Should the government provide assistance to homeowners facing foreclosure?

No

Yes, for instances of public housing/affordable housing foreclosure, or based on a means test in order to protect low-income households in the case of an extreme change of circumstance.

depends on the mans of the individual and the situation for example someone who bought a house in south dublin for 1M and never paid a mortgage should get help if they were just greedy

No, instead more education should be provided on financial security and we should strive as a nation to ensure foreclosures do not occur, this includes prudent lending by financial institutions.

Depends on the situation, unfortunately it is not a yes/no answer, if someone loses their job and can no longer pay then possibly yes, if a very wealthy slithery person chooses to stop paying then no

Yes. Only if the homeowners provide proof of documents and show a good valid reason for falling into arrears. And with a plan to get out of arrears.

The Government should offer homeowners facing foreclosure two options: assistance subject to a repayment plan or an alternative social house

depends. if it's a homeowner's only property and they are of moderate or below moderate means, then yes. any other scenario, nope.

I think perhaps there should be a program to apply for government assistance upon imminent foreclosure under particular circumstances

Yes Provided they have paid the relevant income tax and the foreclosure is due to unforeseen or difficult circumstances

Yes for families who will become homeless, however there are many developers/ property owners who had significant write offs and are now back buying property again and availed of honest tax payers money to bail them out

Yes, but depending on the reasons behind the foreclosure and the nature of the property in question.

Depends on individual circumstances... Critical illness, sudden unemployment etc... But not for people with property portfolios etc

Only if they have proven they are trying to pay off debts and are not living a life of extravagance.

Yes but I think it should be assessed on a case by case basis if someone is being irresponsible and can’t pay their mortgage because of that then no but if someone has genuinely been struggling say for example they’ve lost their job or had a medical emergency anything like that and can’t pay their mortgage then I think support should be available

Depends on situation for someone who is really struggling BUT trying and has proof of struggling then yes

If there was a thorough system in place which gave allowances to struggling families yes but not randomly or inconsistently

Yes, once each case of foreclosure is assessed individually. People in foreclosure due to reckless spending should not be supported

Yes, if it's as a result of catastrophic issues, or circumstances beyond the person's control if a genuine attempt has been made to pay down credit

The banks (with help from government) created huge problems for home owners. Drove up the cost of living and borrowing. Shouldn't be a interest on bank loans

Yes but it should be situational, so irresponsible loaning should be monitored and treated accordingly but families under more dire situations should be given help

Once each case of foreclosure is assessed individually. People in foreclosure due to reckless spending should not be supported.

Yes, but only in cases of financial struggles and not refusal to pay

The government should fund organisations which provide free advice & legal information etc to the public

Yes and if this is the case then over the course of several years if the debt is high enough maybe the tax credits can be reduced provided the main lease holder or their children isn't in receipt of disability or chronic medical care.

Yes in special circumstances, where the foreclosure is beyond the individuals control

Yes, but only to people who’s home value is within an average range

Yes, provided the affected homeowner is a private citizen rather than a business or corporate entity.

If the government would only support this once per home owner, and not for ppl in the top 10pc

Depends on whether the homeowner is struggling financially and whether they have borrowed recklessly.

Yes, but only if they are financially responsible but have hit a rough patch, not in debt, low credit score

If they have shown they have followed and done everything possible to keep their home and worked with the banks the. Yes

Only if it is the primary residence, no other property is owned and the foreclosure has come about due to no fault of the person i.e money mismanagment

If you were struggling with a mortgage, how would assistance change your situation, and would it feel like a handout or a chance to rebuild?

In your opinion, does everyone deserve a second chance when it comes to financial mistakes, or should the consequences be final to teach financial responsibility?

Could assistance programs for homeowners create a precedent where people take on loans they can't handle, or do they encourage responsibility by helping them get back on their feet?

How would it feel to lose your family home due to unforeseen circumstances, and what steps do you think should be in place to prevent that situation?

What role do you think compassion should play in addressing financial struggles, or should economic fairness be the primary focus when considering aid?

Have you ever known someone who experienced foreclosure, and how do you think such assistance programs might have helped or hurt them?

Should there be a safety net for people who fall behind on their mortgage, or could that create a situation where some people take advantage of the system?

yes, if they are co-operating with the law and rules

How would losing homes in your community impact the neighborhood, and what value do you see in keeping people in their homes?

Do you believe it's society's responsibility to help individuals facing financial hardship, or is it up to each person to handle their own debts?

When some people receive help with their mortgage and others don't, do you think this creates an unfair situation, or is it just a necessary part of helping the most vulnerable?