Ways To Entice a Bank To Accept a Sale on a Property In Negative Equity?

[Gerry Canning]

Peter54.
If what you can reasonably afford equates to rent in area,then just make sure you pay that on time every time. It leaves you NO worse off.
If that sum comes in at what would be judged as fair ,it would be difficult for bank to repo.
with no payment you are a sitting duck !
Ask them to re-review split mortgage.
I do not know the figures but since they offered a split ,both you and them have hope of resolution.

 

[cremeegg]

I wish people would stop saying that we all took part in the scheme.
It is not true.
Only a certain number took part(for their own reasons).

The problem is that we are all being forced to suffer the consequences.

You say it is not true that we all took part in the scheme (the property bubble), but you do not put forward any argument for this opinion.

My opinion is that we ALL did take part in it. Here are some some arguments to support that opinion.

In 2005 public spending in Ireland increased by 10.7%, 2006 10.9%, 2007 the increase was 12.8%. See http://per.gov.ie/expenditure-trends/ for more details.

We ALL enjoyed the benefits of this, higher social welfare, higher public sector salaries, extra jobs in construction, more money in peoples pockets to spend in private businesses.

The huge increases were entirely funded by taxes on the building boom.

We took the loot, we reelected the government that oversaw the whole thing, opposition parties were encouraging MORE public spending not less.

We are ALL to blame

 

[cremeegg]

..If adults enter into an agreement, they should attempt to keep that agreement. If people borrow money, they should pay that money back.

Brendan

I think this is simplistic in the context of the current state of the country in general and the OPs situation in particular.

People borrowed money from the banks to buy property (whether homes to live in or as an investment), in a property market which had been rigged by those same banks.

An argument needs to be developed to respond to that situation. I don't claim to have the answer, but if I were in the OPS situation I would not make any payments while awaiting repossession.

 

[Bronte]

The bank have flat out refused my offer of payment to stay in the property.

I presume I am going to be landed with the legal bills of the bank too. Some form of a nest egg is going to be required as I may have no choice but to travel overseas.

Without going into morals, I think a person is right to create a fund to go renting or to go to the UK for bankruptcy or a new job. This is because most people will have done their upmost to try and repay back that which they owe, and will have used all their savings or worse borrowed from credit cards or friends in the vain hope of a solution..

Peter, it looks to me the real problem is that you are servicing unsecured borrowings rather than your mortgage. Your investment property seemed to be doing fine.

Can you actually tell us what you want as this is not at all clear. If you want the bank to agree to the sale, well there's nothing you can do to persuade them. It apparently takes them ages to make a decision and meanwhile the buyers give up.

If you do get a sale, and the condition is for you to sign up to a NE loan, I would do that. After the sale has gone through, you can then look at the figures, based on your rent and other expenses and you could then decided what action to take then. Don't worry about 'signing' for the NE loan, you already owe it anyway.

I think you would get a better answer if you fully outlined what your financial situation and marital status is. It's very hard to give advice on one particular question if posters don't give full details.

 

[cremeegg]

In the coming year we are likely to see family homes being repossessed, and screaming mothers and distraught children on the TV. We will be invited to disapprove of their eviction, to join protests against these evictions.

I will probably not be tempted to join these protests, but I would not expect the evictees to make mortgage repayments in the months leading up to the eviction.

 

[Bronte]

Morals and banks. That's an interesting concept. What is quite clear from this crisis is that banks are inept, cruel, unkind, exceedingly slow to acknowledge the problems, useless at solutions and burying their head in the sand for many years now. And I suppose morally, they could be blamed for a lot of suicides, heartache and breakups. But they couldn't care less.

 

[cremeegg]

What I said was:
"Leaving the legal and moral issues aside for a moment. Do you agree that people should pay for their accommodation if they can? "

I specifically said to leave morality and even legality aside to hear your opinion.

But what is your opinion?

My opinion is that the OP should not make any mortgage payments while waiting to be repossessed.

No, sorry I didn't. I said :"Do you not realise the implications of this behaviour? The issues you outline above are not the implications I am talking about.

OK, what are the implication you are talking about?

Why compare someone who bought property in 2002 and is fulfilling their moral and legal obligation with someone who isn't?

