Troika and the Repossession of Properties

They seem to be under no hurry to bring in the personal insolvency bill.

Also I expect new beginnings to litigate any new legislation all the way to the supreme court.
 
It's articles like this that make me grateful for the opportunity I have to emigrate next year.

I'm in the process of selling my home. Got an offer on Friday from a cash buyer. The sale was for €150,000. Last year my family made an offer of €200,000 to purchase it. The offer was turned down but they are now prepared to take a haircut and sell to strangers.

Moral hazard my eye
 
They seem to be under no hurry to bring in the personal insolvency bill.

Also I expect new beginnings to litigate any new legislation all the way to the supreme court.

And all power to New Beginning.
 
I think new beginnings has fallen to the dark side somehow, David Hall is on twitter about Alan Shatters plans to help banks at the cost of the people of Ireland and Justice.

David has a new group going gave up on new beginnings, I don't know what its called. Rossa Fanning can't seriouly work for a bank throwing a family out of its home on one day and claim a new beginning the next day.

David Hall is a great guy to follow on twitter he has his finger on the dying pulse of Ireland.

More detailed article in Business post.

Perhaps the casino industry, for whom he is the chairman of their representative body, will help to quicken a lot of the dying pulses around the place
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the casino industry, for whom he is the chairman of their representative body, will help to quicken a lot of the dying pulses around the place

I don't agree with David's pronouncements on mortgage arrears issues, but to give him his due, he has a good record of involvement in not for profit groups



  • Beaumont Hospital Foundation
  • Marie Keating Foundation
  • Make a Wish Foundation
 
I don't understand the outrage in response to this reported announcement. Why should a certain group of mortgage defaulters (mainly buy to let landlords perhaps as suggested by the Indo's report?) be treated differently to others due to some loophole? Surely it's more equitable for the same rules to apply to all. And in any case as the Irish Times mentions the scale of repossessions is still quite low and has actually diminished over the past year or so.
 
I don't understand the outrage in response to this reported announcement.

I thought the exact same when I read this thread yesterday and wrote a reply and didnt post it in the end.

There is an unintended loophole and the troika asked us to close it. Id imagine if the insolvency bill went through the loophole would have to be closed anyway.
 
Clubman and shigllgetcha, please do not dampen down the righteous hysterics.

People should be allowed stay in their homes, or indeed retain their investment properties, forever without making any repayments. It's only fair.
 
Nobody is suggesting people can stay in their homes or keep their investment properties without paying nothing. It is about balance. If people cooperate with the bank, sell the asset, give up their home, that should be closure, or at least closure should be in sight.
I think that 2013 will be the year when matters explode, people have had enough. I predict that somebody will be killed in the next 12 months in the course of a repossession. There are already plenty of suicides. Judging by our track record in legislating, the government will still be debating the crisis in 20 years.
 
Nobody is suggesting people can stay in their homes or keep their investment properties without paying nothing. It is about balance. If people cooperate with the bank, sell the asset, give up their home, that should be closure, or at least closure should be in sight.

sorry to contradict you, but there's an awful lot of people on here (a lot of them being new members of AAM) who are arguing exactly for that.....borrower gets to keep their home house, their BTL's etc and get mortgage debt write off on all. They believe there should be no repossessions at all.
Read through this forum and 1 or 2 others and this will quickly become apparent
 
Nobody is suggesting people can stay in their homes or keep their investment properties without paying nothing. It is about balance. If people cooperate with the bank, sell the asset, give up their home, that should be closure, or at least closure should be in sight.

I would agree. And I think this has occurred, though not on a wide enough scale. However, most borrowers that appear in the context of contested repossessions have no interest in surrendering the asset at all, they wish to retain the property despite having paid little to nothing in repayments over a matter of years. They typically also want a debt writedown.

Any eviction case that has been reported widely has inevitably involved deceit, malice, bad faith or sometimes simple inability to honour their debts over a prolonged period of time on the part of the borrower. We had the Killiney Two who witheld rent from an extensive rental portfolio while paying nothing on the mortgage of the house; we had that Sherlock character who is a serial debt defaulter with a series of judgments made against him and his wife over the past few years; we had Eugene Dooley in Dundalk, who made negligible repayments over a number of years, including a period where the dwelling was actually rented out and rental payments were not used to make any repayment.

Inevitably those who shout loudest, and who are often the least palatable of characters, seem to profit most. And in all the cases above and others beside it there is an ignorant rent-a-mob willing to go and stand at the properties and try to frustrate lawful efforts to enforce the terms of contracts entered into willingly by grown adults.

Errors in legislation are not a desirable thing, and should be closed off as soon as practicable. I have no idea what exactly it says about our government that they have to be told by external parties to tidy up their own unfit legislation, but it isn't good.
 
I suppose I am one of the people Delboy’s talking about I do want to keep everything and feel totally entitled to it.

I don’t want to give anything to anyone I consider beneath contempt, liars and thieves.

