‘They hound us... They want €1,300 a month’

If they sell up have they voluntarily made themselves homesless and do they still qualify for assistance with rent?

Also how much will they still have to pay the banks after they sell the house?

Did anyone see that woman on the Frontline last night commenting on proposed cuts to Children’s allowance. Basically she was saying that if children’s allowance was cut they wouldn’t be able to afford childcare. She and her husband both worked. I find it mind boggling that people could get mortgages when they are so obviously cash strapped, no wiggle room whatsoever on their interest only repayments, every penny coming in goes straight back out. Now maybe they’ve had wage cuts but I’m still appalled that this situation is the norm for so many. What sort of FUBARed place are we living in

There’s a logic here, provost but why should the state have to pay when the couple are able to make a reasonable repayment?

It may make financial sense to them, but it makes no sense for society as a whole to go down this route.

Even if GE accept these people have the best intentions in the world the reality is still that they can’t pay and don’t know when they will be able to pay. For GE to just go away and wait has a cost associated with it - who should bear that cost?

Actually I find people here are very interested in quantified the social and emotional cost, the only difference is it’s old news to them. They realised this is what would happen 5 years ago or more and told everyone who’d listen to avoid it.

Instead people charged in headlong as this couple did - they even switched lender to find someone who’d top up their mortgage. I can have all the sympathy for them in the world but it doesn’t change the fact that they can’t afford their house.

Others limit “social and emotional” suffering only to those they know about. They read about one case in the media (i.e. those prepared to shout loudest about their situation) and decide they should be “helped” without considering the ramifications of that help on those that are suffering silently - what about the 10 couples who didn’t top up their mortgage and are just about making repayments? You want to spread the cost from one couple you know about across the other 10 slightly more sensible ones who are barely managing.

The reality is they are paying and if they continue to do so, they will bear the cost and GE will make money on it in the long term. If they do not, you and I pay the cost in social welfare as provost suggested.

This isn’t about sympathy. It has nothing to do with sympathy. It has to do with pragmatism, respect, dignity and not placing unnecessary cost on the taxpayer, as it happens. If GE holds off, it ends up with more money, the couple pay the cost for their mistake and we don’t have more people drawing rent supplement. It also has to do with self-sufficiency of sorts and responsibility on the part of those who take on loans and those who recklessly give them out.

having a read of the Rent Supplement website:
welfare.ie/EN/Schemes/Supple … ement.aspx
it looks like they would have to go to their county council to discuss it with them.

As for how much they would have to pay the banks after they sell the house, the article doesn’t give enough information to calculate it.

I’d say it would be a lot of money. That’s why I think this is a very hard lesson.

I think it would be better to get out of the house though, get the money paid off and then move on with their lives. I don’t think that it would be good for children to see their parents going through the trouble of such huge loan repayments. I don’t think it would be good for the parents either.

If they can’t pay and are finding their situation upsetting and difficult, then I don’t think it would be worth it for them to continue it.

The article doesn’t say who’s paying.

If both of them are unemployed and they are getting Mortgage Interest Supplement, then the state is already paying. Otherwise, I would think they are paying from their savings or dole. I don’t think either of those possibilities are good ideas.

If this doesn’t make sense for society as a whole, then society would have to find something that does. As it stands, it is what the government offers.

That’s not a good enough answer, provost.

They’re not paying the full cost of their debt, if they don’t then someone else has to.

Social welfare will pay their interest for upto 1 year unless it decided they never should have had the mortgage in the first place.

Beyond that we have social housing and rent supplement for folks who find themselves unable to afford housing, they should avail of them.

There’s a cost associated with “GE holding off”. They have to wait an open ended length of time without getting the full cost of their debt and without repossessing the asset. I would suggest GE knows best which loans to hold off on and which to pursue than you or I.

What you’re suggesting is people should pay the mortgage “when they’re able to” but also hang on to the house in the meantime.

I think that’s because of the situation the country is in, the lack of information in newspapers article and my not knowing much more information on benefits or how the many facets of society work.

How many papers ran stories like this when they were selling the Celtic Tiger dream?

Oh right - advertising trumps morals.

What’s their motive now?

Column inches need to be filled.

Same as it ever was. Shifting copies.

It doesn’t make sense for GE to be asking for $1300 a month , if the Moodys income is less than that. While the article doesn’t inform you of any of the particulars of the case, Is it safe to assume that GE have reason to believe that $1300 is possible, even if very difficult
It would not be fair to speculate on, where the Moodys spend what income they have , but the article as written gives you no choice

People have been running up debt they can’t repay for years. People who are owed money will pursue them vigorously. It causes serious distress.

It is part of and parcel of life that you must pay off your debts. It is part of our freedom that we are free to incur debt. Should we bring in a law to stop stupid people racking up debt or should we make it illegal to enforce debt?

I know the banks are to blame but if you bring in a large degree of state relief for individuals then you have to start limiting personal economic freedom hugely (much the same as the economic freedoms of banks should be limited hugely over the next few years). This couple are right to be depressed and GE are being aggressive but the couple need to accept that they are largely to blame and get on with whatever measures need to be taken. The first measure might be to change their phone numbers!

By the way, there are plenty of depressed and suicidal “wealthy” people around the country too.

I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about the fact that people like these were nothing but tricked, conned and betrayed by their society’s professionals, institutions and elected representatives. So it follows that they were betrayed by their society as a whole.

As I’ve pointed out before, FTBs are nothing like sophisticated investors and should not be treated or thought of as such.

In business life, you may not dangle lucrative investment propositions in front of anyone. Either, they must fulfill the criteria of sophisticated investor, or else your proposition must be approved by a regulator as suitable for such an investor.

What do you expect if you dangle enticements of riches beyond one’s wildest dreams, for doing nothing, all with the backing and endorsement of all of society’s professionals and institutions and elected representatives, in particular the Taoiseach of the country? In front of people with only rudimentary technical educations?
All that is required in return is to sign one’s life away. XX

I appreciate people on this site were wise enough to think that if something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. And then started thinking about the state of affairs surrounding the phenomena. And now, object to being made to pay for the follies of others.

But there’s a similar dichotomy here to the whole private public sector thing. These people are innocent victims. They are not the enemy.

Its hard for a couple in the middle of Emotional ride like this to be be thinking straight…

Personally, I would have stoped paying, throw the back the keys of the house and move on…

They made a bad decision, move on…Even leave the country if it takes in stages…

Who cares about the debt being with you…

I reckon in a few yrs the slate will be wiped clean after a certain number of years because so many will be in the same situation…

Its time for them to think in terms, if it was a business…

Reasoning: If the couple are having problems now paying and we are at the early stages of the Credit Crisis, then IMHO its wasted money…

Agree Roc innocent victims but if the prudent have to pay for the bad decisions of others then I think as a Society we will be heading down the wrong track…

Ah sure they could ride it out for another while and get the state to start paying for it…lol… Now that woudl be thinking like a criminal…

Yes, but did you also notice that she evaded the question about what her and her husband’s earnings actually were??? She couldn’t calculate that seemingly. (Now you tell me if you don’t know what your income is off the top of your head). Her point was neutered by this IMHO.

Initial mortgage in 2004 was 210K.

Interest Only repayments with GE come to 1300 per month.

If you assume an interest rate of 5% that gives you an outstanding mortgage of 312,000.
@ 3% = 520000
@ 7% = 222857

Either they’re on an outrageous interest rate or something does not compute in this story.

The indo also has the story

independent.ie/business/pers … 31579.html