Boxer Moran's "Keeping People in their Homes Bill"

Discussion in 'Housing and mortgage arrears - policy issues' started by Brendan Burgess, Feb 26, 2017.

  1. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    32,823
    This hasn't received much coverage. It seems to be aimed at stopping repossessions. Here is the main content:


    KEEPING PEOPLE IN THEIR HOMES BILL 2017
    Bill entitled

    An Act to provide that adequate consideration be afforded to the principle of
    proportionality in the context of proceedings which are directed at the repossession of a mortgaged property in which the mortgagor ordinarily resides, and for that purpose to amend the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009; and to provide for related matters.


    2. The Principal Act is amended in Chapter 3 of Part 10 by substituting the following for
    section 96(3)—
    “(3) The provisions relating to the powers and rights conferred by this
    Chapter apply to any housing loan mortgage notwithstanding any
    stipulation to the contrary and notwithstanding any powers and rights
    expressly conferred under such a mortgage, but in relation to any other
    mortgage, except where section 97 applies, or except where this Part
    provides to the contrary, take effect subject to the terms of the
    mortgage.”.
    Substitution of section 97 of Principal Act
    3. The Principal Act is amended in Chapter 3 of Part 10 by substituting the following for
    section 97—
    “Taking possession
    97. (1) Subject to section 98, a mortgagee shall not take possession of the
    mortgaged property without a court order granted under this section,
    unless the mortgagor consents in writing to such taking not more than
    7 days prior to such taking.
    (2) A mortgagee may apply to the court for an order for possession of the

    mortgaged property and on such application the court may, if it thinks
    fit, order that possession be granted to the applicant on such terms and
    conditions, if any, as it thinks fit.
    (3) In granting, adjourning, varying, postponing, suspending or executing
    an order for possession of a mortgaged property in which the
    mortgagor ordinarily resides or attaching terms or conditions to such
    an order, the court shall have regard to all of the circumstances of the
    case, including the proportionality of the order or proposed order by
    reference to the considerations set out in subsections (4) and (5).
    (4) In considering the proportionality of an order or a proposed order
    under this section, the factors to be considered by the court shall
    include, without limitation, the following:
    (a) whether the order being sought pursues a legitimate aim;
    (b) whether the order being sought—
    (i) is justifiable by reference to a pressing social need, and
    (ii) is proportionate to the legitimate aim being pursued and is the
    least onerous means of achieving the legitimate aim, based on
    consideration of the following factors:
    (I) the amount of the principal paid by the mortgagor in relation
    to the total amount borrowed;
    (II) the amount of interest paid by the mortgagor in relation to
    the total amount owed;
    (III) the amount the mortgagor is able to pay on a monthly basis
    in relation to the amount sought by the mortgagee;
    (IV) the suitability or otherwise of the mortgage to rent scheme;
    (V) the suitability or otherwise of a lifetime mortgage;
    (VI) the suitability or otherwise of the sale of the existing loan to
    an approved housing body;
    (VII) the suitability or otherwise of a Personal Insolvency
    Arrangement;
    (VIII) whether the mortgagee has attempted to have the matter
    resolved by reference to mediation;
    (IX) the adherence to the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears;
    (X) obligations imposed on regulated lenders under European
    Union (Consumer Mortgage Credit Agreements)
    Regulations 2016 (S.I. No. 142 of 2016); and
    (XI) the application of the forbearance measures set out in
    guidance on non-performing loans published by the
    European Central Bank, including interest only payments,
    reduced payments, grace period/payment moratorium,

    arrears/interest capitalisation, long term interest rate
    reduction, extension of maturity/term, additional security,
    sale by agreement, rescheduled payments, other alterations
    of contract, new credit facilities, debt c0ns0lidation, partial
    or total debt forgiveness,
    (c) the likely impact of such an order on the human rights of the
    mortgagor and other household members by reference to the rights
    which they can expect to enjoy pursuant to the European
    Convention on Human Rights or the EU Charter of Fundamental
    Rights, including but not limited to consideration of the following
    factors:
    (i) the availability of suitable and affordable alternative
    accommodation that will allow the relevant family or household
    to continue to live together;
    (ii) where there are older persons, persons with disabilities, other
    vulnerable persons, or dependants in the household:
    (I) the extent to which such alternative accommodation will
    ensure their independence, social and occupational
    integration and participation in life of the community;
    (II) the extent to which care and support arrangements are in
    place for children and vulnerable members, and dependants
    in the household; and
    (III) evidence of an examination of the impact of relocation or
    repossession on such persons, including whether the best
    interests of any children have been prioritised;
    (iii) the extent to which an order under this section will affect the
    physical and mental health of all members of the household;
    (iv) the extent to which an order under this section will intrude into
    the personal sphere of the household, including the effect on the
    maintenance of relationships with others; and
    (v) the extent to which an order under this section will impact the
    future aspirations and opportunities of all members of the
    household,
    (d) examination of all of the circumstances surrounding the execution
    of the mortgage contract, including the level and extent of
    information provided, the position of the parties, legal advice given
    in relation to the mortgage contract, vulnerability of the consumer,
    the extent to which original lending decisions, made at the time of
    granting the mortgage application, were reasonable and
    responsible, and an evaluation of the application of—
    (i) any unfair terms and any appropriate adjustments, and
    (ii) Consumer Protection Codes of 2006 and 2012 (where
    applicable),

