4 PIAs, 51 DSAs, 66 bankruptcies to date

pat2;
From what I am seeing the practise is not cost effective in many cases.
It maybe effective in larger urban areas where binding leases etc are in place.
In the smaller properties I see rent/Esb/gas bill issues with too many residents being more transient rather than them viewing the property as a home.
Eviction is still difficult ,even if warrented in some cases.

I cannot but think that in many cases Rent Receivers are in place whilst the Lender studies his options.ie a short term fix for lender.

In short, the underlying problem has not been tackled.
 
Last edited:
Bronte said:
Do the maths on it. Rent less property manager, less estate agent, less property tax, less PRTB registration. You can be sure that everything will be charged at top dollar by the 'professionals.'

It's hard enough right now to be a landlord, if you also had to hire the experts you can be guaranteed that you will be running at a loss.

Do you actually believe that the OA should become a property manager?
Click to expand...

Yes of course the OA should become a property manager. That is his job. Should he decide to keep the property for the moment I would expect him to contract some sort of letting agent/property manager. I know very little about letting or landlords but I thought the charge for these services would be 10-15% of annual rental income. Am I close?
 
Gerry Canning said:
pat2;
From what I am seeing the practise is not cost effective in many cases.
It maybe effective in larger urban areas where binding leases etc are in place.
In the smaller properties I see rent/Esb/gas bill issues with too many residents being more transient rather than them viewing the property as a home.
Eviction is still difficult ,even if warrented in some cases.

I cannot but think that in many cases Rent Receivers are in place whilst the Lender studies his options.ie a short term fix for lender.

In short, the underlying problem has not been tackled.
Click to expand...

We are talking about the OA here and not lenders. I can imagine when it comes to lenders it's quite messy.
It's up to the OA to maximise returns. If keeping tenants in situ is what he see's fit well and good. He has quite a bit of time(unlimited I think) to deal with property and he would be mad to sell close to the bottom with rent coming in.
 
pat2 said:
We are talking about the OA here and not lenders. I can imagine when it comes to lenders it's quite messy.
It's up to the OA to maximise returns. If keeping tenants in situ is what he see's fit well and good. He has quite a bit of time(unlimited I think) to deal with property and he would be mad to sell close to the bottom with rent coming in.
Click to expand...

I think this whole forum is an indication of the failure of the reformed Irish bankruptcy law. It continues to be dominated by people looking at UK solutions.
 
Ger1964V2 said:
I think this whole forum is an indication of the failure of the reformed Irish bankruptcy law. It continues to be dominated by people looking at UK solutions.
Click to expand...

Where do you think the reform of the Irish bankruptcy law has failed?
What benefits do you see with the Irish system versus the UK?
 
I started the frustratingly slow insolvency process in Ireland 4 months ago, and prior to that I tried to engage with my bank directly for 6 months. 10 months in all, and I still have not started the 6 year repayment process, as I await the protective cert. Why has Irish bankruptcy law failed? There is too much 'veto' power given to the banks, there is too much red tape and administration, it is time consuming, weighted to the middle class and prioritises punishment over forgiveness.

I use the term forgiveness lightly; to be forgiven, one must commit a sin: my sin was buying a property that is now 75% in negative equity. I've actually paid off any personal debt.

The process has been so slow, I am in limbo and all I hear now is silence from my 'PIP' - I can honestly say this is one of the darkest times of my life. The insolvency service is a joke and I look now to leave my partner and friends and family behind to embrace a system that genuinely forgives and enables people to rebuild their life after bankruptcy - in the UK.
 
There is no veto in bankruptcy that I am aware of. I presume you are applying for a PIA rather than for bankruptcy. There is a distinct difference there and comparing an Irish PIA with an English bankruptcy is not comparing like with like. A person can go bankrupt here in a couple of weeks through self-adjudication.
 
Indeed, you presume correct, a PIA. Ultimately the banks can veto any proposal in insolvency. This is the long winded process that I refer, which can take up to 6 months (including a 70 day negotiation process) to reach completion. The risk is you could to be told your proposal was vetoed after such a long time at which point you can start the bankruptcy process from scratch in Ireland or you can go the UK, live there for a few months and be finished in 16 months. Not like with like, but a very viable alternative to insolvency.
 
Accepted fully. You won't get a PIA and the associated protections for the family home in the UK though. If the decision is bankruptcy then it's nearly easier to do it here anymore. For sure its a bit longer at three years but no need to uproot and no messing with establishing a COMI.
 
pat2 said:
Where do you think the reform of the Irish bankruptcy law has failed?
What benefits do you see with the Irish system versus the UK?
Click to expand...

