Cork Circuit Court
This morning.
On Today with Seán O’Rourke, hosted by Katie Hannon, journalist Brian O’Connell reported on repossession cases.
Mr O’Connell said, according to his calculations, there were at least 300 repossession cases in last few days around the country and more to come this week.
On Thursday last, there were about 25 cases in Kerry; 50 in Tipperary; 50 in Athlone last Friday; 35 in Athlone today and more taking place today in Waterford.
Readers may recall how it was reported last month that the Courts Service in Limerick had stopped publishing the dates for home repossession hearings, as a means to prevent courtroom demonstrations by anti-eviction protesters.
During his report, Mr O’Connell explained that he was in Cork Circuit Court on Wednesday last – where there were 52 cases listed – all of which involved a family home.
Mr O’Connell spoke to one woman, whose house is back in positive equity, and who was visibly upset after leaving the court. The arrears of the woman, who has five children, amount to around 30-odd thousand euro.
The woman was just after receiving an adjournment until May when Mr O’Connell spoke to her.
She said:
“I don’t know how it’s going. I’m just hoping and praying that something is going to happen; that I can sort something here…I don’t have Christmas decorations up, I don’t have any Christmas shopping done, I actually, I love Christmas, but I can’t think. You don’t think about anything else, when this is going on. It’s in the back of your head the whole time. You talk to people, you pretend everything is normal, but nothing is. And it’s, it’s like standing on quick sand. You can’t do anything.”
“My marriage broke up, obviously the financial crash, my wages shrank, I actually haven’t had a payrise since 2005, my mortgage is about €800 a month, I’m paying close to €500 a month. You don’t approach the bank anymore, do you understand? You don’t ask questions because you’re afraid to come to their attention. You just want to say quiet and, hopefully, that it’ll just, you can carry on with things for a little bit longer.”
“No, [my children] don’t know the situation. I am in pieces, my health is suffering, I am constantly stressed. I find everything so difficult. They don’t need to live like this. Your kids pick up on things, things are not good but they don’t know. My youngest, the other day, he wanted change for a collection for Focus and he said, ‘Mum, at least we’ll help some homeless person’ and I’m actually thinking ‘that could be you’. And it’s so tough and it’s so hard.”
“And it’s so difficult when you hear all these people saying ‘these people don’t pay their mortgage’. Nobody lives like this, nobody lives under this stress… and I tell you something I can feel my whole body crumbling. I’m so tired, so weary all the time. I’d give anything just to sleep, sleep, just to actually not be thinking constantly, not be worrying constantly. Every decision in your life you’d be thinking [about], your kids’ future, what they’re planning on next year. ‘I have exams this year and am I going to be in my home..my child is in her Leaving Cert..is she going to be in hotel studying?”
“…You were in the court today. Nobody talks, people just come in, they don’t talk to each other or anything. Nobody wants to tell them. I think everybody out there, you may not realise it but you actually know people in this situation. And they’re just going through this. None of my family know I’m here today. They don’t know. Nobody knows I’m here today. And I can’t, I can’t be putting this stress on my family. I know they worry about me, but they don’t, they don’t, they shouldn’t have to take this on aswell.”
“...There’s nobody to talk to, there’s nothing, do you understand? There is nobody who can tell me, it’s…what can they tell me? I can talk to them, I can tell them I’m stressed, I can say I can’t eat properly, I can’t sleep, I cannot live with this uncertainty constantly, I cannot look at my kids and not knowing where they’re going to be if they put me in a hotel. They’re looking at €200 a night to put me in a hotel. The arrears on my house are 30-odd thousand. They’re going to spend over that on me…
Listen back here in full
Previously: Out By Christmas
“my mortgage is about €800 a month, I’m paying close to €500 a month”
If the bank are looking to chuck her and her family out when they are getting over 50% of the mortgage paid every month then they need to be told to sit down and shut up. Yeah, sure, there’s €30K of arrears and that’s only going to increase as there’s a monthly shortfall but that requires a renegotiation, not a reposession.
But here’s the problem: “Mr O’Connell spoke to one woman, whose house is back in positive equity”
So this house could be sold tomorrow and wipe out all of this woman’s debts and perhaps leave her with some money on top? Why should she be allowed stay in the house whilst not paying her full mortgage but still benefiting from the increase in value of the house? This is not about a debt problem, its an affordability issue, which is where social services steps in to find her an alternative housing solution.
Or this house could be sold tomorrow leaving this woman and her family with nowhere to live and a credit rating that ensures she won’t get another mortgage.
Maybe you haven’t heard but there’s a housing crisis and the social services are unlikely to have a stack of houses waiting for occupants.
Absolutely. So the bank, the borrower and the social services should work together to figure it out. Social services could probably purchase the house and add to the stock of social housing. but letting her keep the house and all the accreting equity value in it doesn’t really seem justifiable in any way.
