And rightly so as evidenced by the fact that very few repossessions actually take place. Most cases are ultimately resolved between borrower and lender.
It seems pretty clear at this stage that the Courts will go out of their way to give borrowers every possible opportunity to resolve their issues with their lenders.
Most cases are ultimately resolved between borrower and lender.
You're right of course Andy but I guess my point in posting a link to this story was to make the point that a borrower can't expect to receive leniency from the Courts indefinitely if they choose to simply ignore their debts.
It seems pretty clear at this stage that the Courts will go out of their way to give borrowers every possible opportunity to resolve their issues with their lenders.
But there are limits.
You are correct. This judge saw through this lady's payment.
I wonder if that would hold through for all judges nationwide?
Well, there are certainly an awful lot of cases that remain unresolved.
At end-June 2015, 13% of all PDH loan accounts were in arrears and 9.3% were in arrears of more than 90 days. 23% of BTL loan accounts were in arrears and 19% were in arrears of more than 90 days.
Progress to date on restructuring has been painfully slow and ultimately we will have to face the fact that a very significant proportion of these accounts can never be restructured on any kind of sustainable basis.
At this stage, delaying the repossession process is, in most cases, simply delaying the inevitable.
Defaulting borrowers have ample opportunity to reach an accommodation with their lenders throughout the MARP process - by the time it gets to Court, arrears are invariably too large to restructure the loan on a sustainable basis.
I'm not sure that I understand this comment. What role have the Court in writing down debt? Their role is to rule on specific proceedings for repossession or judgment but have no part in ruling that loans should be written down or written off.The courts and not the banks will decide whether the debt write down will happen with or without the voluntary surrender of the mortgaged property.
If the PIA is not acceptable to the bank and the PIP thinks the offer is genuinely reasonable, they can apply to the court for the Court to order that the PIA be accepted by the banks. ( usual checks and balances apply after independent court review of the full circumstances of each case ). In other words no more de facto veto of the PIA by the banks.I'm not sure that I understand this comment. What role have the Court in writing down debt? Their role is to rule on specific proceedings for repossession or judgment but have no part in ruling that loans should be written down or written off.
I'm not sure that I understand this comment. What role have the Court in writing down debt? Their role is to rule on specific proceedings for repossession or judgment but have no part in ruling that loans should be written down or written off.
Hi demoivre
I'm not sure I understand your argument. How does the extraordinarily low level of repossessions support the view that, in time, most of these cases will be resolved? Perhaps you might elaborate.
Thats a very simplistic and dare I say childish view of things.Since the evidence shows that we have very few repossessions clearly most cases are resolved.
What about the continued stay's on granting possession and the kicking on of cases rather than making a decision. While these are not "outcomes" they are prolonging the legal process unnecessarily. If a similar process was applied to other legal actions we would end up with all cases clogging up the system for years.case struck out or possession order granted.
Thats a very simplistic and dare I say childish view of things.
Long term arrears #'s continue to increase. So most cases are not resolved, they are just adjourned by the looks of it.
It's called 'Can kicking' and we are the Olympic Champions at it
+1 on that.
What about the continued stay's on granting possession and the kicking on of cases rather than making a decision. While these are not "outcomes" they are prolonging the legal process unnecessarily. If a similar process was applied to other legal actions we would end up with all cases clogging up the system for years.
This also begs the question as to why there are similar outcomes in differing Courts for all PDH possession proceedings. I.e. Are judges bowing to political pressure in kicking on these cases?[/QUOTE
That displays a childish naivety, of course they are!
As is so often the case, some folk continue to deliberately tie in the Bank bailout to the current Mortgage arrears disaster in an attempt to justify major debt write-down for mortgage holders (whilst holding on to the House(s) of course). It suits their personal agenda...the Freemen and some other Fringe groups of that ilk are always banging that drum.Delboy, you are right of course in relation to the can kicking, the Irish State should have let the bank's go to the wall, the totally insolvent ones anyway. In relation to repossession orders down the Courts, if the Government legislated to allowed for an easier process, the Irish State would have a constitutional duty to house these individuals, so would be in the same position as the Banks were, insolvent!
How would it bankrupt the State??? Thats just hyperbole.You are right there is no de facto right to housing under the Irish constitution and I apologise for this error, there is however a guarantee to right of housing with state support, either way, both would bankrupt the State.