A professional needs to keep a house befitting his/her professional status?: liveline

G

gaius

Registered User
Messages
48
From Liveline.
It's at 1hr 21min 50secs

As said above, a professional (and he specifically mentions a solicitor) should be allowed keep a palatial house as this befits his/her standing in society and sends out the signal to neighbours and clients about who they are, thus allowing them to continue to earn a living.
They need a bigger house than a PAYE worker.
"Really?" said Mary Wilson, "even if they are insolvent?".
Yes said the speaker...the bigger house is in line with their standing in society and he will argue this point with the insolvency board as being a totally legitimate viewpoint.

Is this the level of public discourse we can expect on the matter?
 
Gaius;
I hope not. That said , to EVEN suggest that someones standing in society should impact on a {palatial} house proves how in this Financial Tsunami the old pals social network still believe they are {entitled} .
And worse he may get away with it !
 
[broken link removed]
 
So those of us that borrowed sensibly and are now living in modest houses with expanding families and negative equity should keep working hard to keep certain people in the style to which they have become accustomed.
 
As it is impossible to talk about all of the complexities of personal bankruptcy in a 10 minute radio interview it is inevitable that misunderstandings can arise, and that statements can be taken out of context.

I believe it is clear to many people that the vast majority of people are passionate about retaining their family home: whether it is a trophy house or a one bedroom apartment. For some people, the word "passion" would not be an adequate description of their feelings! The first comment that many insolvent debtors make to us when they meet with us initially is that "we must keep the family home." The depth of the feeling behind that comment is generally the same whether it is expressed by a person who lives in a "trophy" house or a person who lives in a one bedroom apartment.

The commercial reality is that mortgage affordability is dependent on income, and so it follows that the more income you earn, the bigger mortgage you can afford, and therefore a bigger house.

Personal Insolvency Practitioners are obliged to comply with the Personal Insolvency Act 2012. Section 104 of the Act states that a PIP shall "insofar as reasonably practicable" formulate a proposal that does not require the debtor to vacate his family home. In formulating such a proposal, the PIP shall consider factors such as the cost of the house, the debtors income etc.

Whether a debtor gets to retain his family home is wholly dependent on the creditors. The same rules apply to trophy houses as they do to one bedroom apartments.

The commercial reality is that some debtors will generate enough income to retain their home, whether it is a trophy home or a one bedroom apartment. The law is the same for all types of houses.

In some cases, the banks will obtain a better recovery of their monies if they allow a debtor to retain their home, whether it is trophy home or a one bedroom apartment. However, in other cases it will simply not be possible for some people to retain their homes, trophy or not.

In conclusion, the law treats all insolvent debtors equally.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry Jim - here is what you said
.

So all other things being equal, you are saying that a mere PAYE worker may lose his home, while his "superior" accountant (or similar) neighbour should be allowed to keep his, by virtue of his social clas
 
I'm sick and I need to see a Consultant.
Is there a list of Consultant Urologists that sorts them by the size of their house?
Obviously by your reasoning here, the bigger house they have, the better they are at their job.
I really wouldn't want one that lives in an apartment he/she would be terrible
 
while his "superior" accountant (or similar) neighbour should be allowed to keep his
Click to expand...
I got the impression from the now famous interview that a PAYE person shouldn't be a neighbour to the accountant in the first place.

It's be fine if the people listening to these plans were likely to laugh at this snobbery, but unfortunately they're likely to be sympathetic 'faintly dim former rugby playing' bankers.
 
That would be indeed a very extreme interpretation of the legislation and I would love to hear about real life examples where creditors have bowed to that interpretation. I dont think its going to happen folks.
I'm really surprised that Jim Stafford came out with that.

The legislation also clearly specifies that other things need to be taken into account when determining if the debtor can retain their home and I quote the legislation as follows :
"the reasonable living accomodation needs of the debtor and his or her dependants and having regards to those needs the costs of alternative accomodation (including the costs which would necessarily be incurred in obtaining such accomodation)"

My interpretation of the legislation is that the debtor should be facilitated in remaining in their PPR as long as the cost of remaining living in the PPR is reasonable in light of the debtors living accomodation needs and as long as the cost of remaining living there is reasonable when compared with alternative living accomodation which might also be considered reasonable to meet the needs

If the debtor is living in a trophy house whose living accomodation needs could reasonably be met by moving to an alternative accomodation that is worth 20% of the former, then my expectation is that the debtor will come under pressure to move.

I dont believe there is anything in this legislation that indicates or hints that certain types of people need to be "preserved" in the status quo to protect their place in society. Anyone making this type of reference is doing so subjectively as there is nothing in the law to back it up. I dont believe that the banks will be pandering to this type of rhetoric either
 
Yes he made a reference that his clients are insisting on staying in their trophy homes and this may be where this comment stems from.

A PIP is a facilitator / negotiator between an individual and lender. The PIP needs to be fair impartial and balanced to both parties in the negotiation.

Where the argument really collapsed for me was when he tried to make a point that the trophy house was necessary to give the impression of a successful "good" professional which in turn would generate more business which would mean that the Debtor would have more money to repay his creditors..............I mean, talk about smoke and mirrors. He also indicated that the trophy house might be considered as part of the "tools of trade" at which point I almost fell off the chair.
 
If he'd said, they needed a larger house because they were running a business from there or had an expensive and specific office set up that would be difficult to transfer, I'd understand, but simply a big house to impress clients... sounds ... quaint. Besides, having their name listed publicly as insolvent surely undermines any impression given by the big house!
 
Last edited:
As a Personal Insolvency Practitioner, I would just like to say that Jim Stafford's views on trophy houses for professionals is not the same as mine or of other PIPs that I am in contact with.

I would very much welcome Jim Stafford's clarification on this issue. I can only assume that it was a slip up from someone not so familiar with live radio.
 

LOL that's no slip up.


I'm a private self employed individual - but not a "professional". I aspire to owning a nice house, but I still think there's not much value out there. Thanks to the likes of Jim Stafford looking after "people like us" there never will be. And to think
Jim has been a member of the Chartered Accountants Ireland Ethics Committee for the past ten years, being the sole representative of Insolvency Practitioners.
Click to expand...

Jim you really need to examine the true meaning of "ethics" - because if you cannot understand the simple concept of fairness then I have doubts I am unable to express on this forum
 
He's tried to explain himself on live line and apparently regrets his clumsy use of words.Im afraid that doesnt cover it. He wouldnt have said it if he didnt believe it.

On the program yesterday evening, the presenter gave him an opportunity to retract the statement but he ploughed on.
 

Just out of interst, does the Act or PIP guidelines (I assume these exist?) make it explicit factors other than cost of house and debtors income? What's covered by that "etc." in the quote above? In particular, the debtor's "professional status"? It seems inconceivable to me that anything like that would be included, which begs the question: is this a common interpretation and will it be applied in practice?
 
When I visit my doctor or solicitor I don't see their houses only the office where they work--they shouldn't keep trophy houses if they can't afford them.
 
(as seen on another forum)

I reckon it's quite disingenuous of Jim to gloss over subsection (2) of part 104 of the law he cites , specifically "the reasonable living accommodation needs of the debtor and his or her dependants and having regard to those needs the cost of alternative accommodation (including the costs which would necessarily be incurred in obtaining such accommodation"

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/act/pub/0044/sec0104.html#sec104

Jim Stafford, would you care to respond?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register