The original article quoted suggested that some of the people affected were engaging.No.
Hence the difference made by banks between those who engaged and those who refused to engage.
Me either.The original article quoted suggested that some of the people affected were engaging.
BTW I’ve no sympathy for people who make little or no effort to cooperate with their lenders when they fall into arrears.
The right is so stupid and being greedy to the core they don't give a flying v about what happens to tax payers as long as a profit can be made off them. Seriously, I think one of the most idiotic things about all this is that first time buyers wont even get the chance to buy these houses, the vulture funds loved by Dobohoe are getting property at huge discounts and they will rent it back to the very taxpayers who paid for the discounts!The right's solution.....sell the house from under them and the taxpayer can fund the HAP scam to house them....
How about some more recent stats?:lol: Wow. Just wow.
Can you provide us with some stats on how many have been called in in Ireland in say the past 30 years?
Morals? Where are the morals in a bank taking money for years and then throwing a family out on the street, when the bank knew all along that the mortgage was unsustainable?No, let them sit in it for 10 years not paying a red cent while building up a nice bank balance.
While some poor schmuck with a job works 50 hours a week and commutes 10 hours+ to keep his mortgage paid.
You really have no morals
The problem is that the contractual terms stay the same!That stuff about contractual arrangements staying the same sounds reassuring. Let’s hope he’s right.
Do you think someone who hadn't made a mortgage payment for years should be allowed to keep their house?You think that a person who is unable to pay their mortgage should continue paying it for years, so that it can be repossessed anyway?
Are you a bit soft in the head?
Assuming that’s true, I would be in two minds about it. On the one hand these are people who have made a genuine attempt to engage their lenders and deserve time to adjust, but on the other they’ve bought something they can’t afford. Is it unreasonable to expect they should have to give it back eventually if they can’t make the payments they originally signed up for? How many tenants can get the same sort of writedown from their landlords?The problem is that the contractual terms stay the same!
Example - borrower enters a temporary arrangement with a bank, whereby repayments are restructured for a period of 5 years. At the end of the 5 years the plan was that the bank could extend that arrangement or renegotiate a similar arrangement. However, if moved to a vulture, once that 5 year period is up, it is free to revert to those original contract terms and demand full monthly payments...and the borrower can do nothing.
The vulture funds will do no deals. They want every cent to be paid.Says who? When the German bank Sparkasse looked at the Irish market, they didn't see any great profit to be made and they would have entered the market with no bad loans on their books. The only rational explanation for that is the fear of the costs associated with people who decide not to repay.
There's some truth to that. But, me and others were saying to people: negative equity is no excuse for not repaying your mortgage, for as long as you were able to repay it. So, now that those loans are in positive equity, the chickens are coming home to roost and the repossessions have to happen.
The irony of course is that these so-called vulture funds are more than likely willing to do deals that the regular banks wouldn't do. That's the scandal really.
This is actually insanity. On what planet is access to shelter to be restricted to those with €200,000? How is €200,000 a 'low amount'? These people have checked out of reality and into a world of almost physical assault on the population.Some of these loans are quite low value - under €200k. Someone who can't/won't make repayments on such a low amount should not own the property.