Caroline Lennon Nally Posterwoman for mortgage arrears

[irishmoss]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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.