Lets look at the other side. From your CB data (from three banks only)
Average 720 day + contracted monthly payment is €986 and the average arrears is €66k so the average cant pay and wont pay mortgage is 66 MONTHS in arrears nowadays or pretty much bang on 2000 days like I said. That was at the end of 2017 and I doubt if much changed there since save they are all nearer €80k now.
Within this 29,000 x 2000 day in arrears cohort half are contracted to pay €838 or less and it is only the worst decile who are missing monthly payments of €2000 on average.
These people should be renting. 3 or 4 bed houses fetched €600 on the rental market in Cavan and the same in Longford, in 2017. It is easy to get rental support from social welfare unlike persuading them to pay your mortgage for you.
But the big problem is this culture that by virtue of Having a mortgage, even if you flat refuse to pay it, you are somehow better than a renter who does pay their rent.
You would smoke out the can’t pays from the won’t pays pretty quick with the simple proposal to allow banks to put a sign (EA-style) outside every house in LT arrears, perhaps with a six-month notice period.
I tell you what, from a quick scan of the act I don’t think KBC have committed an offence. They don’t appear to meet any of the definitions for someone who could be charged. But I do think they’re a bit fked. They’re going to have to admit they’ve engaged a security company to do security work under the act without any consideration of the requirements of the act.
They could have granted the security guards a lease, the moment they took possession. Maybe one will be found in a drawer
I wonder what Fianna Fáil would do if Sinn Fein put an ammendment down to the PSA’s act that repossessions themselves are monitored by the PSA ?
^ this puzzled me, but the PSA have no authority to oversee repossessions, it not being security work. Technically I suppose the UDR guy etc are answerable to the High Court as they were enforcing a High Court Order !
Again, its probably worth recounting what we know about the events in Strokestown.
1.Three elderly Irish citizens, one of whom has incurred debt to a bailed out bank, were physically dragged from their homes by their ears and thrown into the street by a troop of black-clad men.
2.The man who oversaw the eviction is a former member of the UDR.
3.A retired Garda, present at the eviction as a show of solidarity to the owners of the property, was badly beaten and had some of his teeth knocked out.
4.Current on-duty members of An Garda Síochána stood by and observed while these assaults took place.
5.Due to a video of the events having been published online, a public outcry ensued and a group of men arrived at the property a few days later and forcibly evicted the security men from the house. They also burnt some of their vehicles.
Since the events occurred the focus of the media and political establishment has been exclusively on number 5 above. In seeking to focus on number 5 alone, numerous references to dissidents, criminal families, parasites and other pejoratives have been invoked as a means to avert focus from events of 1-4.
Further attempts have been made to focus solely on the incurred debts of one of the evictees and to suggest that, in basic terms, people such as he are why the rest of us cant have nice things ie the suggestion is that events 1-4 occurred in a parallell universe where October 2008 and its ongoing aftermath never occurred and where all persons who have found themselves in such straitened circumstances have received equality of treatment.
Beyond that, the Garda Press Office have contacted a journalist whose filter seems not to tally with the establishment line and suggested that he should have run his story by them first. Investigating Gardaí have also interviewed the same journalist under caution with a view to obtaining his phone, to the extent that his impression from the interview was that because he ran the story, he may have been personally involved in incident 5 above.
Further suggestions based on stats provided by a national newspaper appear to suggest that another 15,000 such evictions are in the pipeline across Ireland.
And still, some people seem to believe/wish to believe the real story here is that of a farmer and his debts/‘dissidents’/‘parasites’/‘criminal families’.
Leo just lives in his own world doesn’t he ? One where everyone who disagrees strongly with him is an anarchist. He appears here to be saying that bankers and unlicensed Security guards should be a protected group against hate speech. You really have to hand it to him ! He has some neck.
KBC don’t own or have a charge over the farm machinery so can’t sell it.
I think these 3 are maybe in the top 10,000 delinquent borrowers. But how do you sell a farm with the angry farmer still in the house ? You could carve out the land with his permission if he wants to be reasonable. But does he strike you as a reasonable man ?
Sticking to point 1 above. What would you have done ? I assume you think they should have been left in the house by this foreign bank with no connection to this state ? I’m leaning towards thinking that once the domestic wealthy were bailed out all contested repossessions simply became unjustifiable.
I’ve encountered a lot of ignorant landowners so I don’t have limitless mercy here.
