Skip to main content

Sold...Into Life-Long Debt...

What happens if you voluntarily surrender your home? If the sale doesn't cover the mortgage you could be in trouble...


One of the unspoken legacies of this recession will be the hundreds of people left paying full-term mortgages on properties they no longer own having been forced to sell at massive losses by the threat of repossession.

With the 12-month moratorium on repossessions agreed as part of the government's recapitalisation programme for the Bank of Ireland and AIB and political pressure generally, the prime lenders are reluctant to be seen opting to force people out of their homes. However, it's understood that many are opting to give customers in serious financial difficulty six months to sell their property despite the fact that they are almost certainly going to do so at a significant loss.

That this option avoids the repossession process is almost irrelevant to the mortgage holder because the end result is the same – the customer is left with a potentially huge outstanding balance to repay on the mortgage with no asset to show for it. The long-term effect is that they are unlikely to ever again be in a position to buy their own home thanks to a mortgage they continue to pay on a property they don't own.

The arrangement is essentially a private agreement between the lender and the customer and, as such, it is impossible to know just how many people are being forced down this route. However, industry sources believe that the number of houses being sold at a loss at the lenders' behest or being voluntarily surrendered to the banks and building societies far outweigh the number of possession orders being issued in the High Court.

Colin Daly, staff director with the Northside Community Law Centre says that the practice is obscuring a potentially major problem.

"It is very difficult to get a true and accurate picture of exactly how often this is occurring. There is no data on the number of properties that the banks and building societies have threatened to repossess but then end up giving people six months to sell. It is masking the true extent of the problem," he said.

The real cost of the practice was driven home by a report in The Drogheda Independent last week. Kevin and his girlfriend, both working at Lourdes Hospital, bought a three-bedroom house in a village close to Drogheda in February 2007 for €405,000 having secured a 100% mortgage with repayments totalling an €1,800 monthly. However, when his girlfriend lost her job, pressure mounted and the couple split up. Attempts to rent out their home failed and there were no takers for the property at the original price.

Eventually, the building society gave them an ultimatum – sell or face repossession proceedings. They eventually sold for €230,000 and will be paying off the €175,000 balance at €300 a month each for the next 35 years.

According to Kevin: "I've thought about skipping the country but then I could never come home. I've considered refusing to pay up but I'm in a state job and the building society could get an attachment on my earnings. There is no help and bank rescue package for people like us."

Crazy as it may sound, Kevin and his girlfriend probably did the right thing in selling their property at an enormous loss. By selling the property themselves they were able to maintain, at least, some control over the situation as the alternatives of voluntary surrender or repossession are even more financially punitive.

Voluntary surrender, also known as voluntary possession, is where a homeowner enters into an agreement with their lender whereby they take the house with the mortgage holder's consent and the lender then handles the sale of the property. It's understood that the majority of voluntary surrenders taking place at the moment involve people who bought at the height of the boom, borrowing 90%-plus of the property's value – and who now find themselves in serious negative equity. Once again, this is a private arrangement between the lender and mortgage holder and the prime lenders have been incredibly cagey about just how many voluntary surrenders are taking place.

Money Advice and Budgeting Service advisers are reporting a noticeable increase in the number of clients who have been considering voluntary surrender, says spokesman Michael Culloty.

"There are certainly a lot of people talking about it right now. People seem to see it as a panacea to all their problems where they can just walk away from the whole situation but that is not the case at all. We would advise anyone to seek independent legal advice if they are considering it," he said.

The Irish Bankers Federation pointed out that its members are statutorily obliged to assist borrowers as far as possible to manage their mortgage arrears before reaching the voluntary surrender stage but admitted that there may be instances where people enter into surrender arrangements unaware that they will be liable for outstanding balances.

As with a repossession or forced sale, voluntary surrender sees the mortgage holder remaining liable for any residual balance owed. It can also end up being incredibly expensive, according to Colin Daly of the Northside Community Law Centre.

"Our advice to people is that they should think very carefully before they set this in train. While voluntary surrender may seem like a quick and easy way to solve the problem of a mortgage gone into arrears, there are elements to consider before you go down that route.

"You will have to vacate the property and you are essentially handing over the carriage of the sale to the lender. They will negotiate solicitor and estate agent fees. You have no control over what those fees will be and they are added to your debt.

"It's also likely that a property sold by a lending institution will not achieve as high a price. It is better to put the house on the market yourself. That way, at least, you can possibly minimise your losses," he said.


Report by Gareth Naughton - Sunday Tribune

Popular posts from this blog

Ireland's Celtic Tiger Excesses...

'Bang twins' may never get to run a business again... POST-boom Ireland is awash with cautionary tales of Celtic Tiger excesses, as a rattle around the carcasses of fallen property developers and entrepreneurs will show. Few can compete with the so-called Bang twins for youth, glamour and tasteful extravagance. Simon and Christian Stokes, the 35-year-old identical twins behind Bang Cafe and exclusive private members club, Residence, saw their entire business go bust with debts of €9m, €3m of which is owed to the tax man. The debt may be in the ha'penny place compared with the eye-watering billions owed by some of their former customers. But their fall has been arguably steeper and more damning than some of the country's richest tycoons. Last week, further humiliation was heaped on them with revelations that even as their businesses were going under, the twins spent €146,000 of company money in 18 months on designer shopping sprees, five star holidays and sumptu

Property Tycoon's Dolce Vita Ends...

Tycoon's dolce vita ends as art seized... THE Dublin city sheriff has seized an art collection and other valuables from the Ailesbury Road home of fallen property developer Bernard McNamara. The collection will be sold to help pay his debts. The sheriff, Brendan Walsh, is believed to have moved against the property developer within the past fortnight, calling to his salubrious Dublin 4 home acting on a court order to seize anything of value from his home to reimburse his creditors. The sheriff is believed to have taken paintings from the family home along with a small number of other items. The development marks a new low for Mr McNamara, once one of Ireland's richest men but who now owes €1.5bn . The property developer and former county councillor from Clare turned the building firm founded by his father Michael into one of the biggest in Ireland. He is the highest-profile former tycoon to date to be targeted by bailiffs, signalling just how far some of Ireland's billionai

I fear a very different kind of property crash

While 80% of people over 40 own their own home just a third of adults under 40 do. This is disastrous for social solidarity and cohesion Changing this system of policymaking requires a government to act in a way that may be uncomfortable for some. Governments have a horizon of no more than five years, and the housing issue requires long-term planning. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform was intended to tackle some of these problems. According to its website its remit is to “drive the delivery of better public services, living standards and infrastructure for the people of Ireland by enhancing governance, building capacity and delivering effectively”. So how is the challenge of delivering homes for people in 2024 and beyond going to be met? The extent of the problem is visible in the move by companies, including Ryanair, to buy properties to house staff. Ryanair has, justifiably, defended its right to do so. IPAV has long articulated its views on how to improve supply an