That is a fair point. I have come across a number of cases where the mortgage is unsustainable and effectively no payments are being made. Clients have accepted this and are well aware that at some stage they will be forced to leave the property. While they could probably meet an interest only or even interest plus some element of capital payment this would still not be enough to service the mortgage at a sustainable level. They will not voluntarily surrender the property as in many cases they have no alternative accommodation. Reposession proceedings are in train but will move extremely slowly. To be fair to the defaulters there is no incentive for them to make any payments while the repossession is progression as they are all in substantial negative equity and any payment that they make will make little impact on the ultimate outcome which is the loss of the property.Depending on how you define "deliberate" I'd go so far as to say that a high proportion people defaulting are doing so "deliberately" just not necessarily cynically, willingly or voluntarily - they are worried and unhappy about it but their hands are tied by circumstances
Hi all
I feel I must make comment here and it is not to disagree with Brendan's point but to provide some balance. I have uncovered a deliberate and concerted effort by all lenders to strategically alter the terms and conditions that were agreed at the outset of mortgage loans. This was a deliberate and orchestrated effort and I am not saying that 2 wrongs are right but balance please. I can also confirm if we are talking statistics and percentages that of the many that have contacted me I have not met one strategic defaulter, (who may not need me anyway) which if Brendan's and 44 Brendan comments are to go by I should have come across at least some, but none!!!!!. But of the attempts at the strategic alteration of contracts by lenders, 100% of lenders is the figure I would use here. Just my views Padraic
Hi,
I was in mortgage difficulty - not due to unsustainability - I had (after lifestyle sacrifices) sufficient funds to pay - but the property was in joint names & the bank would not sign it over to me at the time for various reasons, and my issue was making repayments by myself on a property in joint names.
I took legal advice on the situation - & the legal advice was to strategically default , stay in the property for as long as possible & when eventually it would be repossessed , then I would have a nestegg built up. Was advised that I would never get another mortgage anyway as the property was so deep in negative equity.
No joke!
I didn't do this because I morally could not do this - but this was what an actual solicitor advised me to do.
Of course I didn't really want to keep making repayments on a property ravaged by negative equity , along with taking on my exes share of negative equity - but I did.
Because I have a conscience.
If I had taken this legal advice I would fall into Brendans category. I well believe that many went down this route - & I resent my salary being fleeced by taxes to pay for others who went down this route.
Means time/resources are wasted sorting genuine defaulters who I would help from these 20,000.
still they know that they are doing it and they choose the loaf of bread over the mortgage, it isn't a mistake and it isn't forgetful omission, it is desperate deliberation.
Hi,
I was in mortgage difficulty - not due to unsustainability - I had (after lifestyle sacrifices) sufficient funds to pay - but the property was in joint names & the bank would not sign it over to me at the time for various reasons, and my issue was making repayments by myself on a property in joint names.
I took legal advice on the situation - & the legal advice was to strategically default , stay in the property for as long as possible & when eventually it would be repossessed , then I would have a nestegg built up. Was advised that I would never get another mortgage anyway as the property was so deep in negative equity.
No joke!
I didn't do this because I morally could not do this - but this was what an actual solicitor advised me to do.
Of course I didn't really want to keep making repayments on a property ravaged by negative equity , along with taking on my exes share of negative equity - but I did.
Because I have a conscience.
If I had taken this legal advice I would fall into Brendans category. I well believe that many went down this route - & I resent my salary being fleeced by taxes to pay for others who went down this route.
'They are drinking or gambling the money.
When I say this in writing, on the radio or on TV, I get savaged for it.'
Brendan
....I am very clear. If someone is in difficulty with their mortgage, but is paying what they can and that amount is, in any way reasonable, then I want to help that person stay in their home, assuming that the home is appropriate for their needs. If they would qualify for social housing, then it makes a lot more sense for the state to help them pay the interest on their mortgage, than to mess around with buy to let.
I estimate that around 3% of the 600,000 mortgages are deliberate defaulters. They are paying nothing at all, or nothing significant. They could pay a lot more. They have not cut back on their holidays. They are paying the credit union ahead of the mortgage. They are drinking or gambling the money. They are doing this because they can get away with it. I am very clear that I want these people to resume paying and if they don't I want them out of their homes. I am not prepared to pay more taxes to help them.
When I say this in writing, on the radio or on TV, I get savaged for it. But I will continue saying it because until we face up to the cause of arrears, we will not be able to solve the problem. Instead we will busy ourselves with pointless action such as raging against the veto or reducing the bankruptcy period to one year.
Brendan
Why would a strategic defaulter contact you? This is a very simple point that people can't seem to understand.
I am a bit confused by that and I hope you are not interpreting anything I say as meaning that.
Everybody, or almost everybody, agrees that the basics of life take precedence over mortgage or rent payments. I am referring to people who make no effort at all, or who pay unsecured creditors ahead of their mortgage.
I was in mortgage difficulty - not due to unsustainability - I had (after lifestyle sacrifices) sufficient funds to pay - but the property was in joint names & the bank would not sign it over to me at the time for various reasons, and my issue was making repayments by myself on a property in joint names.
I estimate that around 3% of the 600,000 mortgages are deliberate defaulters. They are paying nothing at all, or nothing significant. They could pay a lot more. They have not cut back on their holidays. They are paying the credit union ahead of the mortgage. They are drinking or gambling the money.
When I say this in writing, on the radio or on TV, I get savaged for it.
Brendan
I estimate that around 3% of the 600,000 mortgages are deliberate defaulters. They are paying nothing at all, or nothing significant. They could pay a lot more. They have not cut back on their holidays. They are paying the credit union ahead of the mortgage. They are drinking or gambling the money.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?