No Veto PIA

Ramblers2010

Registered User
Messages
8
Would being declared bankrupt in the UK within the past 5 years preclude an application for a "No Veto PIA" in Ireland.
Have been advised by ISI that Personal Insolvency Act 2012, 91 (1V) specifies an exclusion on those declared bankrupt in the past 5 years.
Can Irish legislation be applied to, or take account of, proceedings undertaken outside the Irish State jurisdiction? Would appreciate any clarification.
 
Last edited:
Section 91(I)(iv) states that a debtor is not eligible for a PIA if the debtor "has been discharged from bankruptcy less than 5 years prior to the date of the application for a protective certificate". Section 2 of the Act states that the interpretation of "bankruptcy" as "shall be construed in accordance with the bankruptcy Act 1988." On the face of it, you could argue that UK bankruptcy is not captured by Section 91.

Having said the above, if you were discharged from UK bankruptcy less than 5 years ago, I would be very surprised if any Irish bank gave you sufficient lending that has since made you insolvent, particularly given the rise in property values in the last 5 years.

Jim Stafford
 
Section 91(I)(iv) states that a debtor is not eligible for a PIA if the debtor "has been discharged from bankruptcy less than 5 years prior to the date of the application for a protective certificate". Section 2 of the Act states that the interpretation of "bankruptcy" as "shall be construed in accordance with the bankruptcy Act 1988." On the face of it, you could argue that UK bankruptcy is not captured by Section 91.

Having said the above, if you were discharged from UK bankruptcy less than 5 years ago, I would be very surprised if any Irish bank gave you sufficient lending that has since made you insolvent, particularly given the rise in property values in the last 5 years.

Jim Stafford
Hi Jim,
Thank you for the clarification regarding Section 91. Your opinion that the UK bankruptcy might not be captured by Section 91, is positive and has given me a little hope. I have returned from the UK to a substantial mortgage debt on my PPR, which is in serious negative equity, and in an effort to keep the property I am considering a PIA. I meet all the other conditions.
 
Shouldn't the substantial mortgage debt on the PPR been included in your UK bankruptcy?
 
Shouldn't the substantial mortgage debt on the PPR been included in your UK bankruptcy?
Yes all debts including the mortgage were included in the bankruptcy, and I have is no liability on this property. However I am trying to engage with the lender to regain ownership at current market value. At current market value I can afford to take on the monthly repayments, and would in time repay most of the original mortgage debt.
 
Not sure why you would need a PIA, "no veto" or otherwise. Your UK bankruptcy returned you to solvency, which makes a PIA inapplicable.

Regaining the PPR is a different matter. If mortgage payments were kept up, and the bank hasn't repossessed, then it might be the Official Receiver or the bankruptcy trustee that you need to deal with as you try to buy the beneficial interest in the property off them. Did you own the PPR by yourself, or was it jointly owned with a partner?
 
As TLO has suggested, you do not qualify for a PIA as you have no debt.

The bank may let you "assume" some of the mortgage if you make it worth their while.

Jim Stafford
Thank you Jim and TLO for the clarifications. Jim, what is meant by "assume" some of the mortgage, what is "worth their while "and how would this work in practice.
 
Thank you Jim and TLO for the clarifications. Jim, what is meant by "assume" some of the mortgage, what is "worth their while "and how would this work in practice.

In a public forum such as this I am unable to make comments about the specific strategies of the various banks. What I can say is that if the bank acts "commercially" it should extend you a "new mortgage" for the market value of the property and allow you pay that mortgage off, as the bank then avoids the costs of either re-possession or a receiver. You can make it "more commercial" for the bank by offering to take on a mortgage that is, say, €10,000 greater than the market value of the property.

Any provision of a "new mortgage" would be dependent on whether you could afford it etc.

Jim Stafford
 
In a public forum such as this I am unable to make comments about the specific strategies of the various banks. What I can say is that if the bank acts "commercially" it should extend you a "new mortgage" for the market value of the property and allow you pay that mortgage off, as the bank then avoids the costs of either re-possession or a receiver. You can make it "more commercial" for the bank by offering to take on a mortgage that is, say, €10,000 greater than the market value of the property.

Any provision of a "new mortgage" would be dependent on whether you could afford it etc.

Jim Stafford
This is my first use of AAM and I have to say that the replies have been informative and helpful. The information gained here should help me in future dealings with the lender. Thanks to all.
 
Back
Top