It's the time of year when people are driving home for Christmas, shutting out the cold reality, and retreating into the bosom of home and family. Not everybody is thus blessed. There are those for whom circumstances dictate that Christmas accentuates loneliness or exclusion. And in the current economic climate, there are people who must wonder whether this will be the last Christmas they get to spend in their home.

One such family is the couple and their son with special needs who are obliged to vacate their Waterford home within six months.

The family's case came before the High Court on Monday, and may well serve as a harbinger of what is to come over the next 12 months. At the time of purchasing their home, both husband and wife worked for Waterford Crystal. They have since lost their jobs.

They acted prudently in the purchase of the house, which was easily adapted to meet the needs of their son. This was not a 100% mortgage deal. They invested €70,000 in the purchase, the proceeds of the sale of their previous home. The mortgage amounted to €270,000.

It is unclear whether or not the couple failed in an application to one of the main banks, but eventually they hooked up with a subprime lender, Stepstone Mortgages. The interest rate was in the region of 11%. It is unclear when exactly the house was purchased, but the ECB rate of interest over the last five years has never been more than 5%.

The family were in difficulties by June 2008. The woman wrote to Stepstone to explain their problems, but the letter was misplaced. They made their last monthly repayment of €2,600 in August 2008. They attempted to consolidate the loan with Stepstone, but the approach was rejected.

The woman is now in receipt of a carer's allowance, her husband receives a jobseeker's allowance. They offered to pay €800 a month, but this wasn't enough for Stepstone, which wants them out.

"I'm sorry I ever went to them," the woman told the court on Monday. "They brought me to hell and back." She agreed to vacate the home and Judge Brian McGovern put a six-month stay on the order.

In many ways, the case illustrates how the property bubble impacted on people with average or lower incomes.

The frenzy to buy property that prevailed screamed out to all and sundry that you'd better buy now before it is too late. This frenzy was fuelled by banks and the government in particular, but others like estate agents, solicitors and the media also played a role. Homeowners such as the couple from Waterford saw an opportunity to trade up and give their family a better life. While everybody is responsible for their own actions, the impression given by all the vested interests was that risk was a thing of the past.

Regulation was a joke. The sub-prime lender in this case, Stepstone, was recently criticised by Judge McGovern for a complete lack of stress-testing of loans. That case involved a couple who fell into arrears just two months into a 40-year mortgage. The regulator was simply not on the job.

The Waterford couple were not feckless or irresponsible. When a problem arose they didn't hide or ignore it, but contacted the lender to see if something could be done. If they were less than cautious in initiating the loan from this particular lender, it was done so in an atmosphere where the great and the good lectured that caution was for fools.

Now reality has bitten. Negative equity is a common phenomenon, but more crucially, many homeowners are finding themselves unable to make the monthly repayments. An ESRI study last month estimated that 35,000 homeowners will find themselves in that level of trouble.

Over 150,000 people have lost their jobs in the last two years. Interest rates are at an all-time low and will definitely rise within the next year or so. Even if green shoots are coaxed from a moribund economy, unemployment is expected to remain stubbornly high for the next few years.

There is a moratorium on house repossessions among the guaranteed banks, but this is for a 12-month term only and leaves room for manoeuvre by the banks. It is inevitable that in terms of people losing their homes, there will be blood. Already, there is widespread stress and fear at the prospect of being cast adrift from one of life's primal anchors.

The government is obliged to do something to ensure that homes will not be lost and that the fear of loss is alleviated. So far, the government's response to the property crash has been to sort out the banks, on the basis that the banks are of systemic importance to the economy. (This strategy has included sorting out some banks that have no systemic value).

Nama was sold as a vehicle designed to ensure the banks survive through the recession, despite the reckless behaviour that got us into the mess. Bankers and developers have been rescued from the hurricane blowing through the free market.

Those who were drawn into the frenzy, onto the lower rungs of the property ladder, are now being left to the mercy of the free market. Basic morality demands that a mechanism is created to protect their homes, just as Nama was invented to rescue banks and developers.

Christmas will be cold enough for many without the added burden of carrying the can for the reckless greed of others.