• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.

Warning of avalanche of repossessions



HarshBuzz

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
11,814
presumably this will be in twelve month's time?

(unless he's talking about orders sought by institutions not covered by the Guarantee Scheme?)
 

Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,831
Edmund Honohan SC said many or most borrowers were not to blame for their arrears as we go through this recession.

He warned that banks 'cannot expect to have it all their own way' as the number of possession cases increases weekly.
How can he make this judgement ahead of seeing the actual cases?

It sounds like the Courts will be doing their best to contribute to the collapse of our economy.
 

stewiegriffin

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
839
Maybe since nothing has been signed yet , regarding stalling on repossessions , then perhaps the banks have decided to strike while they still can . Theyre quite unscrupulous little rascals you know .
 

Magror14

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
1,870
The courts are seeing many repossession summonses being issued and expect these to come before them in the next year. They are prejudging nothing but will have little discretion in making repossession orders if there are substantial arrears. The price of property will be further depressed.

I cannot figure out how some lenders forked out figures like 250K in the last year or so to people who had very little prospect of repaying and on properties that were likely to depreciate substantially in value. Maybe it is just hindsight but it really is hard to understand.
 

merle haggard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
5,434
The courts are seeing many repossession summonses being issued and expect these to come before them in the next year. They are prejudging nothing but will have little discretion in making repossession orders if there are substantial arrears. The price of property will be further depressed.

I cannot figure out how some lenders forked out figures like 250K in the last year or so to people who had very little prospect of repaying and on properties that were likely to depreciate substantially in value. Maybe it is just hindsight but it really is hard to understand.
they were forking out money that didnt actually exist , now they are turning money that didnt physically exist and which they knew perfectly well could never be repayed into an actual tangible physical asset , property that they own .
 

Magror14

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
1,870
they were forking out money that didnt actually exist , now they are turning money that didnt physically exist and which they knew perfectly well could never be repayed into an actual tangible physical asset , property that they own .
Nice one, Merle. And you know lenders are also telling borrowers that when they have repossessed their houses they will be going after them for any shortfall created by negative equity and continuing mortgage repayments.
 

Horace Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
429
My bank has informed me that they are increasing the mortgage insurance I am paying them each month. (This is the insurance on the loan itself, not the life insurance for the borrower).

I am wondering are all banks doing this now? I have heard that these insurance policies are pretty worthless, does anyone have an opinion on them? And are they compulsory?
Thanks for any thoughts.
 

Dios

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
318
they were forking out money that didnt actually exist , now they are turning money that didnt physically exist and which they knew perfectly well could never be repayed into an actual tangible physical asset , property that they own .
Banks don't want houses, they aren't very liquid and carry considerable overheads if you do want to liquidate them, especially in a falling market. It makes more sense for them to get the defaulter to sell at firesale prices and realise what they can while they can - the remainder is probably more bearable financially to the defaulter in any case. Banks want money.
 

xt40

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
62
how about reading and quoting the full report before starting another attention grabbing doom and gloom thread.:mad:

the actual gist of the high court masters statement was that the courts will do all in their power to resist reposessions given the extraordinary situation. he was warning the banks and i believe specifically the subprime gang that they should come up with alternatives.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
84
how about reading and quoting the full report before starting another attention grabbing doom and gloom thread.:mad:

the actual gist of the high court masters statement was that the courts will do all in their power to resist reposessions given the extraordinary situation. he was warning the banks and i believe specifically the subprime gang that they should come up with alternatives.
they must be trembling in their gold vaults
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
84
unprecendeted ,not likely

Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves.

"The brave man inattentive to his duty, is worth little more to his country than the coward who deserts her in the hour of danger."

Andrew Jackson Quotes/Quotations
 

Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,831
Nice one, Merle. And you know lenders are also telling borrowers that when they have repossessed their houses they will be going after them for any shortfall created by negative equity and continuing mortgage repayments.
And seeing as how we collectively own one bank, and have substantial holdings in two more, that's exactly what we want them to do.

