Boxer Moran's "Keeping People in their Homes Bill"

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
51,904
This hasn't received much coverage. It seems to be aimed at stopping repossessions. Here is the main content:


KEEPING PEOPLE IN THEIR HOMES BILL 2017
Bill entitled

An Act to provide that adequate consideration be afforded to the principle of
proportionality in the context of proceedings which are directed at the repossession of a mortgaged property in which the mortgagor ordinarily resides, and for that purpose to amend the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009; and to provide for related matters.


2. The Principal Act is amended in Chapter 3 of Part 10 by substituting the following for
section 96(3)—
“(3) The provisions relating to the powers and rights conferred by this
Chapter apply to any housing loan mortgage notwithstanding any
stipulation to the contrary and notwithstanding any powers and rights
expressly conferred under such a mortgage, but in relation to any other
mortgage, except where section 97 applies, or except where this Part
provides to the contrary, take effect subject to the terms of the
mortgage.”.
Substitution of section 97 of Principal Act
3. The Principal Act is amended in Chapter 3 of Part 10 by substituting the following for
section 97—
“Taking possession
97. (1) Subject to section 98, a mortgagee shall not take possession of the
mortgaged property without a court order granted under this section,
unless the mortgagor consents in writing to such taking not more than
7 days prior to such taking.
(2) A mortgagee may apply to the court for an order for possession of the

mortgaged property and on such application the court may, if it thinks
fit, order that possession be granted to the applicant on such terms and
conditions, if any, as it thinks fit.
(3) In granting, adjourning, varying, postponing, suspending or executing
an order for possession of a mortgaged property in which the
mortgagor ordinarily resides or attaching terms or conditions to such
an order, the court shall have regard to all of the circumstances of the
case, including the proportionality of the order or proposed order by
reference to the considerations set out in subsections (4) and (5).
(4) In considering the proportionality of an order or a proposed order
under this section, the factors to be considered by the court shall
include, without limitation, the following:
(a) whether the order being sought pursues a legitimate aim;
(b) whether the order being sought—
(i) is justifiable by reference to a pressing social need, and
(ii) is proportionate to the legitimate aim being pursued and is the
least onerous means of achieving the legitimate aim, based on
consideration of the following factors:
(I) the amount of the principal paid by the mortgagor in relation
to the total amount borrowed;
(II) the amount of interest paid by the mortgagor in relation to
the total amount owed;
(III) the amount the mortgagor is able to pay on a monthly basis
in relation to the amount sought by the mortgagee;
(IV) the suitability or otherwise of the mortgage to rent scheme;
(V) the suitability or otherwise of a lifetime mortgage;
(VI) the suitability or otherwise of the sale of the existing loan to
an approved housing body;
(VII) the suitability or otherwise of a Personal Insolvency
Arrangement;
(VIII) whether the mortgagee has attempted to have the matter
resolved by reference to mediation;
(IX) the adherence to the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears;
(X) obligations imposed on regulated lenders under European
Union (Consumer Mortgage Credit Agreements)
Regulations 2016 (S.I. No. 142 of 2016); and
(XI) the application of the forbearance measures set out in
guidance on non-performing loans published by the
European Central Bank, including interest only payments,
reduced payments, grace period/payment moratorium,

arrears/interest capitalisation, long term interest rate
reduction, extension of maturity/term, additional security,
sale by agreement, rescheduled payments, other alterations
of contract, new credit facilities, debt c0ns0lidation, partial
or total debt forgiveness,
(c) the likely impact of such an order on the human rights of the
mortgagor and other household members by reference to the rights
which they can expect to enjoy pursuant to the European
Convention on Human Rights or the EU Charter of Fundamental
Rights, including but not limited to consideration of the following
factors:
(i) the availability of suitable and affordable alternative
accommodation that will allow the relevant family or household
to continue to live together;
(ii) where there are older persons, persons with disabilities, other
vulnerable persons, or dependants in the household:
(I) the extent to which such alternative accommodation will
ensure their independence, social and occupational
integration and participation in life of the community;
(II) the extent to which care and support arrangements are in
place for children and vulnerable members, and dependants
in the household; and
(III) evidence of an examination of the impact of relocation or
repossession on such persons, including whether the best
interests of any children have been prioritised;
(iii) the extent to which an order under this section will affect the
physical and mental health of all members of the household;
(iv) the extent to which an order under this section will intrude into
the personal sphere of the household, including the effect on the
maintenance of relationships with others; and
(v) the extent to which an order under this section will impact the
future aspirations and opportunities of all members of the
household,
(d) examination of all of the circumstances surrounding the execution
of the mortgage contract, including the level and extent of
information provided, the position of the parties, legal advice given
in relation to the mortgage contract, vulnerability of the consumer,
the extent to which original lending decisions, made at the time of
granting the mortgage application, were reasonable and
responsible, and an evaluation of the application of—
(i) any unfair terms and any appropriate adjustments, and
(ii) Consumer Protection Codes of 2006 and 2012 (where
applicable),

