Let us pick say Junes payments.
All customers go into their Bank and cancel their DD on their mortgage.
Or just go in and (as they are entitled to ) recall one DD payment on their Mortgage.
And once this ddpayment is back in their current ac ,pay it manually.
Then 14 days later either re-instate DD or pay manually.

This has these benefits.

1. Completely clogs Banks systems.
2. Since payment is still made within calendar month , has nil effect on credit rating.
3. Importantly , Banks cash-flow takes a massive hit.
4. Then redo the same in say September.

Just a thought , but if 300,000 did it , it would work , I think ?
 
How about cancelling your DD and then paying the mortgage euro by euro?

Obviously only if you don't have bank charges on your current account or have nothing better to do than withdraw the cash and dripfeed it into their branch every day.

It would cost them a fortune to have to process your mortgage payment bit by bit but as long as you had it all paid before the due date you would not be in arrears.
 
Gerry Canning said:
Just a thought , but if 300,000 did it , it would work , I think ?
Click to expand...

But would it though. And you'd be in a whole heap of other problems. Where is the figure of 300K people, you can count me out on doing this, never missed a mortgage pay and don't intend to now. The only people affected by this are a) strugglers b) Negative equity people c) job issues - loss and pay d) newish mortgage holders

No problem with peopel protesting and letter writing and all the rest but not abiding by their voluntarily entered into contracts takes it a step too far. And anyway you can be sure the cost of this will come back to haunt us all.

In addition, I can just see lots of idiots not paying and spending the money and not having it to pay going forward.
 
Gerry, I generally agree with your posts but is that taking it a bit too far!!! Whatever you do please don't stop repayments. I've peeved the bankers off by paying with cash. Cash doesn't go down to well it seems; they want D/D repayments!
 
Not suggesting NOT to pay , but if for one payment; people withheld/stalled payment for say 14 days it would banjax Banks cash-flow/ accounts.
It would create such a mess that they would not want a repeat.

Otherwise remember Government at polls?

Doing nothing is a very expensive option, I am open to suggestions on what to do
but unless a fair share of you 300,000 act in concert you will all be plucked one by one .

I do not accept that the only people affected are as per Bronte ,
I believe the people affected are the coping middle.
It is this coping middle who seems to bail out Banks/Governments etc etc.
 
Folks

The best way to bring down mortgage rates is to have a competitive market.
The best way to encourage competition is to encourage switching.

If people withhold their payments in protest, their ICB record will be marked and they will be unable to switch for 5 years.

I think that this campaign will succeed through publicity, political pressure and lobbying.

It's galling to pay these rates, but it's clearly the only option.

Brendan
 
The 'coping middle' is just another construct in the narrative of sectoral victimhood that has characterised our response, as a nation, to the financial crisis. Various socio economic groupings - water protestors, SVR payers, those mired in negative equity, those facing repossession / insolvency, public sector workers looking for 'restoration' of pay / pension, the homeless, the unemployed, the 'coping classes', the aged etc - keep shouting and jockeying for position in a notional que.

The ubiquitous threat of 'waiting in the long grass' for the next election is used by all sides - many of whom have competing interests. The idea that those who shout and threaten the loudest will ultimately prevail in this 'primitive struggle for survival' is a depressing concept - made all the more depressing because it's probably true.

I must say I've grown weary from the often times incoherent / inchoate rage filled hysteria that floods the comments sections of publications such as the Irish Times / Irish Independent and latterly this website - where increasingly, rationality has been replaced by single issue campaigns where everybody feels cheated.

People, many of whom should know better, continually express their wish to see their neighbours being turfed onto the street - conveniently ignoring the reality that the vast majority of people in arrears are 'can't pay' as opposed to 'won't pay', that a mere 8% of housing in Ireland is social housing and where there are serious issues regarding rent allowance supplements and consequent homelessness.

People - who again should know better - compare repossession statistics between different jurisdictions whilst wilfully ignoring the critical facts that these 'featured countries' have adequate social housing stocks and rent controls to help the transition from repossession.

There is a finite pie and when one sector gains an extra slice, another - often times more deserving sector - e.g. the homeless - suffer. Anyway - that's my tuppence worth for today!!
 
Last edited:
epicaricacy said:
The 'coping middle' is just another construct in the narrative of sectoral victimhood that has characterised our response, as a nation, to the financial crisis. Various socio economic groupings - water protestors, SVR payers, those mired in negative equity, those facing repossession / insolvency, public sector workers looking for 'restoration' of pay / pension, the homeless, the unemployed, the 'coping classes', the aged etc - keep shouting and jockeying for position in a notional que.

