Hand Back the Keys

There is something distinctly odd about the Laura story. When God was brought into it etc. Ill health or something. No proper questioning of her by the media.
 
If I was her ,I wouldn't have gone public..
If the tax payer is picking up the bill, and she has any sort of life,she will be watched with interest.Id hate to live like that.I can just see the red tops " tax payer picks up the bill while Nurse lives it up" or some such ,when she is seen buying something considered non essential like a Mars bar!
I ,like others think there should be some way of helping those who are young and stuck with massive mortgages,but this story has changed my mind.
If a young woman ,in a house,which was rented out for some of the time,on an income of 70k,can just hand back the keys and pay 250 a mth for six years,and has an income of 2.500 net per month ,and can then get another mortgage in six years!
So lets say I have a house ,I hand back the keys,because I cant sell it and want to move to a different part of the country and take a pay cut and I have 2,5k a month and I pay 250e a mth for six years,meanwhile Im building up my career,(based on her age),I may well meet a partner who could buy a house,and I have 2.250 a month to help pay this new mortgage.
Or I could stay in my job ,earning 70k, pay a full mortgage for a house which has reduced in value,and in six years time be no better off,I know which option I would choose.She did the right thing,but I would question how bright it was for New beginnings to go public about it.It has done nothing for their cause and nothing for those in a similar position.
Though who wouldn't take that option if it were open to them?
What are the disadvantages,especially if you hadn't put a huge amount (ie similar to paying a rent) of money into the house?
Off you go ,debt free apart from a nominal amount ,you rent for the next six years,save as much as you can and can probably buy the same house back for less than you paid originally..
 
Can I throw my two cents in on this.

When banks prepare financial statements, they must undertake an impairment review of their loan book and account for it on recoverable basis.

Like any business with Debtors, when preparing the financial statements, you are required the put in a provision for bad debts, against the debtors balance.

As far as I am aware, banks have already done this and thus, to agree with terms of Basle III, the same banks have already been re-capitalised.

There was some suggestions a while back stating that the banks are over capitalised.
 
Only if the mortgage is with an Irish Bank would it effect tax payer,eg BOS,UB not Irish banks so how would Irish tax payer lose out ob these
Jim2007 said:
Do you serious think that other tax payers are going to agree to foot the bill for your house??? Because that is what it comes down to in the end. The politicians know very well that there is little support for this kind of a deal among the electorate hence the slowness to act on it...
Click to expand...
 
I don't think many people agree with mortgage write-downs i.e. keep the house and reduce the debt.

In my opinion, if debt is to be written off, you must lose the house.
 
Well, the new Personal Insolvency Bill says that the main home must be protected at all costs.......(or words to that effect) In fact under the bill, an Insolvency Practitioner is not permitted to propose any settlement where the debtor will lose their home or indeed equity in their home.
 
Dr.Debt said:
Well, the new Personal Insolvency Bill says that the main home must be protected at all costs.......(or words to that effect) In fact under the bill, an Insolvency Practitioner is not permitted to propose any settlement where the debtor will lose their home or indeed equity in their home.
Click to expand...

Well that's a breath of fresh air for those caught up in this mess. Finally something positive.
 
Dr.Debt said:
Well, the new Personal Insolvency Bill says that the main home must be protected at all costs.......(or words to that effect) In fact under the bill, an Insolvency Practitioner is not permitted to propose any settlement where the debtor will lose their home or indeed equity in their home.
Click to expand...

If that is correct it's a huge relief to a lot of people, myself included.
 
Yes it is correct under Part 4, section 99.

There is a sting in the tail though.....In most cases,The bank will be able to veto any settlement proposal if they don't like what is being proposed (provided they are a significant majority Creditor.)

So on one side an Insolvency Practitioner is not allowed to propose any settlement which involves the debtor losing their house but on the other side the majority creditor can veto the proposal if they don't like it.

The main thrust of the bill clearly supports the idea of a debtor retaining their PPR if at all possible
 
No, Its not clear yet.
It has been said that Accountants and Solicitors might be interested and other "suitably qualified persons"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top