Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,807
If you lost ownership via MTR ... you are still in the house. So if it was due to losing your tracker,which I doubt, it can be reversed
How many people actually lost their homes because they lost their trackers?
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
Article by Charlie Weston from 2014 seems to indicate otherwise
"BANKS are more likely to repossess houses where it is worth more than the mortgage, homeowners have been warned.
And these people who are in "positive equity" are less likely to be offered a solution to deal with arrears, according to a powerful Dail committee."
Any breakdown of the 99, as to how many from each lender and how many of the 99 were in positive or negative equity?
Is there any general stats that would indicate % of mortgages in positive or negative equity in any given year?
I think that Banks' in many instances waited until property prices increased and then deemed mortgages unsustainable if interest and principal were not being paid due to high rates of svr. This happened to myself, our tracker mortgage on our former home which became a buy to let when we moved out of Dublin. It was on a Tracker Rate, we borrowed an extra amount against this property to complete a new build and they changed all of this mortgage to S.V. R. .This high rate meant that we were unable to pay interest and principal, we were on interest only for 5 years, then bank said it was unsustainable and coerced us into selling it in 2015. We discovered in 2017 that we were impacted by the Tracker issue. We have received compensation etc. not nearly sufficient for the loss of this property. Bank said that it was a voluntary sale, it was anything but this... Been through Appeals, this lead to more ambiguity than clarity and not sure if justice will ever be done in our case.
"BANKS are more likely to repossess houses where it is worth more than the mortgage, homeowners have been warned.
And these people who are in "positive equity" are less likely to be offered a solution to deal with arrears, according to a powerful Dail committee."
Any breakdown of the 99, as to how many from each lender and how many of the 99 were in positive or negative equity?
Is there any general stats that would indicate % of mortgages in positive or negative equity in any given year?
I think that Banks' in many instances waited until property prices increased and then deemed mortgages unsustainable if interest and principal were not being paid due to high rates of svr. This happened to myself, our tracker mortgage on our former home which became a buy to let when we moved out of Dublin. It was on a Tracker Rate, we borrowed an extra amount against this property to complete a new build and they changed all of this mortgage to S.V. R. .This high rate meant that we were unable to pay interest and principal, we were on interest only for 5 years, then bank said it was unsustainable and coerced us into selling it in 2015. We discovered in 2017 that we were impacted by the Tracker issue. We have received compensation etc. not nearly sufficient for the loss of this property. Bank said that it was a voluntary sale, it was anything but this... Been through Appeals, this lead to more ambiguity than clarity and not sure if justice will ever be done in our case.
Last edited by a moderator:
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,807
As I say, there is no evidence of this. And that certainly is not evidence.
The number of repossession proceedings started has fallen dramatically as house prices have risen.
You had an investment property. You were in arrears on it. And the bank encouraged you to sell it after 5 years of interest only!
Brendan
Yes, 5 years of extortionate interest rates, we paid 70,000 euro interest, it would have been half of this amount if we were on the correct rate . The bank made this unsustainable by taking our tracker rate from us, we never fixed once. The bank has admitted that they should have kept our mortgage on the tracker but didn't, the consequence of this was interest only then unsustainable which is was but only because of overcharging!
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,807
Just to be clear
I have said that I think the 99 figures for homes is excessive.
The figure for buy to lets is an understatement. Yours was a buy to let.
Had it been your home, you would still have it.
Brendan
I have said that I think the 99 figures for homes is excessive.
The figure for buy to lets is an understatement. Yours was a buy to let.
Had it been your home, you would still have it.
Brendan
There are many other people in my situation, so called voluntary sales that are anything but voluntary. Our situation demonstrates the lengths that the bank took to ensure that we were denied a tracker mortgage rate. We have been "done over twice" by our bank and then by an ineffectual Appeals Panel, who seem too bored and confused to read the bottom line. This controversy is far from over and I hope rather than anticipate that justice will be done.
BB
1. One assumption that has a large bearing on total monthly interest paid is the initial term of the mortgage. There is a big difference between the interest paid on a 25 year mortgage versus a 35 year mortgage, without factoring sky high prices in 2006 or popular 100% mortgages.
2. The compound loss of funds over the overcharged period can trigger arrears. An impaired credit rating resulting in a inability to obtain credit further exacerbating the situation. This may of been major a factor in a person surrendering their home voluntarily.
3. The assumption that customers who lost their home (PDH or BTL) were offered an alternative payment arrangement is just that, an assumption.
1. One assumption that has a large bearing on total monthly interest paid is the initial term of the mortgage. There is a big difference between the interest paid on a 25 year mortgage versus a 35 year mortgage, without factoring sky high prices in 2006 or popular 100% mortgages.
2. The compound loss of funds over the overcharged period can trigger arrears. An impaired credit rating resulting in a inability to obtain credit further exacerbating the situation. This may of been major a factor in a person surrendering their home voluntarily.
3. The assumption that customers who lost their home (PDH or BTL) were offered an alternative payment arrangement is just that, an assumption.
NoRegretsCoyote
Registered User
- Messages
- 5,766
Take two customers denied a tracker and in arrears c 2012.
One has €50k positive equity. The other has €50k negative equity.
They both get a letter from the bank suggesting they sell the property and repay the principal plus arrears.
My guess is that the customer with positive equity would have been much more likely to sell the asset and walk away. Particularly for BTLs.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,807
This thread is about family homes.
Everyone I have dealt with wanted to keep their family home - by which I mean the home in which they were still living.
When someone was in positive equity, this was particularly strong.
In negative equity, there was sometimes a feeling "I want to get this millstone from around my neck" and they handed back the keys.
So, my experience has been the very opposite of what you are suggesting.
Brendan