Outstanding:
Total residential mortgage loan accounts outstanding - at end of quarter 768,917
Arrears:
Total mortgage arrears cases outstanding - at end of quarter which are:
In arrears 91 to 180 days 17,825
In arrears over 180 days 53,086
Total arrears cases over 90 days outstanding 70,911
% of loan accounts in arrears for more than 90 days 9.2%
Repossesions:
Residential properties in possession - at end of quarter 895
Residential properties taken into possession in 2011 608
of which Residential properties repossessed on foot of an Order in 2011 196
(Q1 49, Q2 54, Q3, 43 Q4 50)
of which Residential properties voluntarily surrendered/abandoned in 2011 412
(Q1 91, Q2 119 , Q3 119, Q4 83)
Restructured Mortgages:
Total outstanding classified as restructured - at end of quarter 74,379
of which are not in arrears 36,797 or 49.5%
So we can see that
% of arrears cases over 90 days (70,911) which is 9.2% of ALL residential mortgages oustanding, has resulted in repossessions in 2011 of just 608 = 0.0085%
And 2/3 of these were voluntarily surrendered.
Residential properties repossessed on foot of an Order in 2011 was 0.0027%
As more and more people who are not paying their mortgages, and at least cosmeticially still look to be doing alright, it only encourages more people to miss a month here and there especially if you are in your house for life, talk of debt forgivness will only encourage more of this.
The figures appear to indicate that those in arrears have been so for an average of two years and 33,329 are in arrears and not restructured. This means people are not engaging with the process and have not done so for two years. The Central Bank rules allow a lender to resposses if it is not a primary residence or the owner has not engaged for 12 months.
The absence of repossessions is just an interference with property prices finding a floor.
I would vote Yes for Kenny’s poxy referendum if he promised to force resposessions now. Looks like I am voting No.
Don’t worry the banks will get round to it eventually.
Ultimately the number of repossesions will rise. The only difference between here and the UK being the amount of time it takes between the mortgage going into arrears and eventual repossesion.
Not quite I think the banks can commence legal proceedings for repossesion of a primary residence if alternate arrangements for mortgage payment cannot be agreed or are not met. There is a likely lengthy appeals process that no doubt is being abused but surely the banks could move on more than a couple of hundred out of the pool of 70,000+++ over a years period.
It is a disgrace, what the hell is wrong with respossesing a PPR if it is not being paid, I am sure a rental property could be found, no doubt paid for by the taxpayer like 50% of rentals already, still better than leaving serial non-payers in their PPRs. I am all for adjustment, even write-off of principal up to maybe 20% or whatever, but the banks have to pursue those who just will not or cannot pay at all.
Is it a case of mortgage holders sending in E100 every few months and showing up in arrears but the banks not being able to do anything?? I expect there are a myriad of loopholes but they should be closed and fast.
The comparison with the UK is even more stark, simply because the UK has not seen anything like the falls in property prices, or the rise in unemployment. The market there can bear the housing stock from repossessions coming onto the market.
In the 1990-1993 recession and property crash in the UK, bank repossessions were rampant, but because of the systematic nature of the stripping of interior fittings, because it was known that the bank was a forced seller witgh no patience, and because the numbers of repossessed houses spiked, it is fair to say that reposessed houses sold at lower prices to comparable houses, and even more importantly, their presence in the marketplace depressed prices further than might otherwise have been the case.
"Bring on the Repossessions " (ignoring the historical ironies) is a call to anarchy , given how many are in negative equity already.
I have a friend working in AIB who told me they will not repossess a PPR under any circumstances.
Doesn’t even matter in cases where the bank know the customer can clearly afford the repayments but have chosen not to! These people try to get a better deal by holding out.
Now the Bank won’t be bullied by this tactic. They will not renegotiate if they can see clear ability to repay, but some clients will continue on refusing to pay, so it gets stuck in limbo for ages.
This leads to the situation with the old fucker in Killiney. He had a large portfolio of rental of properties, the loans on which were being repaid and a so-called PPR where he deliberately chose not to make any repayments for years, presumably in order to keep his rental portfolio loans performing and so not be repossessed.
So he offset his PPR payment money against his other properties, reasoning that bank would not repossess his PPR even though he could afford to pay if he chose not to pay his loans on his other properties.
The code only applies to PPR. Second properties can in theory be repossessed more easily. So the old fucker avoided respossession of his portfolio by playing games and successfully winning the sympathy from the likes of New Beginnings and Boyd Barrett.
I wonder how much this offsetting is happening elsewhere where people are playing chicken with their PPR to keep their hands on a property portfolio.
That poxy respossession code is so poorly drafted it needs to be scrapped. Banks needs to be able to net a person’s position across their entire property loan portfolio and even across banks.
" (ignoring the historical ironies) is a call to anarchy 
, given how many are in negative equity already.