It just occurred to me today, if the bank isn't playing ball and won't write off the debt on voluntary surrender then maybe you should go through the repossession process and drag it out for as long as possible as your gaff will be appreciating and so whatever debt you're left with will be shrinking. You'd be shooting yourself in the foot if you allowed voluntary surrender without writing off the residual debt in this climate.
Voluntary Surrender- don't do it just yet?
- Thread starter gone
- Start date
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,184
Agreed. I have made this point at the AGM of Bank of Ireland.
I advise people to drag it out as long as possible, as they have nothing to lose.
Who is the lender? AIB will do a deal. ptsb might do a deal. KBC is also possible.
Brendan
I advise people to drag it out as long as possible, as they have nothing to lose.
Who is the lender? AIB will do a deal. ptsb might do a deal. KBC is also possible.
Brendan
R
rodger
Guest
People,
Is there a solicitor / financial adviser familiar with boi ? Who can get through to them?
I have had three advisers helping me and so far all I get is fobbed off with :
sign the form or else. There is no option to discuss options. They just arrived at an arrangement and I have to sign or else.
Is there a "big gun" who knows how to take them on? Maybe some of the big lawyer firms?
Thanks. Any advice appreciated. I'm finding them extremely difficult and unhelpful.
And mean and tight as well.
Is there a solicitor / financial adviser familiar with boi ? Who can get through to them?
I have had three advisers helping me and so far all I get is fobbed off with :
sign the form or else. There is no option to discuss options. They just arrived at an arrangement and I have to sign or else.
Is there a "big gun" who knows how to take them on? Maybe some of the big lawyer firms?
Thanks. Any advice appreciated. I'm finding them extremely difficult and unhelpful.
And mean and tight as well.
You've already dragged it out for 6 years....how many more do you feel you should get away with?
And what about the morals of it all or does that matter.
Then we complain about high SVR Mortgages.
Someone has to pay.
As a society we want it every way.
This is business Dermot , if you want morals go to church.
BOI. Told them that I'd strip the asset of any value before I left if they refused to make a deal - wires, floors, doors, toilets, sinks, windows, kitchen etc etc.. They said "go ahead, we don't do deals period". I can understand that they don't want to open the floodgates but they have to be realistic, a substantial portion of the population simply lost the ability to service their debts over the past 6 years and that ability is still some way from returning. Deals need to be done or for some it will simply make more economic sense to strip the asset of any residual value and go bankrupt abroad.
I don't know, how much profit do you think you should make when you sell your house?
Steven Barrett
Registered User
- Messages
- 5,136
Dermot,
Morality went out the window when the banks were lending money to people without doing the proper stress tests to see if they could actually afford the place. I've seen people who took out 35 year mortgages that they could only repay with having 2 lodgers there for the entire term. What underwriter would accept someone having lodgers for their entire working life?
Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie
This is not on, this kind of behaviour. And I totally would not agree with it. If you're emigrating why would you do that? All you do when you make threats like that is cost the rest of us taxpayers more money and in addition you make banks more unlikely to do deals.
I have no problem with anybody who cannot afford to do so going bankrupt but I wouldn't agree with what sounds like a kind of blackmail.
I'm also aware of it happening, the selling off of everything, I've referred to it on here.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,184
There are a few issues here.
I have suggested to all the lenders that they should do deals with people who agree to voluntarily surrender their house and maximise the sales proceeds.
I have pointed out that there is no advantage to anyone to surrender their home without a deal being done if they are going to pursue you anyway.
However, blackmailing them is a different thing. If I was Bank of Ireland, not only would I pursue you for the shortfall, I would try to get the Gardai to pursue you for criminal damage and fraud.
Blackmailing does not work. If you are vacating the house anyway, go ahead and do so. If you behave responsibly, you might get a deal at a later stage on the shortfall. Bank of Ireland's policy might change after the stress test results are announced.
Firstly, this was a tool for bargaining, I have no intention of actually doing it but would be well withing my rights if I chose to, so blackmail? No, this is not it.
Secondly, the way (in my particular case) to minimize taxpayers losses could be for the bank to get immediate possession of my gaff and so not have spend money on court cases etc and not having to wait for the repossession process to drag through the courts and so while you may not like the method of my approach it's perfectly reasonable that it could result in the smallest losses to the taxpayer, who can say really? Property could drop by 20% over the next 16 months, in a scenario like that the taxpayer will suffer greater losses than if I had managed to convince the bank to take immediate possession.
Blackmail, criminal damage, fraud? As long as the deeds are in my possession I'm fully entitled to do as I please with the house, no? These are serious allegations that I certainly don't want to be a part of and if true then I will immediately cease them.
I thought you were an advocate of hardball? Well this is it and if the banks are happy to lob me a rock shouldn't I lob one back in an effort to achieve my goals? I mean the banks are playing the hardest ball possible, the only thing I can do is respond in kind or not bother responding at all.
Steven Barrett
Registered User
- Messages
- 5,136
As long as the house hasn't been repossessed, how can he be done for criminal damage on to his own property? And fraud?
Does the standard mortgage contract say that the house must have wiring, floorboards, doors etc? If so, they can get him for breach of contract.
If it was 'business', you'd have been kicked out of that house after 3 months of not paying with a judgement for the balance following you.
You see to believe it's business if it's working in your favour.
I'm not surprised by the examples you have given of what you'd potentially do to the house if it came to it. Your posts on this and the other thread you started re name changes and emigrating to Canada outline your modus operandi.
What I am surprised at on this thread, is the tacit approval you have been getting from some experienced posters for your actions (not the house stripping part I hasten to add) or planned actions.
There are legal avenues you could go down to rid yourself of the house and the debt, but you'd much rather live rent/accomm free for as long as possible. You also don't seem to want the hassle of going the correct routes.
And now that there is a surge in house prices, you see the possibility of more rent/mortgage free living for a couple of more years before selling and possibly breaking even.
Not gonna spend too much time on this DelBoy, I could be here all day correcting your logic. Suffice to say everyone except yourself and a few other high horsers has figured out it's business and so this might explain your surprise at the "tacit approval" for treating it as such.
As long as the house hasn't been repossessed, how can he be done for criminal damage on to his own property? And fraud?
Does the standard mortgage contract say that the house must have wiring, floorboards, doors etc? If so, they can get him for breach of contract.
Have you seen the film Moving starring Richard Pyror?
There is a house not far from me where everything of value was removed prior to the bank taking back the house. What did the bank do? Nothing is what they did. The shell of the house is standing there exposed to the elements.
I repeat- if it was 'business' you'd have been out on the street after 3 months, not still in situ 6 years later.
Repeat away, it will not make what you say any more logical.
If it was business I would be allowed keep possession of and maintain the asset until circumstances changed enough to make it worthwhile for the lender to repossess at which point they would do so and hit me with a bill for the difference plus interest, which it what is happening. And so we can say this is business, at least it is from the perspectives of both sides of the contract.
Tbf I can understand your frustration but you're focusing it in the wrong place, I didn't ask for the banks to flood the market with easy credit ultimately obliterating the value of my asset and my ability to pay for it. What exactly do you expect me to do? My hands are tied from all directions and I got hamstrung in both legs at once. Would you like if I spent the rest of my life paying for the consequences of financial institution's relentless pursuit of short term profit? Maybe you would but that's not gonna happen, I'm gonna do what's best for me, you would to, everyone here would despite protestations to the contrary.