Pepper were obviously representing an investment fund.
Called by sinn fein, the lefties and certain people in the media as "vulture funds"
We were also assured by David hall (and he has reaffirmed this recently) of a tsunami of repossessions by these funds.
But it seems from this and countless others cases that these funds are far easier to do reasonable deals with than any other financial institution.
I wonder if Mr. Hall, sinn fein or the usual babble on the far left could comment on what seems to be very fair treatment of people by these funds.
Hi Mr. P
Thanks for getting back to us with an update. It's always useful to know what is actually happening.
You were offered a great deal at the time and couldn't avail of it.
The next best option at the time was to get a Personal Insolvency Arrangement which would have dealt with the issue very well for you.
You have now managed to get €180k and clear the mortgage presumably for less than the market value.
There is a difficult issue in advising someone to stop paying.
Sometimes strategic defaulters like you do get deals.
People who pay their mortgage rarely get deals.
So the people who strategically default effectively cause the rest of 600,000 borrowers to pay the highest mortgage rates in the eurozone.
I think of all the mortgage holders and not just the strategic defaulters. As most posters here say from time to time, we need to make it easier for lenders to repossess houses.
Brendan.
Pepper Settlement.
- Thread starter Mr peabody
- Start date
Massive amounts of indignation from Brendan and Peemac.I fail to see the relevance of strategic default and high mortgage rates etc in the above case.You are completely ignoring the fact that the investment fund probably bought the mortgage at a fraction of the original amount owing and we're delighted to settle for 180 K.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,091
And why was a lender forced to sell this mortgage at a fraction of the amount owing?
We don't know who the lender was, but if it was AIB or Ulster or ptsb, they could not repossess houses so they had to sell the mortgages at a "fraction of the original amount."
Because of this history of losses, they are required to put up more capital and therefore charge higher rates.
Brendan
I am in shock reading this thread, as someone who has been through the mill with PTSB and Pepper, paying them a lump sum and now struggling again to meet my monthly repayments currently at 4.75%, receiving the dreaded letters monthly with more increases on the way I am genuinely upset that they treat people so differently, do deals with some and not with others, you try to do the right thing, you know you owe the money they buy your mortgage at a reduced rate and they give reductions to those who act more brazenly! I just don’t know anymore I feel like I’m back in the old PTSB days with more letters and increases, we have learnt absolutely nothing!
Last edited by a moderator:
No indignation from me re the poster. Its more how a certain cohort of politicians, left wing / tabloid media and publicity seekers like David Hall claimed that there would be Armageddon due to "vulture" funds buying mortgages and there would be an "avalanche" of repossessions.
This case and many others shows that it is these same investment funds that will do deals and be quite reasonable.
And again, the assumption put in the same media and by the same agitators that these funds paid a fraction of the value has never been borne out by any facts whatsoever. These funds look for an investment return. It might be 20%-25%, but they also take the hit when things go bad
They (AIB, Ulster, Ptsb) in a vast number of cases did not and would not provide adequate or sustainable solutions to distressed customers. Their customers went into arrears. They continued to penalise them, despite their circumstances and/or issue repossession proceedings on family homes. In the case of Ptsb for example, many were offered "split mortgage" arrangements. These loans were then categorised (wrongly) as "non-performing" loans and subsequently sold off on that basis to investment funds, who are now hiking interest rates well beyond normal lending rates. Hundreds if not thousands of those who have entered into insolvency and are now coming out the other end and facing mortgage repayments well in excess of the payments they couldn't afford in the first place and through economic and other circumstances beyond their control.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,091
About 120,000 mortgages were restructured.
No. They weren't penalising them before the CCMA and when it came out, it prohibited penalising customers in arrears.
So ptsb put 50% of a mortgage in a warehouse and charged no interest on it. Ah, that is what you mean by "penalising". Sorry, I misunderstood the word.
The Central Bank insisted that these were NPLs despite ptsb's protests.
I detect a bit of sarcasm and I note that you have conflated two separate points I mention.
However what I meant by "penalising" is the very definition of the word and with reference to individuals who were or are in dire financial circumstances and at risk of losing their homes. They were "put at an unfair disadvantage". If you want proof, go ask any person who is now dealing with a fund and not the original lender, where the split portion of the mortgage now falls due.
Interesting read:
Enforcement Action: Permanent TSB p.l.c, reprimanded and fined €21,000,000 by the Central Bank of Ireland for regulatory breaches affecting tracker mortgage customers
On 30 May 2019 the Central Bank of Ireland reprimanded and fined Permanent TSB p.l.c. €21,000,000 pursuant to its Administrative Sanctions Procedure in respect of serious failings to 2,007 tracker mortgage customer accounts.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,091
No they didn't. I am campaigning against the vulture funds who are charging 6.5%. But you are wrong in saying that they (AIB, Ulster ,ptsb) penalised them.
Brendan
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,091
Thank you for coming back with the update. It is really interesting to see how things turned out.
Hi Mr Peabody.
Hope you don’t mind me asking, I seen your trend on here and I am currently in a similar situation with pepper, they told me to write into them re debt forgiveness, so I owe them €230k property only worth if I sell €180 max. They said I can write in to have the remainder as debt forgiveness is this what you did? I am just wondering about credit rating, is this marked on a credit report then, I was told by a broker that if they mark it on a credit report you can’t get another mortgage for 5 years but if they don’t then it’ll be fine. Any advice would be great, I also have a great reputation with the credit union and was thinking of them for another mortgage but not sure if I should or if they would give me a mortgage based on the debt forgiveness with pepper. Thanks C