It is more difficult for someone who borrowed to buy property in 2006 to fulfil their obligations because they bought in a rigged market, this was not the case in 2002.

 

[cremeegg]

Morals and banks. That's an interesting concept. What is quite clear from this crisis is that banks are inept, cruel, unkind, exceedingly slow to acknowledge the problems, useless at solutions and burying their head in the sand for many years now. And I suppose morally, they could be blamed for a lot of suicides, heartache and breakups. But they couldn't care less.

Come on Bronte, step off the fence, come in to the Bright side.

What is your opinion, should the OP make mortgage repayments while waiting to be repossessed.

 

[Bronte]

Come on Bronte, step off the fence, come in to the Bright side.

What is your opinion, should the OP make mortgage repayments while waiting to be repossessed.

I think that the OP should make that decision himself. I won't make it for him. I will tell you this cremeegg, I've never not paid anything back, but I'm not going to judge others for what they do, not when it comes to banks. And I'll always believe that at the end of the day the individual has to make the best decision for themselves. I'm also a realist and I recognise that most people are going to build up a nest egg. We've had that debate on here before. There is no way I'm going to tell a man to go to the UK with a family were zero money.

Most bankers realise this too, as they force/entice people to rack up other debt or use their savings to pay down mortgage. But we never hear that side of it. Or the morals of that. Moral hazzard and all those buzz words, strategic default, they only seem to apply one way. Not to Anglo as they lied to the government picking a number out of their ....... Those guys aren't on here on AAM looking for advice, nor will they ever be.

Don't get me started on banks. There's a woman on another thread in a right mess which I'm more concerned about. Solo against a bank. No legal aid, and being told nonsense by a solicitor and a banker, and so confused, with no help.

 

[orka]

You say it is not true that we all took part in the scheme (the property bubble), ...
My opinion is that we ALL did take part in it.
...public spending in Ireland increased by 10.7%, 2006 10.9%, 2007 the increase was 12.8%.
...We ALL enjoyed the benefits of this, higher social welfare, higher public sector salaries, extra jobs in construction, more money in peoples pockets to spend in private businesses.

The huge increases were entirely funded by taxes on the building boom.

We took the loot, we reelected the government that oversaw the whole thing, opposition parties were encouraging MORE public spending not less.

We are ALL to blame

You seem to be rolling up participation, benefit and blame into one big mass and saying 'we all took part in IT'. It was difficult to avoid the short-term benefits of eg tax reductions, increases in social welfare etc. - but that doesn't mean that the recipient of the benefit was an active cheerleader for anything - and certainly not everyone shares the blame.

Not everyone lost the run of themselves on cheap credit. Re-elections are not by 100% of voters - there were certainly people opposed to the largesse but they were outvoted by a short-sighted majority - so how can you say EVERYONE is to blame (actually to blame, not just that they benefitted)?

 

[Bronte]

- so how can you say EVERYONE is to blame (actually to blame, not just that they benefitted)?

The one place we can use the word everyone is that everyone is paying for the mess.

I wish we could start getting people out of the mess and society back on a more steady footing.

 

[cremeegg]

I think that the OP should make that decision himself. I won't make it for him. I will tell you this cremeegg, I've never not paid anything back, but I'm not going to judge others for what they do, not when it comes to banks. And I'll always believe that at the end of the day the individual has to make the best decision for themselves. I'm also a realist and I recognise that most people are going to build up a nest egg. We've had that debate on here before. There is no way I'm going to tell a man to go to the UK with a family were zero money.

Most bankers realise this too, as they force/entice people to rack up other debt or use their savings to pay down mortgage. But we never hear that side of it. Or the morals of that. Moral hazzard and all those buzz words, strategic default, they only seem to apply one way. Not to Anglo as they lied to the government picking a number out of their ....... Those guys aren't on here on AAM looking for advice, nor will they ever be.

Don't get me started on banks. There's a woman on another thread in a right mess which I'm more concerned about. Solo against a bank. No legal aid, and being told nonsense by a solicitor and a banker, and so confused, with no help.

The situation of the woman on the other thread is similar to the OP here, she cannot pay her mortgage and she will ultimately be repossessed.

Your reply Bronte, to her on that thread was excellent and she was indeed hearing nonsense from her solicitor and bank manager. And no doubt paying her solicitor for it.