Pat2

You seem to have an issue with the whole ideas of insolvency. I think my post was clear enough, Askaboutmoney.com posters on this forum don't even to seem to consider using the Irish route, if at all possible. The title of this thread indicates that failure.

There are plenty of reasons why the Irish system has failed: 2 off the top of my head:

1) In an IVA the secured lender has a veto, and the CEO of BOI has indicated that they will always exercise that veto
2) A UK bankruptcy is for one year and unless you mess around its straight forward. In Ireland its three years, and maybe three more or five or whatever the assignee feels like.

I don't have a problem with your view that bankruptcy is morally worng and that it creates a "a moral hazzar" but posting on this form with such a political view is unhelpful to those people looking for advice, help and a solution.

The Irish insolvency legislation has failed, look at the numbers on this thread.

Ger
 
Ger1964V2 said:
Pat2

You seem to have an issue with the whole ideas of insolvency. I think my post was clear enough, Askaboutmoney.com posters on this forum don't even to seem to consider using the Irish route, if at all possible. The title of this thread indicates that failure.

There are plenty of reasons why the Irish system has failed: 2 off the top of my head:

1) In an IVA the secured lender has a veto, and the CEO of BOI has indicated that they will always exercise that veto
2) A UK bankruptcy is for one year and unless you mess around its straight forward. In Ireland its three years, and maybe three more or five or whatever the assignee feels like.

I don't have a problem with your view that bankruptcy is morally worng and that it creates a "a moral hazzar" but posting on this form with such a political view is unhelpful to those people looking for advice, help and a solution.

The Irish insolvency legislation has failed, look at the numbers on this thread.

Ger
Click to expand...

Ger,

I believe everything you said in your post is wrong. I'm all for a bit of debate on these issues but please keep your assumptions about me to yourself.

On your points about how the Irish system has failed.
1. There is no such thing as an IVA in Ireland. The UK have IVA's as an alternative to bankruptcy. Secured creditors have an option to not be included which effectively gives them a veto without a vote.
In Ireland our closet equivelant would be a PIA. A secured creditor does indeed also have a veto here but only after a vote and if they have a sufficient percentage of the votes by number (possibly 50%, I'm not too sure)

2. The time for automatic discharge in the UK is 1 year. They can put an IPA/IPO for a further 3 years in place at any time during this year if your income exceeds reasonable living expenses. This happens in about 23% of cases of bankruptcy in the UK. The reasonable in the UK are less generous than the living expenses in Ireland.
In Ireland it's 3 years for automatic discharge and an IPA/IPO can last for 5 years.
What experts both sides of the water recommend is that if a IPA/IPO is unavoidable then enter it as early in the bankruptcy as possible. Bearing this in mind, to compare like with like it will be a total of a litlle more than 3 years in the UK and 5 years in Ireland. If you are based in Ireland at the moment you need to consider the 6 months or so it will take to establish your COMI in the UK. We're now down to 3.5 years versus 5 years. Not much of a difference considering all the hassle and expense of going to the UK.
One must also consider how long they will have to wait for a court date. In Ireland I believe that its a week or so wait for a court date once your documents are in order. I don't know how long it is in the UK.

Overall I believe the UK only offers a viable solution if you have a considerable warchest of £20k+ to see you through the moving fees, accommodation costs, adviser costs and some way to keep your income below very tight reasonable living expenses.
In Ireland you will get free advice and help if required. Plenty of government support if eligible and more generous living expenses. The possibility that you will retain your family home. Most importantly you will have the support of family and friends unless ofcourse you are lucky enough to have these support bases in the UK already.

Finally, on your assumption that I have a problem with insolvency and bankruptcy with may prevent people getting help on this website I refer you to my contributions to this thread. http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=182550
Please take the time to read the whole thread before making further assumptions.

In my opinion Irish insolvency legislation is just getting warmed up and there will many more cases as it becomes the norm in coming years. We may even see people being discharged earlier than 3 years, who knows.
 
pat2 said:
Yes of course the OA should become a property manager. That is his job. Should he decide to keep the property for the moment I would expect him to contract some sort of letting agent/property manager. I know very little about letting or landlords but I thought the charge for these services would be 10-15% of annual rental income. Am I close?
Click to expand...

You are way off, that's in a normal owner with an estate agent managing and all going well. What happens in involvency is vastly different.

I know a property rent about 500, rent receiver 1200 or so monthly, and he's not the guy going to do the renting that will be an estate agent.

So in essence if house eventually gets sold the bank will get paractially nothing.

I read an article recently about the New Land League/Jerry Beads. While I'm totally not a fan of his, I do agree that the banks are going to get peanuts after all the rest have been paid off.