Alternatively, you end up paying for someone who paid too much for a house. I'm sorry for their trouble and all that, but I don't see why I should buy a house for someone at the inflated price they wanted to pay for it.

Let me say, I don't know who or what this 'Master of the High Court' is exactly. Does this make him the equivalent of Yoda on the Jedi Council? But I've a feeling we're witnessing another unassailable Irish institution insisting on its right to be oblivious to reality.
 

lorna

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
14
one should find a solution in order to avoid repossessions

And seeing as how we collectively own one bank, and have substantial holdings in two more, that's exactly what we want them to do.
Alternatively, you end up paying for someone who paid too much for a house. I'm sorry for their trouble and all that, but I don't see why I should buy a house for someone at the inflated price they wanted to pay for it.
Schuhart, Yes, it was paid high prices for the houses, but people were lured into that situation. One must remember that one of the main incomes of this Country -during many years- were the stamp duty that those individuals and families paid with borrowed money. Now we need to put things in order and find a feasible solution as the following one included in this post… or do we want to bring the consequences of the social crisis that repossessions would bring to this small country?… Did you see the tragic pictures of repossessions in America?…
“The banks should contribute in these special circumstances restoring immediately their financial services for industries and business and taking the following measures for home loans:
Waiving from 8 to 20 per cent of the capital borrowed on loans given in the last 6 years before 31 December 2008 [meaning splitting the losses].
Reducing the interest paid in those loans to 0.5 per cent for the next three years and 1per cent for the following three consecutive years – completing six years programme.
Restructuring the gradual repayment of capital to suit the needs of the borrower.
Repossession applications and orders: the banks should waive their right to legitimate interest and penalties from the time that the client got into difficulty. Subsequent treatment of these loans should be in the manner described previously, including an option of suspending monthly repayments for the next 15 months and accumulating the 0.5% interest to the capital borrowed if the client requires it.”
 

feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,968
The courts are seeing many repossession summonses being issued and expect these to come before them in the next year. They are prejudging nothing but will have little discretion in making repossession orders if there are substantial arrears. The price of property will be further depressed.
IANAL but I was under the impression that judges had huge discretion to refuse or defer repossession orders provided the family involved made some effort to repay. The only time the judge had no discretion was when families had been absolutely refusing to make any deal with the banks, or not even paying a token sum towards the arrears.

I'd love to hear from people who know the law well here.
 

Dr. Astro

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
41
My bank has informed me that they are increasing the mortgage insurance I am paying them each month. (This is the insurance on the loan itself, not the life insurance for the borrower).

I am wondering are all banks doing this now? I have heard that these insurance policies are pretty worthless, does anyone have an opinion on them? And are they compulsory?
Thanks for any thoughts.
My bank did the same last week and also changed the terms & conditions to their benefit, of course. I suppose it is still better to have that one year cushion in the event of redundancy, does the governments 12 month protection kick in after that if you have such insurance?
 

Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,831
Schuhart, Yes, it was paid high prices for the houses, but people were lured into that situation.
Tough. Seriously. Its just how it was. They signed on the line, and now they are home owners. So they either pay for the house, or it gets taken off them as they don't own it if they don't pay the agreed price for it.

Seriously. We've been over this in many threads. Because of the bank guarantee, this money is all effectively owned to the taxpayer. They've just got to pay us back, simple as.
 

dresden8

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
14,598
Tough. Seriously. Its just how it was. They signed on the line, and now they are home owners. So they either pay for the house, or it gets taken off them as they don't own it if they don't pay the agreed price for it.
If only that sentiment extended to bond and share holder parasites.
 

lorna

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
14
Tough. Seriously. Its just how it was. They signed on the line, and now they are home owners. So they either pay for the house, or it gets taken off them as they don't own it if they don't pay the agreed price for it. Seriously. We've been over this in many threads. Because of the bank guarantee, this money is all effectively owned to the taxpayer. They've just got to pay us back, simple as.
Schuhart, Could you give me a complete and clear picture of what we earn as a society in putting people on the streets with their possessions? Would you give me a wide spectrum of the consequences?
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top