Any idea when this law will be reformed?
stop blaming mortgage holders
- Thread starter Ryandd
- Start date
Any idea when this law will be reformed?
The are sold and bought by home-hunters, private investors, housing associations or local authorities.
The tax payer is currently on the hook for a lot of unprofitable tracker mortgages. Liquidating some of these mortgages may reduce the cost to the bank / state.
And my guess is that the bank are playing a waiting game as they have no clue if the market will pick up again anytime soon but are hoping it will. But you can be sure if it does that those who were in negative equity who have not paid full mortgage amounts will be slapped with all kinds of fees to add to their woes as the banks start to evict them and get their pound of flesh. That is what happened in the past with those who didn't pay their mortgages, the banks current problem is that there is too many right now and they cannot flood the market and depress it even futher. So right now it's a catch 22 situation and a waiting game.
I think you are right Bronte. The banks will try to dripfeed these properties onto the market in an orderly fashion should the property market recover.
L
London Irish
Guest
Nope.
L
London Irish
Guest
Nope.
I think the banks punishing people for not being able to pay their mortgage by adding fees and penalties is pointless at this time, like getting blood from a stone, when will they realise that 500 thousand and growing are out of work with no hope in sight. Agencies like new begginings are representing the mortgage holders in impossible situations and offer a great service, they are in talks with government and hopefully a solution will be reached soon, the problem is one shoe does fit all and I think they will have a difficult task ahead. Every household has a different situation to its neighbours for example couples wanting to split up, others wanting to downsize or find bigger accomodation, repossessing houses for people who want to surrender their homes for their own reasons will mean years of bad credit rating and continue to look for state support through the vast jobloss through no fault of their own.
Q
qljiea784hl1
Guest
I'm not a financial whiz or economist.
It is not pointless for the bank as there is a chance that a solution may involve writing off a percentage of the total debt and they could include fees, penalties and charges in this calculation. The banks have nothing to lose by applying these fees and penalties. In many cases they will get nothing but for the sake of a bit of paper work, they will get some of it.
There also has to be a obvious penalty to missing repayments otherwise lots of people would skip mortgage repayments.
People who acted unprofessionally towards their clients charging them for the consequences of their unprofessional advice should not succeed in Court.
I attended recently in a country District Court and while orders were made for repayment of the principal according to people's ability to repay, costs were struck out.
As far as I could see the orders were all for mortgage payments in arrears and penalties were not included, but as I couldn't see the charge sheets its unclear if penalties were included.
Given the fact that the solicitors costs were not being awarded, I am doubtful that penalties were included.
I attended recently in a country District Court and while orders were made for repayment of the principal according to people's ability to repay, costs were struck out.
As far as I could see the orders were all for mortgage payments in arrears and penalties were not included, but as I couldn't see the charge sheets its unclear if penalties were included.
Given the fact that the solicitors costs were not being awarded, I am doubtful that penalties were included.
The banks should really be asking themselves why do they think so many people aren't able to pay their mortgage. I would really like to hear that answer, anyone who contacts their bank in distress over money matters should not be charged additional fees and penalties for their misfortune talk about adding insult to injury. The genuine hardworking familes in this country are not being given a fair hearing its their fault face the consequences and thats the end of that, there is no responsibility on the banks or its policies which were a direct cause in this chaos, back benchers in the dail chambers may whistle in the wind as far as government actions on this issue will be dealt with, I appreciate they are voicing on behalf of families they meet everyday and are in constant battle with ministers on the issue of mortgage arrears and negative equity which was as a result of non regulation of the banks in the first place. If we are not offering banks our money we aren't worth the effort in cusotmer service and all that goes with Moral standards
When a person goes in to arrears or default there is a cost to the bank. The bank endeavours to recover that cost from the person that is the cause of that cost where possible. Obviously in the cases of default it is highly unlikely to ever be recovered.
The money to pay these costs will come from somewhere. Is it your opinion that the mortgage holders of that bank who are servicing their repayments should pay to deal with chasing those in arrears? There is no doubt that banks in Ireland have been very poor at communicating with their customers but this is also true of the customers with their banks.
The IMF bailout package required the Irish Government to address the failings in our bankruptcy laws by the first quarter of 2012... still, it's not surprising that nothing has happened...
The recent reduction in the bankruptcy penalty period from 12 to 5 years (contained in the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011, came into force this month) will probably be used to argue that this criteria has been met, despite the fact that the long penalty period was only part of the problem in our long-winded, expensive approach to bankruptcy.
Extensive bankruptcy reforms were suggested by the Law Reform Commission in a 2010/11 report on personal debt, and these suggestions have recently been packaged into a bill along with some less thoroughly analysed plans for mortgage arrears, by Fianna Fail (discussed in another topic that Brendan has created). We'll see anyway!
How exactly is renting paying dead money? Is paying for bread and milk dead money too as it will end up in a toilet?
Rent entitles you to a use of property which you may or may not chose to consider your home. I have been hearing this 'dead money / money down the toilet' argument for years and it never fails to rile me. I used to rent a fabulous brand new beautifully furnished duplex from a very nice and reasonable landlord who sent cheques immediately for any maintenance including annual carpet cleaning. Please explain how paying for a property outside of my financial reach at the time, in terms of size and location was 'money down the toilet'?
I must remember that one next time this perennial argument comes up in polite discussion over the dinner table...
Because you could be using the money to pay off a mortgage, which in the end, will leave you with a house and no more rent to pay..
True as it's an unavoidable cost of borrowing and ideally it would be better (for a house buyer's perspective) if the interest was lower than the rates for renting.
Interest rates and rents will fluctuate over the term and not necessarily in tandem as we have seen recently. However, one positive about buying (and I use the term "positive" loosly) is that it forces you to pay down the principle. At the end of the term you own the asset/house. Assuming that the price of the house doesn't budge over the term, then if you are renting, you would have to be diligent enough to save the same mortgage payment (excluding the interest componant) every month. Some people would be good at doing this but I would imagine most would not be. The money could quite easily be frittered away..
Historically no since most people would have the expectation that the value of their property would, at some stage in the future, exceed the cost of the mortgage, including interest. At the end of the mortgage, you have an asset, at the end of a lease, you have nothing of value
However, given the negative equity position a lot of people find themselves in, then you could argue for those people, that it is dead money.