Those top name people cost a lot of money. We are talking about the big boys.
 
Gerry Canning said:
I cannot but think that in many cases Rent Receivers are in place whilst the Lender studies his options.ie a short term fix for lender.

In short, the underlying problem has not been tackled.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point Gerry. No way is this making financial sense on one off properties in ballygo backwards.

You would think that after all these years of no movement that banks wouldn't need 'short term' fixes. Something else is wrong.

I had relations tell me shocked last weekend of visiting a housing estate and seeing 4 boarded up houses the and place starting to look really rough. The reality now if for the at estate that nobody can sell.

I've heard that owners are stripping out everything and selling it on done deal.
 
pat2 said:
. If keeping tenants in situ is what he see's fit well and good. He has quite a bit of time(unlimited I think) to deal with property and he would be mad to sell close to the bottom with rent coming in.
Click to expand...

This is not the reality of property management in Ireland. It might apply to big blocks of apartments in Dublin, but not anywhere else.

The minute a tenant hears of rent receivers they decide to leave or don't know who to pay rent to and start not paying anybody anything. Then begins the long long process of eviction.

I laugh when I hear of these rent receivers, they are going to deal with the tenants ringing up when they've locked themselves out because they were out on the town, or fixing the washing machine becase the tenant thinks it's a good idea to wash shoes in it.....
 
Bronte said:
You are way off, that's in a normal owner with an estate agent managing and all going well. What happens in involvency is vastly different.

I know a property rent about 500, rent receiver 1200 or so monthly, and he's not the guy going to do the renting that will be an estate agent.

So in essence if house eventually gets sold the bank will get paractially nothing.

I read an article recently about the New Land League/Jerry Beads. While I'm totally not a fan of his, I do agree that the banks are going to get peanuts after all the rest have been paid off.

Those top name people cost a lot of money. We are talking about the big boys.
Click to expand...

I haven't heard of this, it sounds truly bizarre to pay somebody 1200pm for a property with a rental income 500pm.
If you have examples I would recommend finding out who is on the finance committee and get the point raised next them the banks are in. Likewise, if it was the OA engaging in this it needs to be nipped in the bud.
 
Bronte said:
Who do you think are making the big bucks in the economic downturn?
Click to expand...

I don't know and won't speculate but I can assure you it's not me! :)

As I said, if you have proof of this you should bring it to a public represenatives attention. If this practice is happening at any of the banks that the state have invested in it should be stopped. There's no point in giving out about it in years to come when there's some inquiry if you have proof now. If a bank was so rotten at the bottom you can be assured they are rotten all the way up.
 
Bronte said:
I know a property rent about 500, rent receiver 1200 or so monthly, and he's not the guy going to do the renting that will be an estate agent.
Click to expand...
Can you clarify exactly what you mean here please? I'm confused as to who is getting €500 and who is getting €1200.
 
Sure Rainyday, figures are approx, but the rent was about 500 Euro, when tenants started getting 'legal' letters from rent receivers they decided to leave. The bank rent receiver's fee is 1200 Euro, but this does not involve them doing the actual renting. They seem to act as the banks agent. In turn an estate agent has to manage the property, they seem to organise the locksmith, the gas/water/esb connections, or disconnections and ultimately the tenant. There is an added mess in the fact that the deposit the tenant paid to the original landlord is not the obligation of the bank/receiver, so you can well see why a tenant would up sticks.

I think you are a landlord like myself, doing things this way would be insane.

There is no way to verify this, but it's not the only one I'm aware of. Ask maybe some of the posters on here, like Gerry, who handle bankrupt landlords to clarify if my understanding is way off.

I think the problem is we have 'banks' who don't know how to manage properties making silly decisons. Or else it's deliberate, as in nobody cares on maximising a return, it's all about 'managing' rather than taking an actual write down by selling the properties.
 
Bronte said:
Sure Rainyday, figures are approx, but the rent was about 500 Euro, when tenants started getting 'legal' letters from rent receivers they decided to leave. The bank rent receiver's fee is 1200 Euro, but this does not involve them doing the actual renting. They seem to act as the banks agent. In turn an estate agent has to manage the property, they seem to organise the locksmith, the gas/water/esb connections, or disconnections and ultimately the tenant. There is an added mess in the fact that the deposit the tenant paid to the original landlord is not the obligation of the bank/receiver, so you can well see why a tenant would up sticks.
Click to expand...
So just to be sure I'm understanding you, the rent is about €500 per month, and bank rent receivers fee is about €1200 per month?

Bronte said:
I think you are a landlord like myself, doing things this way would be insane.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top