However in the time between now and her being repossessed, maybe 3 years should she pay the bank what she can afford each month.

Obviously at the end of the day that is her decision.

However none of us make decisions independent of what might be called the moral background of our society.

In the past I would certainly have suggested that she pay what she can. As Brendan points out; She borrowed the money and she is living in the house.

In todays climate the net effect of her paying what she can afford each month will simply be that she will be out that money. She cannot pay even IO on her mortgage, and will eventually be repossessed.

She must make her own decision, but I am willing to say that I think she should keep her money in the mean time.

 

[commonsense]

My opinion is that the OP should not make any mortgage payments while waiting to be repossessed.

So he should live free of charge. Let me ask you this. Let's say you are in the Supermarket and the person in front of you decided to just walk out without paying and the cashier added some of the items onto your bill - would you be ok with that?

The problem with people who see no issue here is that they do not realise that they are the one's that will ultimately pay.

You and others appear to think that this is an acceptable form of "revenge" to the nasty banks. When in fact you are supporting behaviour that we and our children will ultimately have to pay for.

OK, what are the implication you are talking about?

See above - debt for mere mortals doesn't simply disappear. Somebody has to pay.

It is more difficult for someone who borrowed to buy property in 2006 to fulfil their obligations because they bought in a rigged market, this was not the case in 2002.

Really?

It could also be the case that those who bought in 2002 either remortgaged in 2006, or perhaps they used the equity to buy another property, build a kitchen, buy a car?

Unless you have statistics that just not a reasonable argument.

 

[cremeegg]

You seem to be rolling up participation, benefit and blame into one big mass and saying 'we all took part in IT'. It was difficult to avoid the short-term benefits of eg tax reductions, increases in social welfare etc. - but that doesn't mean that the recipient of the benefit was an active cheerleader for anything - and certainly not everyone shares the blame.

Not everyone lost the run of themselves on cheap credit. Re-elections are not by 100% of voters - there were certainly people opposed to the largesse but they were outvoted by a short-sighted majority - so how can you say EVERYONE is to blame (actually to blame, not just that they benefitted)?

It was cheap credit that propped the whole thing up. Money borrowed by the banks to finance the property industry, taxed by the government to fund public spending. Even if you never stepped inside a bank, we all lost the run of ourselves on cheap credit.

Society as a whole bought into the Celtic Tiger.

No politician campaigned on a platform opposed to it. Because we all accepted it. Did the Labour voters want less public spending, or Sinn Fein's voters. Even Fine Gael wanted more spending.

The financial regulator was asleep at the wheel. This is a democracy, he was appointed by the politicians we elected.

And the worst thing is we are still at it. Borrowing €1bn a month to keep overpaying ourselves. Except now instead of calling it "private" borrowing to finance property investment we call it public borrowing to finance a standard of living we cannot afford.

 

[cremeegg]

Commonsense, I do not disagree at all with your point which I hope I can summarise fairly by saying "If you borrowed it you should repay it"

However I think that we need to go beyond that to look at the context of the Irish economy and property market of 2003 to 2007.

Do you make no allowance for people who borrowed at that time, in a rigged market.

I know I bought my house in 1999 because that was the time I wanted my own house to live in long term. That was to do with purely personal factors, my kids age, school etc.

As a result my mortgage is small.

If I were maybe 5 years younger I might have been in that position in 2006 and now I might be facing repossession.

I fully recognise the implication that we will all have to pay for the losses arising from that, well actually its not all, its just taxpayers, but that is another story. I don't see it as some form of revenge on nasty banks, as you rightly point out it is not the banks who will suffer, it is the taxpayer.

I go further and recognise that this will have negative consequences for our economy for a generation.

However the OP is losing his house because he cannot repay the mortgage. If I were in his shoes I would make no payments in the meantime.

 

[Billo]

You say it is not true that we all took part in the scheme (the property bubble), but you do not put forward any argument for this opinion.

My opinion is that we ALL did take part in it. Here are some some arguments to support that opinion.


We took the loot, we reelected the government that oversaw the whole thing, opposition parties were encouraging MORE public spending not less.

