Should we have told the bank not to contact us by home visits or telephone calls?

Ireland.1

Registered User
Messages
156
Hello,

My mortgage provider wants to do business by telephone rather than the written word.

I wrote to them last week asking them very nicely that we would prefer to receive updates on the status of our mortgage by post.

We are experiencing financial problems and would prefer to deal with the bank this way. We have also asked them not to call to the property.

We've been since told that maybe we were a bit out of order by asking them not to contact us verbally. We are a bit worried now and concerned that this may backfire on us.
 
I can't see how they could hold it against you that you have requested all communications to be in writing - many people are just not good on the phone - can't take proper notes, easily pushed into agreeing payments they can't afford, etc.

Just stay polite and if they call again say "We have asked not to be called as we need to take time to digest what you are saying, please drop us a line."

Someone else might know whether this is covered in the MARP code of conduct.
 
. We've been since told that maybe we were a bit out of order by asking them not to contact us verbally. We are a bit worried now and concerned that this may backfire on us.

No - you were in no way out of order, the bank official who told you this is out of order, you have categorically stated in writing that they are only to correspond with you in writing. That official's job is to bully you, to pressurise you, to get you to do what they want, but never will they put it in writing. What the game is this person wants you to agree to something, and when you do then they'll put it in writign, but they'll word it so it looks like you asked for it. And then you'll have no comeback.

They need to tell you in writing what they want. Basically they want you to pay everything to them and live on a dole amount. Stand your ground.

If you post further on your dealings with them and your financial issues you may get some further advice.

If is not an easy thing to go cap in hand to a bank when under financial pressure. But it is better to be open and honest and try and come to a mutually beneficial solution.
 
Why not go one step further and ask them not to communicate with you at all? Tell them that you will repay the money at your convenience. :rolleyes:

Come on lads...be realistic. The bank is entitled to contact the borrower by phone and personal visit. This is set out in the Mortgage Arrears Code. The borrower is not entitled to refuse to take calls or visits.

When I had a business and people owed me money, invoices and statements were fine for most of them. But for a few the only way to get payment was through phone calls and personal visits.
 
Come on lads...be realistic. The bank is entitled to contact the borrower by phone and personal visit. This is set out in the Mortgage Arrears Code. The borrower is not entitled to refuse to take calls or visits.

.

So you are saying that an ordinary person can not refuse to correspond in writing only. That doesn't make sense. What is wrong with corresponding in writing, why should people in unequal circumstances agree to have a meeting. We've heard stories on here of people going into banks to be surrounded and intimidated by a room full of bankers. That cannot be right.

We also had stories of credit card companies phoning people morning noon and night.

Nobody said not to communicate. Only saying where a person feels under stress and would prefer to deal with companies in writing that they should be allowed to do so.
 
Thank you all for your feedback. Its sobering to hear both views. Neither myself or my husband are great at meetings or dealing with bankers on telephones or for that matter being caught off guard at the hall door. We have made foolish commitments in the past that we could not meet because we were rail-roaded into them.
 
I am more than surprised by your post Brendan. Do we want more cases like this
We need to draw a line somewhere.

Bronte, you have hit the nail on the head. Regarding rooms full of bankers you can also add bank security parked outside the door as the meeting with the bankers is in motion. The average Joe Soap cannot compete.

The OP is well within his/her rights.
 
Why not go one step further and ask them not to communicate with you at all? Tell them that you will repay the money at your convenience. :rolleyes:

Come on lads...be realistic. The bank is entitled to contact the borrower by phone and personal visit. This is set out in the Mortgage Arrears Code. The borrower is not entitled to refuse to take calls or visits.

This is wrong. The only people entitled to be on your property without your permission are the gardaí if they suspect you of a crime or a sheriff acting on behalf of a court order.


When I had a business and people owed me money, invoices and statements were fine for most of them. But for a few the only way to get payment was through phone calls and personal visits.

You had no entitlement whatsoever to be on someone's premises without their permission, even if they did owe you money. Since when did trespassing become legal?
 
http://www.keepingyourhome.ie/mortgage_arrears_resolution.html.en

This is the first thing that came up when I googled Marp, and every second paragraphy refers to the bank corresponding in WRITING.

This bit has me in stitches:

____________________
It requires lenders to handle all such cases sympathetically and positively, with the objective at all times of helping people to meet their mortgage obligations.
____________________

As far removed from the current actions of bankers as I can tell. I know exactly what the bankers are doing when they call to people's homes as I have a relation who has had to deal with these 'lovely' people physically calling to their home as they check out everything in your house, what your kids are wearing, what car you drive, etc. They may look nice, speak nice, seem kind, act on your side. They are well trained. They have one aim and that is to extract every cent off you while leaving you to live in fear and poverty. For goodness sakes the banks have written the useless insolvency bill, and they hav suggested that people should hand over everything except a dole amount.

I do not mean that people shouldn't pay back everything they can, but they shouldn't be forced to feel like a criminal, feel broken, driven to suicide etc.

Demoivre I don't think a creditor calling to someone to pay up his invoices is the same thing. That's just business. One business to another.
 
