We Hope You Can Appreciate The Irony

at

scan1-2 scan2-2

C writes:

“We hope you can appreciate the irony of the Bank of Ireland welcoming us and thanking us for our business while we are in the process of losing our home.”

 

Sponsored Link

36 thoughts on “We Hope You Can Appreciate The Irony

    1. Sidewinder

      If you think that’s what he’s complaining about you either didn’t read it or made up your mind before doing so.

      1. James

        Ok, give me €100. I’ll give you back €10. And you should be happy that I did at all. Now deck off.

        Happy?

        Or are you going to be an asshole and ask for €90, too?

        1. will-billy

          you gave him a gift james? and now you want it back
          or you made a business transaction called a loan on the basis of a risk assessment which turned out to be flawed, and now you want to re- imagine reality?

  1. cormacjones

    It takes a lot for the Banks to resort to repossessions (because of the bad publicity, I’m not defending them). In most cases there is zero effort on the part of the mortgage holder to re-structure or come to any agreement on a payment plan.

    I wonder when was the last payment was made? I’d be surprised if it was less than a year ago.

    Maybe “C” can prove me wrong here!

      1. cormacjones

        Ha! C posted these to Broadsheet and you want me to mind my own business!?

        And the post was about irony…….!

      2. smoothlikemurphys

        Because a loss for the banks ends up as being money out of my pocket – why is that so hard to understand? It’s not about sympathy for the banks, it’s about not having to sub the cost of someone buying a house they couldn’t (or can’t) afford.

        The absolute worst thing that comes from a repossession is that someone who formerly ‘owned’ now has to rent. All this crap about ‘the family home’ makes me sick. I rent, but for some people you’d swear that repossession meant they are being made homeless.

        1. Anne

          “it’s about not having to sub the cost of someone buying a house they couldn’t (or can’t) afford.”
          Who made those decisions?

        2. Anne

          “I rent, but for some people you’d swear that repossession meant they are being made homeless”

          It’s not like the homeless figures are going up.. Oh wait.

        3. will-billy

          not necessarily thanks to the wonders of accounting and tax rules. a loss today can be an “allowance” tomorrow

  2. paul

    Meh,I have a better one.I’m in the exact same situation except not only am I being repossessed but last week Bank of Irl. sent me a letter saying they weren’t providing me with banking services anymore as I hadn’t paid my overdraft,then the very next week they sent me a letter welcoming me as they had purchased my mortgage.

  3. Anne

    What affect, if any, does the transfer of mortgages which will be defaulted on (not getting into the myriad of reasons for that) from ICS to BOI, have on the taxpayer here?

    Why are they being transferred?

  4. Mick

    Would you have preferred that they didn´t tell you your mortgage provider was changing, regardless of the situation? I reckon either way you would have moaned.

    Best of luck with your situation.

  5. Lilly

    Why, when so many are having their houses repossessed, are these houses not appearing for sale on the market? I know of several couples who have lost their house only to see it lie idle since. What a pointless and wasteful outcome especially when we hear about a homelessness crisis day after day. WTF is going on?

    1. SOMK

      Firstly not putting those houses onto the market means the bank can say they’re worth whatever they think their worth and so keep their books looking as sweet as possible. But of course the banks can’t keep those houses on their books forever, so now that the legislation the banks told the government to pass has gone through, banks have been repossessing homes (and so writing off the debt) then strategically both putting those homes on the market, focusing on areas they’ve identified as under-valued, and then issuing mortgages to buy those same houses, this causes house prices in certain areas to rise, which pushes people out into other, more affordable/less desirable areas, when the demand in these previously less-desirable areas is high enough, the banks will again strategically release the houses in those areas they have repossessed onto the market as well as the mortgages to buy them, causing another localised rise in prices, pretty soon enough small localised bubbles become a national increase in housing prices, which is of course the best thing ever.

      That’s the jist of it anyway.

    2. will-billy

      asset revaluation

      if i write off something at low value i forego paying tax on profits to an equivalent amount. if i delay the write offs nd or cook the books until the point of resale my balance sheet looks better

  6. Eric Cartman

    If you cant pay your mortgage you deserve to lose the banks house they’ve kindly let you stay in for the last year or so. Simples.

  7. TC

    How dare the bank attempt to repossess the house of a person who cannot afford their mortgage. All of us who have borrowed within our means and not been reckless should be subsidising these people. It is grossly unfair. Where are the land league? When we need them?

    1. Formerly known as @ireland.com

      Who saved the bank? Why was the bank saved? Using your logic, the bank should be consigned to history. It might have thought the banksters a lesson. By saving the banks, they will have learnt that they can lend recklessly, again. They know that they will be saved by the tax payer. That is a great little scheme.

    2. SOMK

      There’s no such thing as a perfect system, most systems that invole people involve a set of rules of some description, everyone who plays by the rules is indirectly also paying for the people who break them, but does so in the expectation that enough people will play by the rules to make their own rule adhearance justified. Of course the most pertinent question to ask about a system of rules wherein to follow them is a hallmark of good behaviour and not to follow them is a hallmark of bad behaviour, is to ask who’s setting them, who’s benfiting the most? Because the most absolute control you can have over a person is when you make them associate what you want with an absolute morality and to repeat that sentiment publicly and thus reproduce your power unquestioningly across society.

      There’s no zero sum game with these things, no system is perfect, but ideally you want a system that is to everyone’s advantage, broadly speaking we see situations where people make choices as freely as possible as being just and situations where people are coeerced into doing things against their will as unjust.

      If you were able to afford your mortgage maybe you bought your home at a time when house prices were sane, maybe you have a securre well-paying job, maybe you’ve read a few books on economics and could see the housing crash coming since the early 00’s, maybe you had better advice than the hundred thousand or so who are in negative equity. congratulations you are under averagely indebted, have above average income and propably have a three digit IQ, your reward is an under average level of indebtedness, an above average level of income, the ability to follow the plot of a Ron Howard movie, the lifestyle you lead off the back of that and whatever level of smugness that combination of factors affords you, it’s probably unlikely people will readily mobilise to action out of feelings of sympathy for your appalling plight, however if you are desperate for someone to feel sorry for you, you could try hiring a therapist.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link