Does the Central Bank have any power over Tanager?

I

IdesofMarch

Registered User
Messages
278
I would say the CBI made Tanager withdraw all legal proceedings until this matter has been cleared up and the appropriate adjustments have been made to their systems and processes going forward.
 
llgon said:
I don't think the CBI would have the power to do that, more likely Tanager think that the proceedings will be unsuccessful.
Click to expand...

IIgon,

You forgot the other part of the sentence, until appropriate adjustments have been made to their systems and processes. The same announcement will be made by Mars Capital and others! The CBI can have a persuasive effect on lenders, particularly when the lender are seeking to rely on arrears in possession cases when those same arrears have already been automatically capitalised.
 
IdesofMarch said:
IIgon,

You forgot the other part of the sentence
Click to expand...

No, I didn't forget it. The CBI don't have the power to make Tanager drop legal proceedings, as far as I know. It doesn't matter what the other part of the sentence is.
 
llgon said:
No, I didn't forget it. The CBI don't have the power to make Tanager drop legal proceedings, as far as I know. It doesn't matter what the other part of the sentence is.
Click to expand...

Your wrong, they do. In the past they used the supervisory enforcement powers to stop PTSB appealling a tracker mortgage case to the Supreme Court, but I am not here to quibble with you on this matter. Tanager probably also looked at the Bank of Scotland v Rea case and said it was a precedent that can be applied to the Irish Courts, as the issues at hand are identical.
 
Well if I'm wrong I won't quibble either. It's just that I had a belief that everyone was entitled to recourse to the courts.
 
llgon said:
Well if I'm wrong I won't quibble either. It's just that I had a belief that everyone was entitled to recourse to the courts.
Click to expand...
You're not wrong.

The Central Bank doesn't regulate Tanager and, yes, we all have a constitutional right to access the Courts.
 
Sarenco,

The Central Bank of Ireland indirectly regulates Tanager DAC through regulating Lapithus, the master credit servicing firm for Tanager. You know this. That is why the Oireachtas specifically enacted the Consumer Protection (Regulation of Credit Servicing Firms) Act 2015 with much fanfare.

Everyone does have a constitutional right to access to the courts. The problem in this septic Isle is that the cost of this right is prohibitive for the average Joe (more to follow on this, Abhaile's 500 euro voucher does not cut the mustard). In relation to Tanager, they appear to have unilaterally decided to drop proceedings against borrowers in arrears, maybe they realised there is no point in suing a person when you know you are going to lose or maybe their conscience plagued them and they had a change of heart, I will let viewers decide on that! The question that begs to be asked is, can a firm seek to rely on the same arrears in bringing possession proceedings that they have already capitalised. The simple answer, no they cannot.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Ides but you said the Central Bank had the power to force Tanager to drop legal proceedings. That is simply untrue.

The Central Bank doesn't even regulate Tanager. The fact that the Central Bank regulates a service provider to Tanager is besides the point.

You may well be right that Tanager has decided to drop proceedings because they have realised that there is a weakness with their position that they need to regularise. I've no idea but I very much doubt that their "conscience" has anything to do with it.

But Tanager is definitely not acting on foot of an enforceable direction from the Central Bank, which was your original contention.
 
Yawn, you need to look up section 34G of the Central Bank Act 1997. Tanager are indirectly regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland.
 
I am very familiar with the legislative amendments that were introduced to regulate credit servicing firms. For what it's worth, there is no such thing as the "indirect regulation" of a serviced firm.

In any event, the Central Bank does not have the legislative power to instruct any firm, whether regulated by the Central Bank or otherwise, to drop legal proceedings against anybody.

Nor could there be such a legislative power without a constitutional referendum.

Sorry Ides - you are just plain wrong on this one.
 
Sarenco said:
I am very familiar with the legislative amendments that were introduced to regulate credit servicing firms. For what it's worth, there is no such thing as the "indirect regulation" of a serviced firm.

In any event, the Central Bank does not have the legislative power to instruct any firm, whether regulated by the Central Bank or otherwise, to drop legal proceedings against anybody.

Nor could there be such a legislative power without a constitutional referendum.

Sorry Ides - you are just plain wrong on this one.
Click to expand...

You are completely right there is no such thing as "indirect regulation" of a serviced firm, they are directly regulated through the Consumer Protection (Regulation of Credit Servicing Firms) Act 2005 as previously mentioned.

In relation to Venture (Vulture) Funds they are indirectly regulated by the enactment of section 34G of the Central Bank Act 1997 and that provision was specifically included in the legislation for that purpose and that sole purpose alone.

If I was a director of Tanager DAC and the CBI approached me through Lapithus and said a breach of any of it's codes is a prescribed contravention under this Act and that if convicted on indictment for such a breach, may lead to a 250,000 Euro fine and/or 5 years imprisonment, I would pay sit up and pay close attention to what they had to say. Would automatic capitalisation of arrears and then relying on these same arrears to bring possession proceedings by a retail credit firm be allowed by the CBI. I think not. Would it be a prescribed contravention? I think so.

Sarenco, it is you that are wrong, not I.
 
Sorry Ides but Tanager is not a regulated firm. End of.

As such, Tanager is not subject to any Central Bank Codes.

Regardless, can you point me to any provision that empowers the Central Bank to direct anybody to drop legal proceedings against anybody else?

You can't because such a power doesn't exist. It would be unconstitutional.

You said the Central Bank had this power. They don't.

Sorry Ides but on this point you are most definitely wrong.

If you can't admit that to yourself that's your issue - not mine.
 
It is an offence for a person who holds the legal title to credit granted under a credit agreement (in this case, Tanager DAC) to instruct a credit servicing firm to take or fail to take an action, if it would be a prescribed contravention for a retail credit firm to take or fail to take that action. A prescribed contravention includes a contravention of the Codes.

Wrong yet again Sarenco, in this case Tanager DAC is subject to these codes as it gave Lapithus instruction. I have to go to bed now, up early and all that and do not wish to get into a useless, fruitless squabble with you.
 
Sorry Ides - I know what the law says.

Again, you said Tanager is subject to the Central Bank's Codes. It's not.

More to to point, you said the Central Bank had the power to direct Tanager to drop legal proceedings. They don't.

Your original assertion was wrong. End of.
 
Obviously, you don't, same goes for your " legal opinion" on whether Bank of Ireland staff should get their tracker mortgages reinstated, after examining the issue in detail and presented with the evidence on that thread, you said they would not, but yet they did, funny that.

I will not be posting anymore posts to this thread, it would be a fruitless and pointless exercise.
 
In fairness to Sarenco, he held his hands up on that unrelated thread and has said he was wrong. He posts a lot of useful information and opinions on the site and is able to accept he won't get it right every time.

IdesofMarch said:
I will not be posting anymore posts to this thread, it would be a fruitless and pointless exercise.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Just on BOI, I never actually expressed an opinion that BOI staffers should or should not get their trackers reinstated. I just couldn't see a contractual right to revert to a tracker.

I was certainly wrong - and I freely admitted that I was wrong - when I suggested that the new Governor would be very unlikely to agree that staffers should be allowed to revert to trackers if she had advice they had no contractual entitlement to revert to trackers.

However, I couldn't have anticipated that the Central Bank was going to challenge cases where there was no contractual entitlement to revert to a tracker but that customers nevertheless had an expectation (presumably determined by the Central Bank) that they would revert to a tracker.

It seems that staffers that drew down on a discounted staff fixed rate but similarly expected to roll to a tracker rate are being treated differently, which seems arbitrary to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top