The ubiquitous threat of 'waiting in the long grass' for the next election is used by all sides - many of whom have competing interests. The idea that those who shout and threaten the loudest will ultimately prevail in this 'primitive struggle for survival' is a depressing concept - made all the more depressing because it's probably true.

I must say I've grown weary from the often times incoherent / inchoate rage filled hysteria that floods the comments sections of publications such as the Irish Times / Irish Independent and latterly this website - where increasingly, rationality has been replaced by single issue campaigns where everybody feels cheated.

People, many of whom should know better, continually express their wish to see their neighbours being turfed onto the street - conveniently ignoring the reality that the vast majority of people in arrears are 'can't pay' as opposed to 'won't pay', that a mere 8% of housing in Ireland is social housing and where there are serious issues regarding rent allowance supplements and consequent homelessness.

People - who again should know better - compare repossession statistics between different jurisdictions whilst wilfully ignoring the critical facts that these 'featured countries' have adequate social housing stocks and rent controls to help the transition from repossession.

There is a finite pie and when one sector gains an extra slice, another - often times more deserving sector - e.g. the homeless - suffer. Anyway - that's my tuppence worth for today!!
Click to expand...

@epicaricacy good comments but you're missing one key point - fairness. Is it fair that the cost of averting homelessness is shouldered by just 300,00 people? Or as Sarah Hogan put it in her question at the PTSB AGM is it fair that 300,000 people shoulder the responsibility of getting the banks back to profitability so that they can be sold off?
On that topic if state owned banks are prepared to gouge SVR customers I shudder to think of what will happen when the same banks revert to the private sector.
 
Hi Doob

I don't believe I'm missing the fairness point at all.

Is it fair that a substantial percentage of this '300,000' were / are in receipt of TRS, which lessens the net payment to the bank. In our case, we were in receipt of 300 euros per month TRS from the state on a mortgage of 310K from 2006 - 2017 (If we hadn't lost our house). This would amount to 30K plus - if we hadn't lost our home - that the state (taxpayers) contributed towards us having our own home over an 11 year period.

Put it another way, the TRS of 300 euros per month that we were in receipt would currently offset the differential between the average European SVR and the relatively 'high average SVR' charged in Ireland.

I remember selfishly voting for FG in the last election as they were the only party that promised a 5 year extension of TRS for those that had bought in the boom. FG duly delivered on its promise when they entered Government.

It's strange that nobody mentions TRS in the 'SVR debate'. I remember reading in the Irish Times that the Troika were shocked that the state were actively subsidising private ownership of property in Ireland, while neglecting investment in social housing.

I wonder would people consider it 'fair' if the Government suddenly decided to give 300 euros per month for a 10 year period to fully employed and well paid couples who were renting?
 
The only way that rates will fall is through competition.

A stunt like this, in addition to the O'Donnell fiasco and the difficulty with repossessions, will make potential entrants even less likely to set up here.
 
epicaricacy said:
Hi Doob

I don't believe I'm missing the fairness point at all.

Is it fair that a substantial percentage of this '300,000' were / are in receipt of TRS, which lessens the net payment to the bank. In our case, we were in receipt of 300 euros per month TRS from the state on a mortgage of 310K from 2006 - 2017 (If we hadn't lost our house). This would amount to 30K plus - if we hadn't lost our home - that the state (taxpayers) contributed towards us having our own home over an 11 year period.

Put it another way, the TRS of 300 euros per month that we were in receipt would currently offset the differential between the average European SVR and the relatively 'high average SVR' charged in Ireland.

I remember selfishly voting for FG in the last election as they were the only party that promised a 5 year extension of TRS for those that had bought in the boom. FG duly delivered on its promise when they entered Government.

It's strange that nobody mentions TRS in the 'SVR debate'. I remember reading in the Irish Times that the Troika were shocked that the state were actively subsidising private ownership of property in Ireland, while neglecting investment in social housing.

I wonder would people consider it 'fair' if the Government suddenly decided to give 300 euros per month for a 10 year period to fully employed and well paid couples who were renting?
Click to expand...

@epicaricacy - Sorry to hear you lost your house - not easy. Were you on tracker or SVR?
I'm afraid I'm no expert on TRS. My mortgage for 300k was taken out in 2011 and I get 75 TRS per month.
I also have a buy to let since 2005 that's worth 1/2 what I paid for it and stupidly I didn't put it on tracker so paying 5.8% on that (interest only is all I can afford so don't know how I'll ever clear it). Boy am I paying for that error.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top