Why is it justifiable that out of the bank, the householder and the social services (the state) that the bank should be only one to be protected from any losses whatsoever?
For every bad borrower there is a bad lender, and we’ve all had to mortgage our futures to bail them out. Quid pro-quo, they should renegotiate the interest rate / repayment period, this person sounds like she’s doing her best to pay what she can – but can we please drop this notion that the state has to step in to shield the bank from any pain? We did that already.
As I said, renegotiation. That may well involve the social services but whether it does or not there doesn’t seem to be any justifiable reason for evicting a family that is still paying more than 50% of the mortgage.
“Why is it justifiable that out of the bank, the householder and the social services (the state) that the bank should be only one to be protected from any losses whatsoever?”
1. What “losses” is the borrower taking?
2. The bank is the only one facing losses as things stand (existing arrears and ongoing increase in those arrears)
3. What losses would the state be taking?
1. loss of her home for one. and loss of money invested into the property thus far.
Good point Starina
Is it not the case that if the bank repossesses and sells the house in +ve equity she loses full stop irrespective?
As in she’ll get nowt out of whatever +ve money gets generated and will also lose all monies so far invested to date?
Maybe I don’t understand mortgages but….
Wasn’t there supposed to be a deal where people in this kind of situation could cede their house to the bank, which would then rent it back to them at an affordable cost?
The banks are storing up a fine císte of hatred for themselves.
As i noted above, if she can only afford 500 quid a month, this is a broader affordability issue (ie she can afford to rent no more than a room somewhere, not an entire house), and not a debt issue. As she hinted at, there must have been a cut to her overall household income between 2005 and now, as this sort of situation was only ever barely affordable in the first place. It has very little to do with negative equity/boomtime prices etc.
Why Owen’s remarks are controversial is beyond me. If she sold the house she could make a profit on it.
Can you live in a profit pornog?
@ Starina
1. “loss of her home” – which she currently cant afford to service. Should she be entitled to live there forever, regardless of what liabilities she creates elsewhere in her life (not just on her mortgage), and regardless of the value of the home?
@ Martco
“Is it not the case that if the bank repossesses and sells the house in +ve equity she loses full stop irrespective?
As in she’ll get nowt out of whatever +ve money gets generated and will also lose all monies so far invested to date?”
If she has invested in the house, this will be reflected in the sale price. If the sale price is above the mortgage outstanding (plus the arrears), she will keep the rest
She has disposable income of €500 month to spend on accomodation.
€500 won’t get much and certainly not much suitable for a family of 3.
No doubt the blushirts feel that these citizens are “getting what they deserve” and will go back to fighting the EU on Apple’s behalf.
It must be exhausting knowing what everyone thinks all the time.
fairly easy to guess what is in the mind of a blushirt, especially when it relates to the poor and the weak of this nation. Their actions speak volumes
what about the poor blueshirts?
I’d be highly surprised if an order was granted against her. She’s co-operating and isn’t a buy to let. In most cases, bank’s councils will try for the worse case scenario to leverage their bargaining power.
Just in regard to the headline figures have a read of the below; there’s a lot more to it then meets the eye:
http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/2015/12/a-year-in-cork-repossession-courts.html?m=1
Exactly.
If reposession is so easy why are there still 14,000 buy to let mortgages with arrears of TWO YEARS or more?
She has a job, I dont know what she works at or whats she paid, but im not on monstrous amounts but id be living ok if I was only paying 800 a month.
If she can only afford 500 a month, assuming thats 30% of her salary, that suggests she gets paid c.20k per year?
do you have children? or any other possible outstanding debts?
I understand people take the cost of kids into account but she chose to have kids, while still married I understand that, so unless the father has totally left the scene and contributes nothing I don’t see what different kids make.
Silly woman choosing to have children while in a stable relationship without first consulting the oracle to determine the futre of that relationship and her own earnings.
+1
First off she didnt say anything about a pay cut so her earnings are the same. And so in your logic know the relationship has ended that means you don’t need to pay for your own kids, both parents.
she said no pay rise in 11 years. inflation’s not great, loik
So the same as most people then.
if you haven’t had a payrise in 11 years, something is seriously wrong
Iv had pay cuts, absolutely no pay rise. Im still on less than I was 10 years ago.
“my wages shrank, I actually haven’t had a payrise since 2005”
Clearly her earnings are not what they were and nowhere did I even suggest that she should not be paying for her kids. You’re blaming her for having kids and then finding her financial situation changed. Basically, you’re being an idiot.
Nobody blamed her on having kids. I said she chose to have them, I assume her husband at the time did as well as was not some how tricked into it, so why because they spilt up would kids change anything.
it’s shockingly common how often fathers forget that maintenance payments are for their children, and refuse to pay or pay irregularly.
also, studies have shown that women are statistically likely to go down in economical wellbeing following a divorce, with no recovery ever following. men, by contrast, generally improve in standing after a divorce.
allllso, it’s a lot more difficult to work full time as a single mom without an inhouse partner to share the raising.
