Expert Group recommends making repossessions easier

The Government's Expert Group on Repossessions has recommended administrative changes to make repossessions easier

[broken link removed]

Its general theme seems to be that, for a functioning mortgage market, the lender has to be able to repossess if the borrower doesn't pay.

[FONT=&quot]C[/FONT][FONT=&quot]h[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]p[/FONT][FONT=&quot]t[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r[/FONT][FONT=&quot]7 – Conclusions and Recommendations[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I[/FONT][FONT=&quot]n[/FONT][FONT=&quot]t[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r[/FONT][FONT=&quot]o[/FONT][FONT=&quot]du[/FONT][FONT=&quot]c[/FONT][FONT=&quot]t[/FONT][FONT=&quot]i[/FONT][FONT=&quot]o[/FONT][FONT=&quot]n[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. In this Chapter, the Expert Group summarises the conclusions it has reached in relation to the repossession system in Ireland and sets out some recommendations designed to make the system more efficient and less frustrating for the parties and, not least, for the courts themselves.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The Expert Group acknowledges that while the law must seek proportionately to safeguard the interests of borrowers, especially those who may be in default (and some of whom also find themselves in negative equity), there is a strong countervailing public interest in protecting the interests of lenders, not least in order to ensure that funding continues to be made available for the purchase of residential and other property and also where there is an equity in property, to release funding for other productive purposes. The Expert Group acknowledges the need for a properly functioning mortgage market in which the rights of both lenders and borrowers under their mortgage contracts are seen, subject to appropriate public policy regulation, to be enforceable.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]C[/FONT][FONT=&quot]on[/FONT][FONT=&quot]c[/FONT][FONT=&quot]l[/FONT][FONT=&quot]u[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s[/FONT][FONT=&quot]i[/FONT][FONT=&quot]o[/FONT][FONT=&quot]n[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The Expert Group has examined the functioning of the repossession system, including the manner in which applications for possession orders are presented to, and processed, in the courts system. It has concluded that significant efficiencies could be achieved through more effective case management by lenders, harmonised documentation standards and a more structured framework for borrowers entering defences in repossession proceedings.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]C[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot] m[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]n[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]g[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]m[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]n[/FONT][FONT=&quot]t[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]4[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. According to the County Registrar’s Association, the case management standards of lenders vary greatly, with some operating at sub-optimal level. The service of notice on borrowers presents particular difficulties. It appears that in many cases, lenders have not sought to locate defaulting borrowers prior to the commencement of proceedings or even during the early period following such commencement. The opportunity available to the lender to seek to obtain a[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]s[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ub[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s[/FONT][FONT=&quot]t[/FONT][FONT=&quot]i[/FONT][FONT=&quot]t[/FONT][FONT=&quot]u[/FONT][FONT=&quot]t[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]d[/FONT][FONT=&quot] se[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r[/FONT][FONT=&quot]v[/FONT][FONT=&quot]i[/FONT][FONT=&quot]c[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e [/FONT][FONT=&quot]o[/FONT][FONT=&quot]rd[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r on the return date is not used and the difficulty may not be brought to attention until the next hearing date.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]T[/FONT][FONT=&quot]h[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e [/FONT][FONT=&quot]E[/FONT][FONT=&quot]x[/FONT][FONT=&quot]p[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r[/FONT][FONT=&quot]t [/FONT][FONT=&quot]G[/FONT][FONT=&quot]roup recommends therefore that a lender seeking a repossession order should make sufficient efforts to locate the defaulting borrower prior to, or in the period immediately following, the commencement of proceedings so that an application for substituted service order can, where necessary, be obtained on the return date.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Sta[/FONT][FONT=&quot]nd[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]rd documentation[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]6[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. It has come to the Expert Group's attention that there are no harmonised documentation standards in operation. Not only do different lenders submit different documents, it appears that the documentation submitted by a lending institution may vary depending on the legal firm being used in the case.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]T[/FONT][FONT=&quot]h[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e [/FONT][FONT=&quot]E[/FONT][FONT=&quot]x[/FONT][FONT=&quot]p[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r[/FONT][FONT=&quot]t [/FONT][FONT=&quot]G[/FONT][FONT=&quot]roup recommends that consideration be given to amending Court Rules so as to specify more precisely the documentation, including format, required to be submitted by lenders in repossession proceedings.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]7[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. In order to apply the provisions in section 2 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2013 and the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears (CCMA), the Expert Group believes that it is necessary to identify from the outset whether the property concerned is a private residence or a BTL property.