Since when do we blame everything on others?

H

haminka1

Registered User
Messages
110
I read the article in today's Indo

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/dream-home-beyond-couples-means-2220562.html

and while I feel for the couple, I don't understand their comments about the responsibility of the bank. When exactly did we stop owning to our own actions? Was there someone holding a knife at their throats when they were buying their house, forcing them to buy one they couldn't afford from the very start /as they just admitted/? Sure, the bank wanted to earn some money so they gave them the mortgage but it was them who went for an expensive house. Looks like own responsibility went out of fashion these days.
 
You're being a bit harsh in this case from what I'm reading in the article.

From what I read they're saying they shouldn't have been offered the money and they shouldn't have accepted it.

They've acknowledged it's beyond their means and have agreed to the repossession.

Sure, they should never have accepted the loan, but you've got to agree the banks are not above criticism in this situation
 
DerKaiser said:
.. but you've got to agree the banks are not above criticism in this situation
Click to expand...

Do sub-prime lenders qualify as 'the banks' in this context ? Can we assume that sub-prime borrowers have already been declined by 'the banks' ?
 
i'm also fed up with the lack of personal responsibility that's around lately.
yes people shouldn't have been offered huge mortgages and massive amounts on credit cards but they signed on the dotted line, put in the pin number, spent the money or whatever and are now responsibile for their actions. I feel for anyone in this situation but such is life.
 
If their eldest child is 18 now, they would have been 15 in 2007 when the mortgage was taken out.

This would put the couple around mid 30's.

What were the bank, and the couple thinking in signing up to a 40 year mortgage that they would be still paying into their 70's?
 
I’m a great advocate for taking responsibility for your own actions. I think that people who borrowed money they couldn’t afford to fund houses that were beyond their means should take responsibility for their own stupidity. I am particularly critical of people who ran up debt funding holidays or general living expenses that were beyond their means. However, and it’s a big caveat, by the same standards the banks should have to take the hit for their own stupidity; lending money to people that couldn’t afford to repay it. That’s where the whole thing falls down; the same people who are shelling out almost all of their income to service debts are taking a cut in their take home pay because of the extravagance and irresponsibility of the banks and our government.
 
agreed to borrow €306,000 from Start Mortgages in May 2007 with an annual percentage rate of 8.3pc.
Yesterday the couple, who borrowed from the sub-prime lender to build a dormer bungalow in Cavan,
Click to expand...

What kind of cowboy builder were they using to build this bungalow? :confused:
Now I know they have to buy a site which will cost tens and tens of thousands for a good site. Even close to one hundred thousand.

But you can build a bungalow for well under 100,000 euro for building materials and labour yet their total project was 306,000 euro?
Was it marble and gold they were using for fixtures and fittings?
 
Start Mortgages went after the sub-prime market. What the article doesn't tell us is how many lenders refused them a mortgage before they went to Start.

But then this is just the current trend for not taking responsibility, it's around and it's been around for a while. For example, if someone falls down the stairs at home, they'll probably laugh it off (if it's not too serious), if they fall down the stairs at work or at a shopping centre, they're at the solicitors and filling in the forms for the Injuries Board.
 
micmclo said:
What kind of cowboy builder were they using to build this bungalow? :confused:
Now I know they have to buy a site which will cost tens and tens of thousands for a good site. Even close to one hundred thousand.

But you can build a bungalow for well under 100,000 euro for building materials and labour yet their total project was 306,000 euro?
Was it marble and gold they were using for fixtures and fittings?
Click to expand...


Depends on the size and the spec really doesn't it?
 
db74, they say :

""It [the mortgage] was way beyond our means," said the mother of five outside of court yesterday.

"We should never have got it in the first place."

well, they should have never asked for it in the first place, imho
 
haminka - I read that as being like saying

"we should never have gone on that holiday" etc etc

and didn't see it as the mother blaming the banks at all. In fact it read to me as if she was bemoaning their own decision making.
 
Mortgage providers are in business to make money. They are not providing a social service. In this case, the bank can get the proceeds of the reposession sale and still make the couple pay back the balance owed in the future. In most of these cases, the bank gets most, if not all, of the money back eventually. Even if the dont, the high interest they charge makes it worthwhile - they can afford a few defaults now and then. Just because a house is repossessed, it doesnt mean the bank has been financially irresponsible.
 
I agree about the blame game. A couple of years ago, I remember people lying on their mortgage applications (bumping up salary, overtime, etc) to get on the property ladder. People would moan if the Bank knocked them back and just go to another lender or broker to get them more money.

Totally agree people should be responsible for their own actions.
 
I agree that people have to take responsibility for their own actions. But I wonder if we would have had anything like the property bubble we had if banks and other lenders were obliged to issue mortgages on a 'non recourse' basis.

While this might not have entirely prevented the bubble, it would certainly have encouraged lenders to consider more carefully the loan to value ratio they were offering and this in turn might have forced people to consider buying properties that they could actually afford.

Just a thought.....

Homer
 
There was also [broken link removed], in which a mother got into a car she knew wasn't insured, put her baby in the back of the car without a car seat, crashed the car and got €2.9 million in damages for the seriously injured child.

No question that the child has needs serious medical care, but where was the prosecution of the mother or the intervention of social services for endangering the child's life?
 
delgirl said:
There was also [broken link removed], in which a mother got into a car she knew wasn't insured, put her baby in the back of the car without a car seat, crashed the car and got €2.9 million in damages for the seriously injured child.

No question that the child has needs serious medical care, but where was the prosecution of the mother or the intervention of social services for endangering the child's life?
Click to expand...

How is that in anyway related? The son launched the legal action, not the mother. How can a four month old baby be accused of not taking personal repsonsibilty? The mother didn't get €2.9 million to go off sunning herself. The child is blind, suffered severe head injuries and became a ward of the court. How do you know the mother wasn't prosecuted? The insurance bureau I am sure also sued her as well. Are you saying the son shouldn't get the money because of the mothers actions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top