Anti Eviction Task Force

P

Peter54

Registered User
Messages
169
I never knew such a movement in Ireland existed, until I read an article in one of today's newspapers. These guys seem to be expanding and their support becoming greater.

Is this the beginning of Irish people saying enough is enough?
 
There are so few evictions in Ireland that they won't be very busy.

There is no link? Do they campaign against the local authorities evicting anti-social tenants?
 
Peter54 said:
I never knew such a movement in Ireland existed, until I read an article in one of today's newspapers. These guys seem to be expanding and their support becoming greater.

Is this the beginning of Irish people saying enough is enough?
Click to expand...

The "Irish people"? No. This is a subsection of Irish society that is easily led, quite angry, and unsure of how to respond to a situation it doesn't understand.

These guys have been around a while. They have picketed the Allsops auctions.

It is quite hard to be evicted in Ireland. Compared to the UK, your chances of eviction are very slight indeed. To be evicted in Ireland, on a non-voluntary basis, you have probably made no mortgage payments for the better part of two years. I would like to hear from the so called "Anti-Eviction Task Force" how long a person should be allowed to stay in their property without paying the mortgage. 2 years? 5 years? Forever? I would also like to hear from them as to how ensuring banks cannot have any real security over mortgaged properties will not impact substantially on banks ability to lend. By pursuing a zero eviction policy they will effectively block their own childrens' efforts to buy a home.

Reprobate movements like this set back the discussion on mortgage arrears considerably. They also contribute to the obfuscation of the fact that a great deal of homeowners would actually benefit from surrendering their properties or having them repossessed, though it may not be easy to see it now.

The borrowers most likely to seek out this movement will be among the most intractable cases imaginable, ranging from the worst of the 'won't pays' to the most unfortunate who may never have been a good candidate for private home ownership.
 
This is an example of the type of person, they help out.

Seamus Sherlock appeared on Prime Time last Thursday 13 Sept backed up by a gang which was keeping the sheriff out. He was very clear. He claimed he had always paid his way. He was not looking for any debt write off. He was just looking for time. He had tried to do a deal with his bank, but they would not listen. He had paid a "five figure sum" to his solicitor but Bank of Scotland went ahead and got the repossession order. I was asked to comment on it and said that it was impossible to comment without knowing the details and asked if Mr Sherlock would provide the details - how much he owed, how much he had paid, how much he was in arrears, what was his farm worth?

I have just been given an article from The Irish Mail on Sunday by Valerie Hanley


 
And in that programme was a man who barracaded himself in a flat and apparently hadn't paid any mortgage for a few years, but it was suggested in newsprint that he had received rent from tenants. Those two stories plus the one 'real' evicition we've seen of the 'rich' accountant in Dublin, well they do no favours to more deserving cases.

I think anyone, particularly a family, who only own their home but cannot afford it should be helped to stay in the home if at all possible, but it has to make sense on paper. For example, it would be stupid to evict if a bank writedown made more sense. How you legislate for that - not sure.
 
Funny, how the banks knowing that Sherlock had a bad credit history, kept giving him loans over the years.
No matter what examples are brought forward, there are always 2 parties to blame, when we all accept this, we will be in a position to get to a solution.
 
"Funny, how the banks knowing that Sherlock had a bad credit history, kept giving him loans over the years. "

Did you look at the dates? The Judgments were marked after the Mortgages were drawn down.

mf
 
Bronte said:
And in that programme was a man who barracaded himself in a flat and apparently hadn't paid any mortgage for a few years, but it was suggested in newsprint that he had received rent from tenants.
Click to expand...

Hi Bronte

Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

[broken link removed]

As arrears grew, Mr Dooley rented the property out to tenants but still failed to make the monthly repayments, PTSB said.
Click to expand...



Brendan
 
mf1 said:
"Funny, how the banks knowing that Sherlock had a bad credit history, kept giving him loans over the years. "

Did you look at the dates? The Judgments were marked after the Mortgages were drawn down.

mf
Click to expand...

It takes a long time for a Judgment to be made, he had to be missing payments well before the mortgage was approved, at least in the 2004 Judgement, which means that the banks must have had knowledge of some missed payments, had they checked his credit history.
 
Hi Mark

Were Birr Credit Union in the ICB at the time? Most Credit Unions were not.
Likewise Kerry Agribusiness and Dairygold were not.

The Irish banks did indeed engage in reckless lending. However, they were very careful about not lending to people who had bad credit records.

Brendan
 
Major flaw in the system if the credit unions were not included, just goes to show what a joke the whole system was, but then again the banks must have been aware that their customer's credit ratings were not 100% accurate, so they are to blame for that.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
The Irish banks did indeed engage in reckless lending. However, they were very careful about not lending to people who had bad credit records.Brendan
Click to expand...