I wonder how many case managers have had responsibility for this bad loan since 2007. With the way banks reorganise themselves and people shunt away their difficult cases could it be 15 or 20 ? You’re No.21 what do you do ?
Maybe the belgian bank needs to make some massive write downs on their poor lending. Let the belgians bail them out again if they want.
If they still cant pay on a big write down then evict and this would bring it down. But those projected eviction numbers are too high.
Other than that the cyprus bail in model is the way
Can we actually do 15k eviction s without massive trouble - what would that look like
Doesn’t Peter Casey’s simple point still stand ? He offered security for loan. He hasn’t been paying the loan. It’s been called in. There are plenty of domestic wealthy who’ve gotten mark to market on their loans and debt write-offs. But it’s not been a transparent thing, and the wealthy and well advised have benefitted more. In a lot of cases they got the write off by refinancing to another institution etc. He hadn’t been offered that (possibly)
Why should only lending be risky. Isnt borrowing supposed to be risky too ? Or did we rip up that rule book as a society when we let our domestic wealthy off the hook and let anyone keep their asset without payment in full ?
I mentioned McNamara, Quinlan and Fitzpatrick. They’ve all gotten away lightly IMO. But none of them got to keep an asset that a bank had security on AFAIK. It’s the names who negotiated quietly who got the write downs.
Well as someone who was stuck paying a negative equity mortgage over a significant period of time I shouldn’t really have any sympathy for the farmer given the fact that it was obviously his own borrowings that got him into bother in the first place. Nobody placed a gun to his head and forced him to borrow the money.
However, again, given the precedent created in 2008 and later ie the extent of the moral hazard that was established at that time, its ludicrous to suggest that there is any moral compulsion on anyone to pay debts to financial institutions for whom zero consequences have been incurred in respect of bad lending practices…simply because mouthpieces for an entire class of people who themselves avoided any repurcussions for their own largesse in borrowing terms from the same financial institutions tell them to.
Those who are insisting that it’s all just business as usual either fall within one of the above categories or are simply quite comfortable as things stand and wish to see no rocking of the political or societal boat. You’ll note their approach consists, for the most part, of trying to point out how the actions of the farmer in this instance may impact on the pockets of others i.e. appeals to me feminism and little else beyond listing the involvement of the staple Irish versions of popular bogeymen.
So to answer the question, what should have happened? Obviously in an ideal world the system should be allowed run it’s course and (i) people who over borrow should faces the consequences. Likewise however, (ii) lending institutions should not avoid consequences for reckless lending. And likewise again, (iii) all citizens should experience equity of treatment before the law.
Each of the three constituent parts need to exist for the social contract to be maintained as applied to such matters. Parts (ii) and (iii) have been marked absent and it’s quite clear that there are serious societal consequences for same as per events of the past week.
How do you make out that there have been no consequences? The owners of the Irish banks were wiped out completely. All the main Irish banks were nationalised except for BOI, which was partially nationalised and saw it’s share value fall 99%. Among the foreign owned banks, Ulster Bank and KBC both had to be bailed out by their parent banks, which in turn had to be propped up by their respective governments, and Danske and Bank of Scotland Ireland closed their doors completely.
The banks have taken a write down on their loans which were transferred to NAMA, taken a bigger write down on loans they’ve sold off to vulture funds, and still had to write off large chunks from the loans that remained on their books.
What further consequences do you propose? And do you not regard a functioning mortgage system as a necessity in a country with a serious homelessness problem? Because the logical extension of what you’re proposing would be to kill it stone dead.
You’re still going on about people being “badly beaten”, the ex-Garda having had “teeth knocked out”, and Gardai ignoring “assaults” but you still won’t support these claims when challenged. The only thing I can see on the video that we’ve all watched is, to borrow your own phrase, people being “forcibly evicted”. It’s interesting that you use that phrase not to describe what happened in broad daylight on the Wednesday, but what followed on the Saturday night when there is no one disputing that people were beaten around the head and body with baseball bats. In a post complaining about spin that’s ironic to say the least.
While we’re at it, that piece in the Examiner where the 15,000 evictions number came from, was just another example of conflating arrears cases with evictions, as David Hall has been doing for the last 7 years with his constant warnings of a “tsunami” of repossessions. The Examiner only needed to ask Seamus Coffey in UCC about the studies he has done on the ratios between mortgage arrears and repossessions to know the real number has been on a fraction of that and is likely to continue to be.