We are ALL to blame

I for one feel that I did not take part in the property bubble. I only bought one house my PPR. I had the opportunity to buy more houses but I did not. That is a fact.

IMHO it is where people bought multiple properties in the expectation that prices could only go up, that the main problems arose.

I paid all my taxes. I did not take any loot. I like many others did not lose the run of myself on cheap credit.

 

[orka]

Do you make no allowance for people who borrowed at that time, in a rigged market....
However the OP is losing his house because he cannot repay the mortgage.

You have to ask yourself though - why is the OP unable to pay his mortgage? It can't just be because of your perceived 'rigged' market. He has an underperforming investment property and 95K of non-mortgage debt - these are also significant differences from your 'lucky to have bought in 1999' situation. The OP's income has also undoubtedly reduced from when he bought his properties so again it is not the 'rigged' property market that is to blame there. Plenty of people bought in the 'rigged' property market and are managing to service their debts despite general tax increases, paycuts etc.

Even if you never stepped inside a bank, we all lost the run of ourselves on cheap credit.

Nope. I'm really pretty sure I didn't.

 

[commonsense]

Commonsense, I do not disagree at all with your point which I hope I can summarise fairly by saying "If you borrowed it you should repay it"

That's actually not what I am saying because for many people they simply don't have it and have no prospect of having it in the immediate future, if at all.

This person can pay something, even if it is equal to the rent in that area. You have to pay something for the roof over your head.

However I think that we need to go beyond that to look at the context of the Irish economy and property market of 2003 to 2007. Do you make no allowance for people who borrowed at that time, in a rigged market.

If by allowance you mean should they get write - offs, it's not that simple, the fact is that somebody has to pay and we simply can't afford it. Households have to much debt, the state has too much debt - if we want solidarity then those who can pay should.

If I were maybe 5 years younger I might have been in that position in 2006 and now I might be facing repossession.

I wouldn't like to be in that position myself - but I still wouldn't expect to live for free.

I fully recognise the implication that we will all have to pay for the losses arising from that, well actually its not all, its just taxpayers, but that is another story. I don't see it as some form of revenge on nasty banks, as you rightly point out it is not the banks who will suffer, it is the taxpayer.

And the depositors, education, health and the vulnerable in society.

I go further and recognise that this will have negative consequences for our economy for a generation.

For generations.

However the OP is losing his house because he cannot repay the mortgage. If I were in his shoes I would make no payments in the meantime.

If he can't pay it then why doesn't he move out and rent and let the banks sell it for what they can and try to negotiate a deal with them?

I think that many people still have their heads in the sand to be honest, the position for some seems to be that they want to keep the home, keep the tracker and have a mortgage equal to today's market price. In other words they want to live as if they never made the mistake they made, while everyone else pays for it - that isn't fair to me.

 

[cremeegg]

Okra,

Rather than pointing at other people, here is how I lost the run of myself on cheap credit during the boom, without ever stepping inside a bank.

I worked for a private company in the construction industry, not a builder and not on house building.

Many of the projects we worked on were public buildings, financed entirely by the government on the taxes it levied from the construction industry, i.e. borrowed money cheap credit. There were too many of them, I believe that we built more Garda stations in the 2000s than in the entire previous history of the state. And they were vastly over spec'd, I can show you the €40,000 toilet bowl in a public building in Ireland. I have the invoice as a souvenir.

If it wasn't for the government spending the fruits of the boom, half of the company's staff would not have had jobs in Ireland, and the other half would have been working for a lot lower wages.

The new car I bought in 2006 was entirely financed by cheap credit. I didn't borrow the money I saved up for it, but my wages were financed by cheap credit.

So were every one else's.

 

[cremeegg]

Commonsense,

The costs are enormous and the costs are being borne by everybody. But not by everybody equally.

The OP here and Singmom on another current thread, lost the deposit on their houses and are losing their homes as well.

As members of society they will also suffer along with the rest of us.

I think that making mortgage payments while the wait to be repossessed is uncalled for. You can be sure that many more cynical people are not doing so.

On the other point as to who pays, I do think that it is just the taxpayer and future taxpayers.

Total govt spending in 2013 excluding interest costs is budgeted at €54.6m in 2003 it was €38.4 m. No one is loosing out through reduced Govt spending.