I don’t mean to be a heartless prick, but these people have an income. Why can’t they rent privately?
These reposession sob stories make me sick. There was another couple on Newstalk this morning as well. Ivan Yates had the tone of a man talking to bereaved parents.
So you have to leave one house and move to another through social housing or worse, renting. Oh the shame.
one house for which the taxpayer is picking up the tab with no comebacks , versus another one where you might have to share a car park with others in same boat.
I am confused by several aspects of this story.
First, why are these repos happening at all given the moratorium? I can only assume they are among the first tranche of those who have already had a year’s grace?
Second, how is it that people who have until recently been repaying their mortgage might need to apply for SH? Why not simply shift the mortgage repayments across to rental payments? If the suggestion is that the courts would leave them too poor after the repo that they wouldn’t have rent money seems absurd as courts apply equity in these circumstances and would not demand payment beyond a reasonable level. Leaving people without rent money would not be reasonable and I simply don’t think it would happen.
And third, their concern that they would not be eligible for SH at all seems absurd. I believe their fear is that because they have technically “given” their home back to the bank, the SW might look at this as voluntarily giving up their abode and thus wouldn’t be eligible for SH. This seems ridiculous and I find it impossible to believe the SW (or HSE or whoever) would enforce such a ridiculous technicality.
Hath this repossession moratorium been no less 12 or 24 month payment holiday?
If it so be then disastrous effect it shall!
Why would ye bother paying when ye haveth two year of kindly grace for pocket thine rent or saveth thine income to do a most inglorious of runners.
The moral hazard doth abide.
"A victim of the crippled construction industry yesterday narrowly avoided having his property repossessed after an “unidentified person” dropped a cheque towards his mounting debt into a solicitor’s office.
Start Mortgages sought repossession of the property in north Co Mayo after the man fell into arrears of more than €50,000 with a total debt of almost €300,000." BIZARRE.
They probably have not been making any mortgage repayments whatsoever for the past couple of years. Why would they if they could not afford these repayments and, therefore, either of the following was going to happen:
a) The house was eventually going to be repossessed.
b) Some form of NAMA for the people was going to bail them out.
Maybe they were paying something but not enough to cover the interest and the bank moved against them. We have no idea of the particulars of the case so its pointless to get into an argument as to whether they were cunningly waiting for the tax payer to bail them out or whether they were cunningly saving all their money in a biscuit tin to await the day when the house was repossessed. Pointless, lets have a public vs. private merry-go-round while we’re at it. As Justice Kelly remarked in a different case yesterday “it hasn’t been a good day” for them. Poor sods, came back ten years ago and ended up with this.
Surely this is in breech of some work practice EHS guideline. Lorry drivers have a tachograph which is there to prevent them working over the alloted time per week.
I would not like to be driven around by someone who was working 2.5 times the duration of the average worker. Falling asleep at the wheel etc.
Regardless, they will not be homeless.
I would have thought this repo is going ahead because they themselves have consented to it. Is that not the key aspect?
If that’s the case, I actually do feel a little sympathy here. The mistake they’ve made is to actually acknowledge their dire situation, which is not the done thing here in Ireland. Maybe they’d have been better off “engaging” with the banks and living in the house they can’t afford for the next 5 years. They’d certainly be better off sitting on welfare and scratching their holes while “engaging” with the bank.
Hey! I don’t own a house either. I’m homeless! Can I have free accommodation? I mean if your don’t own a home then obviously you’re homeless. Right?
You’ll have to get yourself some endearing features first. Kids would be good. Families have entitlements far above those of single people, and cannot be expected to be forced into the degradation of the rental sector.
Or maybe you’re really old? If you’re a “pensioner”, then that’s gold dust. Doesn’t matter if you’ve €3,000,000 in the bank, “pensioners” elicit sympathy.
GE Money repossessee on RTE News at One now.
RTE Radio 1.
Mortgage of 170K, mostly business loans rolled in. Monthly repayments of 1800 (10%?). Subprime lender. Mortgage protection initially.
yes and no.
they were all claiming to be working cruel and mentally challenging 80-hour weeks when they wanted to get the public’s sympathy after staging mass rallys aimed at disrupting the public going about their daily lives,
but when someone quesitoned the legality of 80-hour weeks,
they changed tact and claimed that much of that time is spent WAITING for customers at taxi ranks, so they may only work 10 hours in total a week.
A bit like the cabin crew dispute in Aer Lingus recently, I won’t go into here, it will just bring the discussion off topic.
As usual these stories are never the way they are first presented.
My question now is, how does one loose ones job from ones own business ??
The guy also had a full time job as a truck driver.
I’m not exactly sure you do with 169K in terms of setting up a business that results in zero assets for that business - paying some employees to do nothing, paying yourself to do nothing? Maybe they bought a pre-existing business as a going concern? Either way it seems to have gone up in smoke.
The Indo manages to wheel out three sob storie elements in the headline.
Oooh those evil banks making poor, helpless grannies and granddads spend christmas day on the Liffey Boardwalk.