Given the multiple press stories and movement on the CCMA etc, it seems the arrears epidemic is finally going to be tackled in some way.
The way most mortgage arrears in the longer term categories are going to be tackled is via repossession and voluntary surrender. Those are valid outcomes, present in any functioning market.
Removing restrictions on number of contacts per month, removing tracker mortgages from those in arrears, and shortening the time it may take to initiate legal proceedings are definite step towards long overdue repossession/surrenders.
The way most mortgage arrears in the longer term categories are going to be tackled is via repossession and voluntary surrender. Those are valid outcomes, present in any functioning market.
Anyone who feels harassed by numerous phone calls form a bank should contact the guards without delay and let them deal with it under the Non-fatal Offences Against The Person Act 1997.Removing restrictions on number of contacts per month.
They are not valid outcomes for society or the person who wants to stay in their home imo. Most unsustainable mortgages could be made sustainable by a split mortgage.
.
I think it is a perfectly valid outcome for society. Anyone taking out a mortgage does so knowing it comes with certain responsibilities.
Big difference between servicing a €300 k mortgage given out in the mad times versus a €150k split mortgage. There wouldn't need to be repossessions for the most part if banks addressed long term solutions to mortgage arrears but they aren't doing so as the figures indicate.If you can service your mortgage, you keep your property. If you cannot make any real effort to do so, you can't. If we want there to be any incentive for credit-lending there has to be the ability for the lender to repossess.
If banks were serious about long term solutions those solution would be decided within a year. The problem is they aren't as the figures show. I suspect that there are very very few cases where a split mortgage wouldn't suit. Most typical couples will have their children sorted out by the time the parents are in mid to late 50's. Plenty of working time left to sort out the mortgage. For many people lump sums on retirement and inheritance are possibilities too, which could be used to reduce debt.How long exactly should someone be allowed stay in their home without making mortgage repayments? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? A simple answer please. There are a substantial number of people well over a year in arrears. They may have very uncertain prospects of a job. How long should they remain in the house while it is completely uncertain whether they will ever return to work?
Rent allowance will keep them in their home if they are out of work.And should the same not apply to renters? And if not, why not?
Neither is turfing them out on the street when they are going to have to be housed anyway.This fairy story stuff about how we can accommodate everyone in an unfortunate position with regard to their mortgage isn't helpful to anyone.
If banks were serious about long term solutions those solution would be decided within a year. The problem is they aren't as the figures show.
Rent allowance will keep them in their home if they are out of work.
Ah, I see. I had forgot one crucial component of the arrears fallacy. Namely the completely homogenous nature of those in arrears. They, of course, all bought in the boom. Did you know there isn't a single person in arrears who didn't buy 2005-2007? They all have massive mortgages, given to them irresponsibly. None of them bought with any type of deposit. None of them have any equity in their homes.
Also, none of them had any responsibility in falling into arrears. It was entirely down to acts of god, or the economny falling apart. They probably all lost their job or their overtime.
None of them remortgaged to buy an investment property, home or abroad. None of them borrowed to buy a new car, or spent large amounts of borrowed money on holidays.
None of these unfortunate people bear absolutely no responsibility for their circumstances.
I don't claim everyone in arrears acted irresponsibly - but the notion that they played little to no part (bar signing the contracts) is prevalent.
Come to long term solutions with them such as a split mortgage. This could be done in less than a year time frame.You are sidestepping the question, unsurprisingly. How long should someone be allowed to remain in their property while making no mortgage repayments? There is a substantial number of people who have not made a payment in 1/2+ years. What is your plan for them?
"Reading your posts it seems like an indefinite moratorium is your solution. With a healty dose of "sure everything will probably be grand in 10 years.
The main reason a landlord doesn't want rent allowance with new tenants is because of the perception that those tenants will be trouble. It would be an entirely different proposition with an existing tenant, whose standing is good, but who has met with bad times.As a renter, you would have zero entitlement to remain in the property if not paying the rent. You would get 14 days notice to pay rent outstanding and then 28 days to vacate. I don't believe there is any obligation on a landlord to accept RS. It is up to the landlord to decide whether they would accept it - and most do not. So as a renter, when you lose your job, or lose control of your finances, you are out of the property in short time. You would be very fortunate to have two months to make arrangements of any sort. You are also relegated to either moving in with family or relying on the state to provide accommodation in one form or another. This it seems, is good enough for the Renting Class.
You will have precious little of it if the banks agree long term solutions as already mentioned. Lets revisit this thread after the next set of figures are released and see how things have changed.Repossession is neither good nor bad. It is simply necessary. You can't have a properly functioning property market without it.
Come to long term solutions with them such as a split mortgage. This could be done in less than a year time frame.
Never once have I suggested an indefinite moratorium as a solution in any thread. Post a link or be honourable enough to withdraw the allegation. There are numerous specific reasons as to why things might be better for people down the line as previously mentioned.
For many people lump sums on retirement and inheritance are possibilities too, which could be used to reduce debt.
.
What use is a split mortgage to a household without income? In the case of a borrower with no or negligible income relative to the cost of servicing their borrowings, and with no immediate prospect of an improvement in income, what is it you are advocating?
And how long should a borrower be allowed stay in a property without paying the mortgage? You have been avoiding that question throughout the thread.
Split mortgages are not a blanket solution. And there is a "hopeful" element to them all.
Long term solutions that the banks aren't interested in as previously discussed. Without any income - who has no income? The FIS guidelines for a couple with 3 kids is €703 a week. Throw a couple , with little income with 3 kids out on the street in Dublin and the rent supplement of up to €1000 per month will have be given to them paid for by the state.
Twice already in the thread I have said less than a year which is a reasonable time frame.
Have you found a thread yet where I advocated an indefinite moratorium on mortgage repayments? Not honourable enough to withdraw the claim?
Bugler, this repossesion train, which we've been talking about for nigh on 5 years or more ain't coming to town any time soon.
Split mortgages are not a solution. They are a can kicking exercise and can kicking exercises are a large part of the reason why we are in the position we're in today.They are not valid outcomes for society or the person who wants to stay in their home imo. Most unsustainable mortgages could be made sustainable by a split mortgage. The fact is banks aren't playing ball as indicated by the fact that only 144 splits have been agreed out of 142,000 arrears cases, even though the CB wants banks to introduce more long term arrangements with people in arrears.
...The main reason a landlord doesn't want rent allowance with new tenants is because of the perception that those tenants will be trouble. It would be an entirely different proposition with an existing tenant, whose standing is good, but who has met with bad times....
Split mortgages are not a solution. They are a can kicking exercise and can kicking exercises are a large part of the reason why we are in the position we're in today.
Could the people who keep on saying "we'll have to pay to accommodate people anyway after we make them homeless" please provide some statistics on how many of those with unsustainable mortgages cannot afford any kind of rental accommodation.