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]T[/FONT][FONT=&quot]h[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e [/FONT][FONT=&quot]E[/FONT][FONT=&quot]x[/FONT][FONT=&quot]p[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r[/FONT][FONT=&quot]t [/FONT][FONT=&quot]G[/FONT][FONT=&quot]roup recommends that the Civil Bill for possession and the documentation submitted by lenders must clearly identify private residences and, in cases where the borrower has been co-operating with the lender, include a standard form of certification of compliance with the CCMA.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]D[/FONT][FONT=&quot]efe[/FONT][FONT=&quot]nd[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]d proceedings[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]8[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The Expert Group has become aware of the difficulties which arise, and which often result in further adjournments, where the grounds for forbearance pleaded by the borrower in defended cases evolve over time. The Expert Group[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]c[/FONT][FONT=&quot]o[/FONT][FONT=&quot]n[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s[/FONT][FONT=&quot]i[/FONT][FONT=&quot]d[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s that this could be addressed by requiring the borrower to complete a standard form which would outline the grounds on which repossession is being contested and which would be accompanied by a statement of means.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]T[/FONT][FONT=&quot]h[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e [/FONT][FONT=&quot]E[/FONT][FONT=&quot]x[/FONT][FONT=&quot]p[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r[/FONT][FONT=&quot]t [/FONT][FONT=&quot]G[/FONT][FONT=&quot]roup recommends, therefore, that in defended proceedings, the borrower must complete a standard form and a statement of means approved under relevant court rules.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]E[/FONT][FONT=&quot]n[/FONT][FONT=&quot]f[/FONT][FONT=&quot]o[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r[/FONT][FONT=&quot]c[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]m[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]n[/FONT][FONT=&quot]t[/FONT][FONT=&quot]o[/FONT][FONT=&quot]f orders[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]9[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The Expert Group has noted considerable delays in some cases between the granting of the repossession order to the lender and the lender's later request for an execution order. Since the issuing of execution orders by court officials on production by the lender of the relevant repossession order is an administrative rather than judicial function, the Group considers that efficiencies could be achieved by issuing an execution order at the same time as the repossession order; the execution order would, where relevant, enter into force on the expiry of any stay on the repossession order.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]T[/FONT][FONT=&quot]h[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e [/FONT][FONT=&quot]E[/FONT][FONT=&quot]x[/FONT][FONT=&quot]p[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r[/FONT][FONT=&quot]t [/FONT][FONT=&quot]G[/FONT][FONT=&quot]roup recommends that consideration be given to the issuing of an execution order when the court grants a repossession order, or where a stay has been granted by the court, on expiry of the stay.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]10[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The Expert Group has been informed of the difficulties which sheriffs experience where an authorised representative of the lender does not attend to identify property which is subject to an execution order.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]T[/FONT][FONT=&quot]h[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e [/FONT][FONT=&quot]E[/FONT][FONT=&quot]x[/FONT][FONT=&quot]p[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r[/FONT][FONT=&quot]t [/FONT][FONT=&quot]G[/FONT][FONT=&quot]roup recommends that lenders adhere strictly to the rule which requires a lender's representative to be physically present to formally identify property which is subject to an execution order.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]G[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]n[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]l[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]11[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The Expert Group regrets the data deficit in relation to repossession proceedings and considers that more detailed and timely data are required to inform policy development.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]T[/FONT][FONT=&quot]h[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e [/FONT][FONT=&quot]E[/FONT][FONT=&quot]x[/FONT][FONT=&quot]p[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r[/FONT][FONT=&quot]t [/FONT][FONT=&quot]G[/FONT][FONT=&quot]roup recommends implementation of a detailed data collection strategy in respect of repossession proceedings.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]12[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The Expert Group considers that the efficiencies which can be achieved through implementation of its recommendations will enable the existing court structures to deal with the current levels of demand. However, any substantial and sustained increase in future demand for repossession orders would require further consideration of the system's capacity to operate effectively.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]T[/FONT][FONT=&quot]h[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e [/FONT][FONT=&quot]E[/FONT][FONT=&quot]x[/FONT][FONT=&quot]p[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r[/FONT][FONT=&quot]t [/FONT][FONT=&quot]G[/FONT][FONT=&quot]roup recommends that the Courts system's capacity to operate effectively in light of any increased demand be kept under review. This should include judicial, administrative and sheriff’s functions.[/FONT]

