Bankruptcies to be reduced to less than 3 years!

When you get discharged, the restrictions which apply during bankruptcy no longer apply. So, you can be a company director or secretary. You can borrow money and do not have to tell the lender you are bankrupt (since you aren't). You can acquire and retain assets - the OA will have no interest in them.
 
DebtCert said:
When you get discharged, the restrictions which apply during bankruptcy no longer apply. So, you can be a company director or secretary. You can borrow money and do not have to tell the lender you are bankrupt (since you aren't). You can acquire and retain assets - the OA will have no interest in them.
Click to expand...
Yes but if the payment order goes on for another 2 years that does affect your income. You are still restricted in those terms, the main terms that affect your average person. Also any inheritance in those two years following discharge are affected by the payment order. Your average person looking at bankruptcy now couldn't give a toss about being a company director.
 
'You can borrow money and do not have to tell the lender you are bankrupt (since you aren't). '

A record of your bankruptcy remains on the ICB for 6 years post discharge - which will probably result in a loan refusal. Even the credit unions now check the ICB before deciding on a loan greater than the amount one has in savings.
 
The Bill was presented yesterday, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Labour seem all for it, Fine Gael not so much. There is a provision to have reduce bankruptcy to 1 year, reduce IPOs to 3 years and have any principle residences in control of the OA returned to the bankrupt if the OA has not sold them within 3 years.
Any changes will be applied to bankrupts currently in the system, if they are bankrupt for a year or more they will be discharged 3 months after the legislation is enacted.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=28506&&CatID=59
 
pat2 said:
The Bill was presented yesterday, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Labour seem all for it, Fine Gael not so much. There is a provision to have reduce bankruptcy to 1 year, reduce IPOs to 3 years and have any principle residences in control of the OA returned to the bankrupt if the OA has not sold them within 3 years.
Any changes will be applied to bankrupts currently in the system, if they are bankrupt for a year or more they will be discharged 3 months after the legislation is enacted.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=28506&&CatID=59
Click to expand...

This is precisely the situation in the UK. If it is approved as it should be then there will be no need to move to the UK for bankruptcy. For the life of me I can't understand why this wasn't implemented from day one.
 
pat2 said:
have any principle residences in control of the OA returned to the bankrupt if the OA has not sold them within 3 years.
Click to expand...

How does this work in practice?

John goes bankrupt while jointly owning a family home with Mary which has positive equity of €100k.
OA tends to hang on to these and Mary tends to pay the mortgage.
OA will now insist on selling it.

This could benefit Mary if she is in a position to buy it.
If not, she will lose her home.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
How does this work in practice?

John goes bankrupt while jointly owning a family home with Mary which has positive equity of €100k.
OA tends to hang on to these and Mary tends to pay the mortgage.
OA will now insist on selling it.

This could benefit Mary if she is in a position to buy it.
If not, she will lose her home.

Brendan
Click to expand...

What could probably happen is that the OA will take a formal charge over the property for half the equity, not just then €50,000 equity attributable to the bankrupt. As and when it is sold, the OA would get half the equity at that time.
In the UK the non bankrupt generally has a year to deal with buying out the equity before the OR will decide to take action to possess.
 
Steve Thatcher said:
For the life of me I can't understand why this wasn't implemented from day one.
Click to expand...
I imagine the banks balance sheets could not sustain widespread bankruptcies at the time it was introduced, a slow bleed was probably more preferable. I'm sure these new proposals will meet significant resistance too.
 
http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...ed-in-row-over-bankruptcy-terms-31155477.html

I am amazed this issue isn't getting more coverage.
I have spoken to Willie Penrose on this and he is not for turning.
He is clearly furious with FG as when he introduced the bill last month he felt he had their backing.
The Government has now been forced to put back their mortgage package announcement for a few weeks as clearly Labour know if it is announced and the one year bankruptcy isn't included then it will die a slow death in Private Members lottery.
The Government are mustard keen to get these proposals out as an election boost so the delay means there is a massive row going on in Government.
Labour cannot be made look like fools here and they know it.
FG similarly cannot be made look like they are in bed with the banks (which is what Penrose is now cleverly alleging)
So for political reasons I think FG will grudgingly let it in.
 
Our Government appears hell-bent on selling AIB/Ptsb as soon as possible.
To reduce Bankruptcy would mean a lump of quickly realised losses on AIB/PTSB books.
Much better to stall and sell at a better price on the (hope) debts will get resolved in a slower time-frame.

We simply need more Bankruptcies/ Repossessions were necessary , this Phoney war has the appearance of (Protect the banks balances) and to hell with forcing conclusions.
 
From conversations i've had with other BTL investors, none of them will 'willingly' enter a 3 year bankruptcy / 8 year payment order situation.

Why go bankrupt now, voluntarily? Much better to being forced by the banks at their expense and time - the ultimate outcome being pushed out ad infinitum?
 