Some of the foreign institutions trading here did not engage in similar practice, neither did our own credit unions.
 
In answer to the origional poster they have a website [broken link removed]

It would appear that they intend to run some cases and possibly some candidates in the next election. With 20% of the population in the firing line to lose their homes this must be just the tip of the iceburg.
 
Good website, made me think, what a crazy world we are living in, suddenly, up is down, black is white, I don't know who is right or wrong anymore in this game.
 
PiedPiper said:
With 20% of the population in the firing line to lose their homes this must be just the tip of the iceburg.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting the 20% from?

So far we've seen great reluctance on the part of Irish banks is seeking evictions.
 
I think if you are not in the situation it’s difficult to imagine the pain and distress caused to people its horrific.

Much the same as people on courses are not un-employed the statistics are a cover up.

For most people losing your home is an un-imaginable night mare. Even one eviction is one too many. The idea that there are few evictions has been flagged in numerous occasions and is simply not true.

Just because a person commits suicide 1 min before the sheriff arrives is not an eviction. If the family are not home when the house is broken into its not an eviction the figures are grossly misleading.

Answer Bronte
[broken link removed]
 
While I disagree with Brendan on numerous issues and have shouted at the TV and wanted to trottle him this site and many others act as support. The only thing that will save lives is education. Many posts mention Fear which is totally crippling there is help out there. Ask questions and accept nothing at face value.
 
Let's just clarify something. It is not 20% of the population. It is 20% of people who have mortgages.

Of that 20% some would be better off leaving their homes, some are probably playing with MARB and holding on for as long as they can, some are in desparation, some are hoping for a debt write off, some would be delighted if the bank took the property as maybe it's no longer suitable.

All I can conclude from the lack of evictions, the willingness of banks to do deals (putting people on interest only, on part payment, on extended terms and now the new half baked ideas as well) is that banks don't want to evict, and nothing to do with memories of past evictions, they simple don't know what to do with all the property that they should repossess because it would make the property market go into a sky dive, which would then unlease a tsunami of other borrowers giving up.

In addition from a banking perspective, we have no history of eviction and the legal system is very expensive and cumbersome. It take a long time and plenty of money to get to the stage of eviction, then you have the extra costs of minding an empty property that may be unsaleable at any realistic price, far better to let someone stay there minding it than evict them, as the bankers wait in false hope of a property price increase. The banks must be tearing their hair out at this stage as they don't know what to do.

Then even if they get an eviction, well let's say take Ivan Yates property, does anyone believe that in a small place like that that you'd risk being a buyer, or the guy on the TV the other day, Sherlock, it would be the last place you'd buy no matter how cheap. And forgetting them, take an anonomous property in a city or big estate, well even if you wanted to buy you couldn't because the banks won't give you a mortgage, and they themeselves are stopping buyers purchasing anything because their valuers are being very relutanct to do anything but value property at a price less than what buyers are bidding.
 

cashier said:
One can only comprehend the despair they must be experiencing of losing their homes.
Click to expand...


Tell me, is the pain, distress and despair of homeowners anything like that suffered by renters who can't pay their rent, and so are being evicted?

And should renters be allowed stay in their properties, rent free and at the landlord's expense, while the unfortunate renter stays in the property waiting for a new job, or for the economy to pick up?

The emotive nature of the argument masks some important points, namely that:

1. Evictions are a natural and normal part of a functioning property market. There have always been evictions. There should always be evictions.
2. An optimum lending environment will only exist where the bank can recoup the asset their lending is secured against. Not being able to do this massively reduces any incentive to lend.
3. Many homeowners would be better off out of their homes. Banks need to be more willing to cut deals, but they would rather keep the opportunity to bleed borrowers over a number of years.
4. As above, banks would rather keep the borrower in situ, rack up arrears, extend the borrowing period, etc. People may get to a certain age down the line and think "why did I bother?"
 
There are two groups that face eviction

A) people who borrowed way out of their means and wil never be able to repay what they borrowed

B) people who borrowed responsible amount of money and have found themselves in financial difficulties that may only be temporary and will likely have an improvement in their finances once the economy picks up.

Group B are the ones that should be getting help to avoid evicition and all should be done to avoid eviction for these people. Group A will likely be pushed to eviction once the property market improves and may in the long run be better off, renting isn’t the end of the world if you cant afford your mortgage and will never be able to repay it.

Under the current bankruptancy rules Group A are put between a rock and a hardplace and in those circumstances they automatically see doing everything to keep their house as the best option. The law has to be changed to help these people give up their homes and move on
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register