Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,683
This is repeated time and time again as if it's one of the Ten Commandments
The Oireachtas Justice Committee has said:
I presented to the Oireachtas Justice Committee and Anne Ferris, the vice-Chairman of the Committee brought up the case of a constituent who had a mortgage of €600,000 who could pay only €1,200 per month, and the bank wants to repossess his home. I replied that it may be difficult for a TD to tell her constituent, but that mortgage is completely unsustainable. They need to sell the house and trade-down to a smaller rented house.
In a later private conversation, a TD referred to a constituent who traded up in the good times and who now, with salary cuts and tax increases, could not afford the mortgage. Again, I suggested that they trade down to a rented house.
We have an obligation as a state to provide people with housing. But we don't have an obligation to provide them with a house of their choice in an area of their choice.
We know that the banks were reckless in the amount which they lent. But we also know that many people misled their banks by lying about their income and their jobs. We know that many people remortgaged their home to fund extravagant lifestyles. We know that many people remortgaged to buy investment properties and holiday homes.
Where a person has a chance of recovering their position and paying at least the interest on their mortgage, they should be given every opportunity to do so.
But where a mortgage is unsustainable, the lender and the borrower should recognise this. The house should be sold and the shortfall dealt with under the Debt Settlement Arrangment.
This is often in the best interest of the borrower. There are many borrowers who want to escape their hopeless position but they are not being allowed to do so by the lender. Here is one good example, where the borrower has to move, but the lender won't take back the house. Here is another example where a couple bought a home together and they have split up. It would be much more helpful if legislation was introduced to help those who want to give up their home to do so.
We don't have the same protection for the rented home. When a rental agreement is up, the renter has to move on. If a renter can't afford the rent any longer or goes into arrears on their rent, they lose their family home.
Why should we have this for home buyers?
The Oireachtas Justice Committee has said:
There are many other examples.
I presented to the Oireachtas Justice Committee and Anne Ferris, the vice-Chairman of the Committee brought up the case of a constituent who had a mortgage of €600,000 who could pay only €1,200 per month, and the bank wants to repossess his home. I replied that it may be difficult for a TD to tell her constituent, but that mortgage is completely unsustainable. They need to sell the house and trade-down to a smaller rented house.
In a later private conversation, a TD referred to a constituent who traded up in the good times and who now, with salary cuts and tax increases, could not afford the mortgage. Again, I suggested that they trade down to a rented house.
We have an obligation as a state to provide people with housing. But we don't have an obligation to provide them with a house of their choice in an area of their choice.
We know that the banks were reckless in the amount which they lent. But we also know that many people misled their banks by lying about their income and their jobs. We know that many people remortgaged their home to fund extravagant lifestyles. We know that many people remortgaged to buy investment properties and holiday homes.
Where a person has a chance of recovering their position and paying at least the interest on their mortgage, they should be given every opportunity to do so.
But where a mortgage is unsustainable, the lender and the borrower should recognise this. The house should be sold and the shortfall dealt with under the Debt Settlement Arrangment.
This is often in the best interest of the borrower. There are many borrowers who want to escape their hopeless position but they are not being allowed to do so by the lender. Here is one good example, where the borrower has to move, but the lender won't take back the house. Here is another example where a couple bought a home together and they have split up. It would be much more helpful if legislation was introduced to help those who want to give up their home to do so.
We don't have the same protection for the rented home. When a rental agreement is up, the renter has to move on. If a renter can't afford the rent any longer or goes into arrears on their rent, they lose their family home.
Why should we have this for home buyers?