Silvio Dante said:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...ed-in-row-over-bankruptcy-terms-31155477.html

I am amazed this issue isn't getting more coverage.
I have spoken to Willie Penrose on this and he is not for turning.
He is clearly furious with FG as when he introduced the bill last month he felt he had their backing.
The Government has now been forced to put back their mortgage package announcement for a few weeks as clearly Labour know if it is announced and the one year bankruptcy isn't included then it will die a slow death in Private Members lottery.
The Government are mustard keen to get these proposals out as an election boost so the delay means there is a massive row going on in Government.
Labour cannot be made look like fools here and they know it.
FG similarly cannot be made look like they are in bed with the banks (which is what Penrose is now cleverly alleging)
So for political reasons I think FG will grudgingly let it in.
Click to expand...

Their language seems to me to suggest that FG see the term as having and requiring a punitive element.

Surely an economic benefit is to return citizens to normal functioning spenders. I think linking it to the mortgage arrears problem was a mistake, it gave FG a stick to hit it with. I believe most people who need bankruptcy accept that losing your house is very likely.
 
I've no evidence; just surmising from all I've read - that the banks are loathe to crystallise loans in negative equity..

Better that some regular payments are made (however small by debtor) in the hope that in time, assets appreciate to wipe out negative equity..

I just don't see the 'financial' sense in banks chasing, berating, initiating legal proceedings to someone like me for extra payments - other - then to fulfill some central bank / political diktats foisted upon them due to Gov. shareholding in same..

The reality for banks is this -

A) negotiate best they can with debtor and bide their time till neg. equity is gone, then swoop in and take assets AND petition bankruptcy on debtor.

OR

B) initiate legal proceedings, call in receivers, reposess, crystallise losses AND after all tgat expense and loss - petition bankruptcy on debtor.

Surely A) is what the banks really want?
 
Personally, I've had about 4 years of serious stress in worrying about NE /arrears and banks who would not negotiate any realistic solution with me, I'm under the impression they just want to draw the whole thing out indefinitely with me, that's really great for your mental health.
I've had so many sleepless nights over the last few years , I'm sick of it, they can have my house and if it must be 3 years of bankruptcy to appease fine gael so be it, but i wont ever be voting for them or FF again.

In Bankruptcy people likely loose everything, that's if they have anything left to loose, why on earth punish them for any longer than necessary.
 
I am getting vexed over this whole arrears/mortgage/bankruptcy mess.

Had an arrears customer gone down for Manslaughter they could be out in 4 years! yet michaelg has 4 years so far!

Maybe it is now time for those in his position to stop paying anything , await court and explain their attempts to resolve matters to the Judge.
I have a sneaking doubt that Banks are not really in a resolution mode , more a waiting mode ,in that values will increase and woe betide the poor saps that staggered on and paid a little. I have little doubt that those who paid as best they could will eventually not only lose the house but will be treated no better than the leg lifters.

michaelg.
Bankruptcy gives closure and you MUST be allowed reasonable living expenses.
From what I see of reasonable living expenses your position would improve.
 
It is to my mind hugely significant that such a senior figure as Brendan Howlin has said there is no turning back for Labour on this issue and I am far more confident than a few days ago that FG will have to yield on this.
Look, if the whip wasn't in force on this it would pass a Dail vote with 80% in favour, FG know this and that is why those in FG who are most opposed wont even put their names to it simply using "government source" cop out.

michaelg's point on FG "source" essentially saying bankrupts needed to be punished for at least 3 years is very revealing of a still appalling mindset in Ireland.
It is due to how we were educated and influenced by church (I'm not anti church btw) so bankruptcy (just like a range of other issues) must be accompanied by shame, guilt, remorse and most importantly penance.
Rubbish and whatever "source" within FG who has this mindset is lacking any sort of rounded intellect.
Bankruptcy is about reaching a fork in the road where there is no other solution but to surrender whatever remaining assets you have, give them to your creditors and then get back up and start again from scratch asap and not wallow in limbo for years after your assets have been distributed.
There should be no element to it after this that one should go sit in the corner with a dunce's hat for 3,5 12 years.
 
Silvio Dante said:
It is to my mind hugely significant that such a senior figure as Brendan Howlin has said there is no turning back for Labour on this issue and I am far more confident than a few days ago that FG will have to yield on this.
Look, if the whip wasn't in force on this it would pass a Dail vote with 80% in favour, FG know this and that is why those in FG who are most opposed wont even put their names to it simply using "government source" cop out.

michaelg's point on FG "source" essentially saying bankrupts needed to be punished for at least 3 years is very revealing of a still appalling mindset in Ireland.
It is due to how we were educated and influenced by church (I'm not anti church btw) so bankruptcy (just like a range of other issues) must be accompanied by shame, guilt, remorse and most importantly penance.
Rubbish and whatever "source" within FG who has this mindset is lacking any sort of rounded intellect.
Bankruptcy is about reaching a fork in the road where there is no other solution but to surrender whatever remaining assets you have, give them to your creditors and then get back up and start again from scratch asap and not wallow in limbo for years after your assets have been distributed.
There should be no element to it after this that one should go sit in the corner with a dunce's hat for 3,5 12 years.
Click to expand...
I agree. As a bankrupt I have given everything I have of value i.e. The house. So that I can resume my, my wife's and most importantly my children's lives. Why take everything of value and keep taking for 5 years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top