I made the bank offer after offer; I paid professionals to prepare offers with me. Everything fell on deaf ears. The greed and arrogance of the bankers I encountered was mind blowing.

I went to the first meeting alone and have never done so since I was all but assaulted. If someone threatened and abused me in such a manner in any other situation I would have phoned the Gardai and I am still sorry I didn’t phone them.

What you have here is a totally lawless wreck less train crash of an industry bringing everyone else down with them, and the government has their backs which makes it even worse.

There is no balance and no justice. The banker I had been trying to deal with lied continually in almost every sentence.

I completely fail to comprehend how letting these out of control cowboys wreck the county ruin lives destroy families, and businesses, make Ireland a third world country will improve anything.

Perhaps you should explain your situation and let us know how and why you feel that debt forgiveness is appropriate in your case?
 
sorry to contradict you, but there's an awful lot of people on here (a lot of them being new members of AAM) who are arguing exactly for that.....borrower gets to keep their home house, their BTL's etc and get mortgage debt write off on all. They believe there should be no repossessions at all.
Read through this forum and 1 or 2 others and this will quickly become apparent
There seems to be a lot more who think people should be chased to their dying days to pay back the balance even if people give up their home. No wonder, so many choose the dole or moving abroad.

So Delboy, can you accept the concept of reckless lending and if a bank is guilty of reckless lending, they should be held equally accountable if a loan is in trouble?
 
I dont know why people are looking for "fair play" from the banks. The banks are bust, full stop.

We all know that there is a train load of trouble coming up the track.
One in three, buy to let, properties is in trouble (my gut feeling is that the true figure is even worse). So far the banks have not dealt with this issue at all. In fact they are not able to deal with it because dealing with it will involve writing off billions of euro from their loan books at a time when their balance sheets are under capitalised. The Troika realises that this has to be dealt with and is now upping the pressure on the government and the banks to tackle non-performing loans head on.

The bottom line is that the banks will need to be recapitalised again and nobody is facing up to this. We can cry and cry about the 65 billion that has been poured into the banks already but the shocking reality is that another 40 billion will be required before too long to finish the job.
 
Some good responses to this thread.

Fr. Ted, I've been down the same road as yourself, accept I reported the scenario. I was fearful of doing so but was encouraged by the people around me. Looking back, it was the best thing I done.

Importer, I agree with you 100%. I'm guessing that they will bleed more money from the TAX payer and plunge it further into these zombie banks. When they have everyone on the breadline they will then close them down. Domesday scenario or what.
 
. It is about balance. If people cooperate with the bank, sell the asset, give up their home, that should be closure, or at least closure should be in sight.
.


Yes there should be closure if you give up the asset and cannot afford to pay the debt. Another solution which is a good one, particularly for family homes is that the bank instead of repossessing, writes down part of the debt to a level a family can manage and indeed AIB are apparently finally doing this. It's a win win for everybody. Family stays in home, they become a performing creditor, AIB writes off part of the debt, helping their books and they don't incur the costs of court, agents fees and various other costs which can be quite a percentage of the debt.
 
There seems to be a lot more who think people should be chased to their dying days to pay back the balance even if people give up their home. No wonder, so many choose the dole or moving abroad.

So Delboy, can you accept the concept of reckless lending and if a bank is guilty of reckless lending, they should be held equally accountable if a loan is in trouble?

I accept the banks traded recklessly. I accept the guys at the top should be fired, and legislation should be brought in to have pensions removed from all Public Servants (which most bankers now are) who are found to have performed their roles in a reckless and incompetent manner...only the do I believe we'll see real change in the way they behave as the pension is the crock of gold at the end of their careers.

I also feel that it takes 2 to tango...a lot of people lied about their earnings using over time and 1-off payments to up their mortgage claims (usually with a blind eye from the bank).

I also feel that some people aspired to a lifestyle and took on totally unreasonable debts while the majority of people in the country bought average and ordinary houses they felt they could afford. Why should those who stretched way too far be allowed remain in houses that were way beyond their means in the 1st place while those who can still service their mortgage remain on in houses that are perhaps now too small for their family situations...and they get no write off at all even if in negative equity

I also feel a lot of people got extremely greedy and took out mortgages to buy btl's on the back of equity in their family home or on other btl's they had. Why should these people be allowed keep the btl's or even in some cases the family home...a loss of all the btl's they have or a downgrade to 1 of their btl's would be in order here perhaps

I also feel a lot of landlords with btl's in negative equity are collecting rent and no longer servicing their mortgages, as they feel a sweetheart deal is coming down the line

However, I don't believe that people who give up their family homes where the mortgage is clearly unsustainable should be chased for the next 30 years with a large debt hanging over them. If they co-operate, place all their cards on the table in terms of other assets, surrender the asset(s) as mentioned above...they should be more than entitled to start afresh after a period of time
 
Last edited:
Back
Top