Troika and the Repossession of Properties

That's a very good summary Delboy.

Delboy said:

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

Click to expand...

Completely agree. This is one of the biggest problems. People with unsustainable debts are between a rock and a hard place their choice is give up your home and still owe the same money or fight to keep your home so at least you are left with something.

Whereas if giving up your home meant you were released from the debt after a reasonable amount of time atleast you can move on with your life even if you had to rent for the rest of your life.

People with unsustainable debts are between a rock and a hard place their choice is give up your home and still owe the same money or fight to keep your home so at least you are left with something

Click to expand...

or a slight variation - people have lived rent free for two years during the process of repossession.
Note: I would be in favour of this option being there as well.

@shigllgetcha, The option of giving up your house and walking away debt free is available. Its called bankruptcy................

Which is against the ethos of many who contribute to these forums.

Importer said:

@shigllgetcha, The option of giving up your house and walking away debt free is available. Its called bankruptcy................

Click to expand...

It lasts too long though

Ive nothing against bankruptcy, its the way things should work, its the lenght of it in this country thats the problem and causes the rock and a hard place situation

shigllgetcha said:

Whereas if giving up your home meant you were released from the debt after a reasonable amount of time atleast you can move on with your life even if you had to rent for the rest of your life.

Click to expand...

The Bankruptcy Act 1986 is due to be amended shortly in conjunction with The Personal Insolvency Bill and this will reduce the time span to a minimum of three years

But the system will still be penal in nature with the banks having their way.

I would still stick 2 fingers in the air and go to the UK.

The banks "wont get their way" if you go bankrupt. In fact they'll have to suck it up. They will have no input to it whatsoever.

On the other hand, under the Personal Insolvency Bill, nothing can happen without the approval of the majority Creditors, which is where the banks will obviously be able to control the agenda quite well in most cases.

Thank you very much Bronte. Its by know means an easy decision but one that needed to be called sooner rather than later.

I was the last of the fools who continued to pay interest only. Took on two low pay, unskilled jobs to meet the interest only payment. Got no great thanks for it. Health began to suffer. Maybe I would have been better off if I'd resorted to dole payments, paid the bank nothing and said to hell with it all.

Maybe then I would have been offered some form of restructure.

bugler said:

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.

Click to expand...

The only hysteric here is the fact that banking institutions (businesses), are allowed to threaten the very democracy of this country because they are upset by a couple of loopholes in the law. Big deal is what I say. Let them suck it up, they're running a business not a charity.

The banks are as bust as the people who borrowed from them. The banks are a growing cancer in this country and are threatening the sovereignty of this very state.

Wishes said:

I was the last of the fools who continued to pay interest only.

Click to expand...

No you weren't you did your best. That's all anyone can do.

Unfortunately for you the insolvency regime such as it is has come too late for you and many others. Personally so far I've no faith that the new insolvency will do much solving.

Don't worry about going abroad, first year is the hardest after that it's all plain sailing.

Bronte, would you agree that if there is a write down of the debt on the family home that they should be unable to sell it for say ten years and when sold after that date there should be a lien on the house to pay off the full debt?

Bronte said:

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.

Click to expand...

burmo said:

Bronte, would you agree that if there is a write down of the debt on the family home that they should be unable to sell it for say ten years and when sold after that date there should be a lien on the house to pay off the full debt?

Click to expand...

Maybe before the current mess I might have thought something like that, but actually it's something one never had to think about before now. I've learnt a lot from AAM. My thinking has moved on. We need to get people out of their messes and the economy moving.

My thinking now is why put hurdles in people's way. If the bank writes down the debt and a year later the family wants to sell and move to somehwere there is a job or prospects then why not. We need solutions not penalties to people.

Prior to this complete breakdown of normal society and banking I would have always believed that people should pay their debts and take any penalties for doing so. You take the risk you pay the price. Me personally I don't intend ever to not repay a debt. So I do not come to it from a vested interest in the sense that I am not looking for debt writedown for myself. I still though believe that if you take on debt you should repay it. That society via the government should regulate so people do not overextend and that there should be proper bankruptcy procedures in place to deal with those who can not hope to repay. That for those in the latter category, they must pay some price, such as finding it more difficult to borrow again. But ultimately to let a person who makes a mistake to get on in life. It does none of us any good to keep people in servitude to the banks and the mismanagment of the regulator.

Sorry this is a bit philosophical for this thread, and all over the place, I'll have to think about it some more.

Just joined thread. Agree with need to fix issue regardless of moral hazard as too many ordinary people , not buy to lets in over their heads and demanding blood from these stones only serve to add to general malaise in the country. One option that to me sound like a reasonable compromise is to fix say, interest only, and house reverts to lender on death of borrower in cases of genuine principal residence. I know I have given up hope of having anything left for my children from what in hindsight was a stupid loan, compounded, let me add by reckless lending on the part of the bank. Who in their right mind would loan a large sum to a sixty year old on a twenty year mortgage. I was foolish enough at the time to be delighted they gave us loan but now paying the price.