This is wrong. The only people entitled to be on your property without your permission are the gardaí if they suspect you of a crime or a sheriff acting on behalf of a court order.




You had no entitlement whatsoever to be on someone's premises without their permission, even if they did owe you money. Since when did trespassing become legal?

Would you get over yourself!

It's not like he was breaking in! Calling to someone's front door can in no way be viewed as trespassing.
 
Here is what the Mortgage Arrears Code Guide says

Unless you have asked your lender to contact you or given them your permission to contact you in relation to your arrears situation, they are only allowed to contact you three times per month in relation to your mortgage payments (this limit applies to unsolicited or unasked for contacts). This includes contacts by phone, by email, by text message, or by letter but does not include missed calls.

So a lender is allowed to make three unsolicited phone calls a month.

I don't see any reference to visits, but I am pretty sure that if a borrower is not taking calls or responding to letters, they are fully entitled to call on the borrower.

They only make these calls when the borrower is not responding to other forms of communication.

The issue of trespass is a red herring. If they call to your door and you decline to let them in, they can't barge their way in. They can't and they don't.
 
This bit has me in stitches:

____________________
It requires lenders to handle all such cases sympathetically and positively, with the objective at all times of helping people to meet their mortgage obligations.
____________________

As far removed from the current actions of bankers as I can tell. .

Hi Bronte

Your sample is from people who are not having good experiences. Many people have successfully rescheduled their loans. Many people have had a sympathetic and postive experience with their banks. But they rarely call Joe to tell him about it.
 
This bit has me in stitches:

____________________
It requires lenders to handle all such cases sympathetically and positively, with the objective at all times of helping people to meet their mortgage obligations.
____________________

What you've quoted, from the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears, is a load of touchy-feely fluff. Why should banks have to be "positive" or "sympathetic"?

Banks, and everyone else, should be professional and courteous, they should not be aggressive and they should communicate politely. Sympathy doesn't need to come into it - nor positivity.

It's no wonder the banking/mortgage crisis isn't being progressed toward resolution one bit with the amount of state sponsored faffing going on. There seems to be far more thought dedicated to flowery language and sympathetic posturing then actually tackling the issues at hand.
 
Here is what the Mortgage Arrears Code Guide says



So a lender is allowed to make three unsolicited phone calls a month.

.

As I'm not good at quoting I wanted to copy this key word:

_______________

Unless

_______________

To me this means that if you've told them it's ok then they can of course talk to you by whatever method you agree to.

In the failure of an agreement I would expect everything to be done in writing. I would not in any circumstance expect an uninvited personal call to my door by a bank official. Furthermore were I in the situation of the OP and I had categorically told the bank to only correspond in writing, then the bank should respect this Marp or no Marp. And that's only a code, not a law. It is only proper professional conduct to correspond in writing. Particuarly where one is stressed, feels pressurised by bank officials, feels intimidated and is designedly put in that position. OP has not said she is not willing to engage, merely to be offered the courteousy of dealings in writing.

Of course one on one meetings have their place. I've recently negotiated face to face myself, but it's not for everyone and where a poster comes on here clearly in enough distress to have to post and have felt they cannot deal otherwise with the bank than in writing then I will give them every sympathy.

My consistent advice to all people who deal with officia ldoom is to only do so in writing. Not just banks.
 
Hi Bronte

It's badly worded, but this is what it means

A lender can make three unsolicited contacts a month
It can obviously respond to contact from the borrower and they are not included.

If someone is paying their mortgage on schedule, there is no need for phone calls.
if someone is not paying their mortgage on schedule but responds to the notices of arrears, there is no need for phone calls.

A big problem for borrowers is that they are burying their head in the sand and not dealing with their problems. If a call from the lender or a visit helps them face up the issues, that is to be welcomed.

Brendan
 
I read this post a while back and didn't check since but the impression I got from the OP was that someone said in passing that they may have annoyed the bank, not the actual bank themselves.
We've been since told that maybe we were a bit out of order by asking them not to contact us verbally.
Why has everyone decided that it was the bank that told them this ?
BTW I agree fully with communicate in writing only and if you get caught out always state that you want anything said here in writing.
 
If a borrower is engaging in writing and has requested correspondance only in writing then the bank should not make unsolicited phone calls.

I would be very interested in OP outlining to us what the bank official said to her as outlined in the first post. The bit about 'out of order'
 
I would be very interested in OP outlining to us what the bank official said to her as outlined in the first post. The bit about 'out of order'

There is nothing yet to suggest it was a bank official who made that remark, or anything like it. That's a leap you have made yourself!
 
It is certainly not appropriate to tell your lender not to contact you by phone or by calling. They have a right to contact you to seek repayment of the money up to three times a month.

If someone in arrears avoids contact with their bank, they leave the bank with few options. The bank is much more likely to take a tougher line with them. The written correspondence you have asked for may well be a court notice.
 
Just to confirm that the comment was made in passing by a banker. We knew at that point we had shot ourselves in the foot. We simply thought negotiations would be best if they were in the written word so both parties could cross reference should there be a repossession order. We are currently paying interest only.

As harsh as Brendan's posts sound these are the sentiments of the banks. Its simply their way or the highway.
 
Back
Top