Caroline Lennon Nally Posterwoman for mortgage arrears

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
 


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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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)
 


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.
 
They offered her IO and she refused that as well.
Click to expand...

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
 
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
Click to expand...


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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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
 

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.]
 
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.
 
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?
 

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
 
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
 

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.
 
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?
 
Luternau said:
Lot of unknowns with this case.

How do we know that the bank are not standing up to her and saying no?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register