Because kids cost money and having kids can cut back on a woman’s earning power, which is fine if the father is around to take up the slack but not so fine if he’s not. Do you think both parties carry on financially after a marriage break up just as they did when all was happy in the home?
She can get maintenance out of him even if he’s on the dole. She is also entitled to various income supports if she really is on very low wages. The truth is she probably likes to spend her money and has gotten comfortable with making the mortgage the fourth or fifth priority.
“The truth is she probably likes to spend her money and has gotten comfortable with making the mortgage the fourth or fifth priority.”
I think I hear some goats trip-trapping across your bridge.
Starina
1. what do you think is an acceptable % of total income to pay for housing?
2. If she had other debts, she really shouldn’t be paying those off while not paying off her secured residential property asset. It would actually make her case to remain in the house even weaker.
I think i know what the ‘C’ stands for now…
Cool?
well i currently pay about 45% of my earnings for rent, which is well above the recommended 30%.
as for your other point, sure yeah she can stop paying electricity and petrol and loans, they’re not mandatory, like. do you even think before commenting?
Starina, you’re kinda missing my point. If 500 is her max mortgage payment, and that equals, like in your case, 45% of her earnings, that means she would only earn €13,333 per year. I don’t think its reasonable to expect people earning less than minimum wage to own their own houses….
On the second issue, you said “or any other possible outstanding debts?”, and then you cite (a) electricity and petrol which you really, really shouldn’t be taking out a loan to pay for and (b) “other loans” which i dealt with in saying she shouldn’t be paying off unsecured debt at the expense of secured debt. So, really, do you even remotely think about what nonsense you are typing down in the comment box?
Great reply.
who said she’s taking out loans to pay her bills – she could be struggling just to maintain payments.
It is hard to believe that she ended up in court based only on the story outlined. There must be a lot of unanswered correspondence from the bank, and unreturned calls.
It is all water under the bridge now but it was a monumental mistake not engaging with the bank from day one, burying your head in the sand solves nothing.
Having said all that I would be amazed if any bank is granted possession of her home.
There is more to this than outlined above.
“it was a monumental mistake not engaging with the bank from day one”
Since you believe there must be more to the story then of course it’s fine to invent a scenario that lays the blame at her under threat of repossession door.
She was quoted in the original story saying “You don’t approach the bank anymore, do you understand? You don’t ask questions because you’re afraid to come to their attention. You just want to say quiet and, hopefully, that it’ll just, you can carry on with things for a little bit longer.”” which suggests that she isn’t fully engaging with the bank.
That’s certainly one way to read the comments of a “visibly upset” woman who is “hoping and praying that something is going to happen; that [she] can sort something”. Of course the fact the she hopes to sort something means she’s clearly communicating with someone but we don’t know the details and not knowing them means we have no real grounds to point fingers at either side.
That’s pretty much the only way to read that.
The house might well be back in “positive equity” but that only means that it’s worth the value of her mortgage. In this woman’s situation the house is still in negative equity until it is worth €30k more than the value of her mortgage because that is the extent of the arrears.
It’s not even 30 though is it? It’s 30 into whatever leveraging calc/formula that’s used to predict the cumulative value + the pound of flesh to the banks favour
Like if I tried to pay off early with a lump I’d get penalised because I’m avoiding all the future interest and admin etc. That 30 is really 90, no?
If you are on a fixed rate and decide to clear your mortgage then you will be penalised by a break cost (based on the remaining term of your fixed rate arrangement). Otherwise, no penalty
Listen dear, you can’t afford the place you’re living in so its time to get out. You don’t get to set your own mortgage payments.
Its a joke that she isn’t even paying 800 per month when others are struggling wtih 2K rents.
And who cares about her personal situation, we’ve all got sob stories.
landlord alert
I’ve never missed a rent or mortgage payment. I was renting one place that was becoming a bitt too much of a burden so guess what? I moved out to somewhere cheaper.
less easy to up sticks when it’s a mortgage and you have kids.
Interestingly
RTE only half arsed the segment
Is this lady the only named defendant in the proceedings?
And;
And more importantantly for many listeners btw
If this is a PPR property and is not a ‘trophy home’ then the dependent(s) will qualify for both a PIP advice voucher and a legal advice voucher via the Abhaile scheme.
Once again
Its all half arsed
We sold our house last year at a loss of 150,000. The banks took not one penny of that loss
The usual botty holes on these threads. Mocking is catching ladyparts.
I feel like the whole meaning of arse holes isn’t the same as botty holes.. let us have arse holes BS..c’mon it’s christmas.
Unnecessary to draw attention to the plight of those who cannot afford to pay for houses and compare this to the situation where banks have ripped off consumers. It’s not the same issue.