The report is well worth reading.

It summarises all the issues very well e.g. the legal procedures for repossession in Ireland.

It's 63 pages of report and 37 pages of Appendices

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]23[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The Courts Service has provided a sample of 195 cases across 20 Circuit Court jurisdictions where Possession Orders were granted following listing in the Circuit Court Judges List. Cases are referred to the Judge’s list where they are defended since the County Registrars only have jurisdiction to deal with consent or default cases


. [/FONT]•[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The average time from the issue of a Civil Bill to the grant of a Possession[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]O[/FONT][FONT=&quot]rd[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r was 517 days.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]•[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The average time from the first entry of the matter on the Judge’s List to the grant of a Possession Order was 105 days.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]•[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The average time taken from the grant of a Possession Order to the grant of an Execution Order was 262 days. However, in over 60 cases an Execution Order had not been sought.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]•[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The average number of adjournments before the County Registrar was 3.23.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]•[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The average number of adjournments before a judge was 1.05.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]B[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Possession Orders granted on Consent[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]26[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The Courts Service has provided a sample of 222 cases across 21 Circuit Court jurisdictions where Possession Orders were granted on consent. Again, these are historical cases from 2009 to 2013.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]27[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The attached table (Table 4) synthesises the information contained in the more detailed list provided by the Courts Service and gives a breakdown by Circuit Court jurisdiction rather than by case number.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]28[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Points to note:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

•[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Of the 222 cases, 181 properties were identified as private residences, 14 as[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]BTL [/FONT][FONT=&quot]p[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r[/FONT][FONT=&quot]o[/FONT][FONT=&quot]p[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r[/FONT][FONT=&quot]t[/FONT][FONT=&quot]i[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s and the status of the remaining 27 was unknown.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]•[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The average time from the issue of a Civil Bill to the grant of a Possession[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]O[/FONT][FONT=&quot]rd[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r was 385 days.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]•[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The average time taken from the grant of a Possession Order to the grant of an Execution Order was 234 days. However, in over 100 cases an Execution Order had not been sought. This is not surprising since an execution order is only required where the borrower will not vacate a property and the[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]se[/FONT][FONT=&quot]r[/FONT][FONT=&quot]v[/FONT][FONT=&quot]i[/FONT][FONT=&quot]c[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s of a sheriff are required.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

•[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The average number of adjournments before the County Registrar was 2.9.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I[/FONT][FONT=&quot]t[/FONT][FONT=&quot]s[/FONT][FONT=&quot]h[/FONT][FONT=&quot]o[/FONT][FONT=&quot]u[/FONT][FONT=&quot]l[/FONT][FONT=&quot]d[/FONT][FONT=&quot]b[/FONT][FONT=&quot]e noted that the County Registrar in Galway has reported that in a number of cases an adjournment was sought by the lender due to engagement with the borrower. However, in two cases the borrowers were present in Court[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]and said there had been no engagement by the lender other than computerised letters; even though they had tried to telephone and speak with the signatory of the letter, they were unsuccessful in doing so. Other borrowers who attended confirmed that there was no engagement by lenders and indeed none of the borrowers seemed to be aware of the Revised Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears.[/FONT]

Has anything ever happened to the recommendations in this report?

I had completely forgotten about it and have not seen it mentioned anywhere since its publication.