(e) the extent and availability of State support to the enforcing entity in
grants, tax relief on non-performing loans, subvention, Central
Bank support, or other State supports; and
(f) the estimated costs, per week, to the State of providing—
(i) emergency accommodation and alternative housing to the
household, and
(ii) support services to the household from State resources per
week.
(5) Where the enforcing entity is not the credit institution which first
granted the loan or mortgage to the mortgagor, in considering the
proportionality of the order or a proposed order under this section, the
factors to be considered by the court shall in addition to the factors
provided for in subsection (4), also include, without limitation, the
following:
(a) the amount paid by the enforcing entity for the purchase of the loan
or mortgage by reference to the amount of debt outstanding in
respect of that loan or mortgage;
(b) in circumstances where paragraph (a) applies, whether the loan or
mortgage was also offered for sale at that reduced cost to the
mortgagor;
(c) the value of the loan or mortgage on the enforcing entity’s balance
sheet, and the market value of the property at time of court hearing;
(d) the availability of tax relief for the enforcing entity in relation to
the relevant non-performing loan, or in respect of its nonperforming
loans
generally.
(6) Subsections (3) to (5) apply—
(a) to proceedings initiated after the coming into operation of
subsections (3) to (5) which have been brought by a mortgagee
seeking an order for possession of a mortgaged property in which
the mortgagor ordinarily resides,
(b) to proceedings initiated before the coming into operation of
subsections (3) to (5) which have been brought by a mortgagee
seeking an order for possession of a mortgaged property in which
the mortgagor ordinarily resides, provided an order for
repossession has not yet been granted by the court, and
(c) to proceedings initiated before the coming into operation of
subsections (3) to (5) which have been brought by a mortgagee
seeking an order for possession of a mortgaged property in which
the mortgagor ordinarily resides where an order for repossession
has been granted but not yet executed and in relation to which a
variation or suspension of the repossession order is now being
sought.

(7) In this section ‘household’ includes:
(i) a household comprising a person who lives alone; or
(ii) a household comprising two or more persons who have a
reasonable requirement to live together, which includes family
and shared homes,
and ‘household members’ shall be construed accordingly.”.
 
Many thanks for posting the draft of the Boxer Moran bill for keeping people in their homes. I was successful in having a letter published in the Indo recently entitled "Funds snapping up people's homes are parasites, not vultures", which I believe is relevant (Sorry I cannot link to it as I do not meet the minimum requirements of the forum) / SMcK
 
What repossessions? There are practically none in this country, a few hundred a year max with half of them being voluntary!
As Karl Deeter said on the radio last week, this bill will effectively turn Judges into Social Workers.
 
:rolleyes::rolleyes: - what a load of ... pandering to populists. If this is the way this country is going, no-one EXCEPT commercial enterprises will be able to get a mortgage.
 
"the extent to which an order under this section will impact the future aspirations and opportunities of all members of the household"
What if my aspiration is to keep a property without paying for it?
 
This was discussed on Sean O'Rourke show this AM. Boxer is now a Minister and was asked if he'd resign should the Govt not progress the bill.
Boxer said it won't come to that as he expects it to be brought in and he hinted that Leo had given him that level of assurance.

Dan O'Brien later warned against the bill. He pointed out that repossessions were practically non-existent. And that this has the potential to keep mortgage rates higher than the Euro average as well as keeping competition out.
Mary Murphy, lecturer at NUI Maynooth, seemed to think higher rates was a small price that society had to pay to keep people in their homes. Especially as she expects a very large ramping up of repossessions over the next 2 years....she reiterated that point a few times!
 
This was discussed on Sean O'Rourke show this AM. Boxer is now a Minister and was asked if he'd resign should the Govt not progress the bill.
Boxer said it won't come to that as he expects it to be brought in and he hinted that Leo had given him that level of assurance.

Dan O'Brien later warned against the bill. He pointed out that repossessions were practically non-existent. And that this has the potential to keep mortgage rates higher than the Euro average as well as keeping competition out.
Mary Murphy, lecturer at NUI Maynooth, seemed to think higher rates was a small price that society had to pay to keep people in their homes. Especially as she expects a very large ramping up of repossessions over the next 2 years....she reiterated that point a few times!

So those who are paying their bills should pay higher bills than normal to cover people who won't/can't pay their bills............ Makes sense............... *shoot me*
 
I thought Dan O'Brien made the point that a more difficult repossession regime makes rates higher for everyone well. He seemed to largely miss making the point that the overall level of lending is surpassed due to the difficulty in repossessing. That is also contributing to homelessness.

BofI recently bought a large mortgage book from a vulture fund, proven performing mortgages. From societies point of view that money would have been better given out in new lending. More houses, more employment.
 
Back
Top