    (e) the extent and availability of State support to the enforcing entity in
    grants, tax relief on non-performing loans, subvention, Central
    Bank support, or other State supports; and
    (f) the estimated costs, per week, to the State of providing—
    (i) emergency accommodation and alternative housing to the
    household, and
    (ii) support services to the household from State resources per
    week.
    (5) Where the enforcing entity is not the credit institution which first
    granted the loan or mortgage to the mortgagor, in considering the
    proportionality of the order or a proposed order under this section, the
    factors to be considered by the court shall in addition to the factors
    provided for in subsection (4), also include, without limitation, the
    following:
    (a) the amount paid by the enforcing entity for the purchase of the loan
    or mortgage by reference to the amount of debt outstanding in
    respect of that loan or mortgage;
    (b) in circumstances where paragraph (a) applies, whether the loan or
    mortgage was also offered for sale at that reduced cost to the
    mortgagor;
    (c) the value of the loan or mortgage on the enforcing entity’s balance
    sheet, and the market value of the property at time of court hearing;
    (d) the availability of tax relief for the enforcing entity in relation to
    the relevant non-performing loan, or in respect of its nonperforming
    loans
    generally.
    (6) Subsections (3) to (5) apply—
    (a) to proceedings initiated after the coming into operation of
    subsections (3) to (5) which have been brought by a mortgagee
    seeking an order for possession of a mortgaged property in which
    the mortgagor ordinarily resides,
    (b) to proceedings initiated before the coming into operation of
    subsections (3) to (5) which have been brought by a mortgagee
    seeking an order for possession of a mortgaged property in which
    the mortgagor ordinarily resides, provided an order for
    repossession has not yet been granted by the court, and
    (c) to proceedings initiated before the coming into operation of
    subsections (3) to (5) which have been brought by a mortgagee
    seeking an order for possession of a mortgaged property in which
    the mortgagor ordinarily resides where an order for repossession
    has been granted but not yet executed and in relation to which a
    variation or suspension of the repossession order is now being
    sought.

    (7) In this section ‘household’ includes:
    (i) a household comprising a person who lives alone; or
    (ii) a household comprising two or more persons who have a
    reasonable requirement to live together, which includes family
    and shared homes,
    and ‘household members’ shall be construed accordingly.”.
     
  2. Seamus McKenna

    Seamus McKenna New Member

    Posts:
    1
    Many thanks for posting the draft of the Boxer Moran bill for keeping people in their homes. I was successful in having a letter published in the Indo recently entitled "Funds snapping up people's homes are parasites, not vultures", which I believe is relevant (Sorry I cannot link to it as I do not meet the minimum requirements of the forum) / SMcK
     
  3. Delboy

    Delboy Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    1,319
    What repossessions? There are practically none in this country, a few hundred a year max with half of them being voluntary!
    As Karl Deeter said on the radio last week, this bill will effectively turn Judges into Social Workers.
     
    Andy836 likes this.
  4. so-crates

    so-crates Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    1,674
    :rolleyes::rolleyes: - what a load of ... pandering to populists. If this is the way this country is going, no-one EXCEPT commercial enterprises will be able to get a mortgage.
     
    qwerty5 and cremeegg like this.
  5. Andy836

    Andy836 Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    250
    That.Is.Comical.

    When a contract is no longer a contract.........
     
    SirMille likes this.
  6. Vanessa

    Vanessa Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    120
    Maybe he should have run it by a constitutional lawyer first
     
    SirMille and so-crates like this.
  7. so-crates

    so-crates Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    1,674
    Or anyone with a solitary functional brain cell ...
     
  8. The Edge

    The Edge Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    39
    Did the architects of the water charges fiasco do as such?
     
  9. so-crates

    so-crates Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    1,674
    The architects of the water charges did actually consult with the AG on various matters and water charges are entirely constitutional (and sensible, sane, fair, logical and reasonable). The architects of the fiasco are the same populist tripe delivery unit that are currently up in court charged with a crime that isn't the one they list on their posters (It is 100% correct to state protest is not a crime - but that is not what they are charged with. If indeed anyone was to be charged with and convicted of protest we'd need rather more jail space to accommodate the hundreds of thousands of protesters that turn out on our streets over all sorts of issues on an annual basis). The pointless actions of the wastrel populists have done nothing but cost the country money, time and respect and all in pursuit of the daftest of "policies" such as ... no water charges.

    "Boxer" is another example of the waste of resources on populists. We are paying for that man and his wibbles.
     
    John Locke and losttheplot like this.
  10. The Edge

    The Edge Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    39
    Your view that water charges are 'sensible, sane, fair, logical, and reasonable' is entirely subjective - its just your own view, a personal opinion, no more or less valid than that of any other citizen.

    Please provide some objective evidence of your assertion that the water charges, in the manner proposed, were in compliance with Bunreacht na hEireann.
     
  11. Sarenco

    Sarenco Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    4,177
    Why would water charges be unconstitutional?o_O

    Even the most vocal critics of water charges never raised their constitutionality as an issue.
     
  12. losttheplot

    losttheplot Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    246
    I think you have to show objective evidence of the clauses water charges didn't comply with. I don't think there is any. So in the absence of evidence for not complying, you can conclude the opposite is true and they are compliant.
     
  13. Leo

    Leo Moderator

    Posts:
    8,346
    And no one was suggesting they were unconstitutional in the 70's prior to their abolition.
     
    Sarenco likes this.
  14. so-crates

    so-crates Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    1,674
    Ah that old chestnut.

    All opinions are created, not all opinions are created equal. Some are formed on the basis of reason, consideration and analysis... others are formed on the basis of "me no like".
    Nobody gets a particular thrill from paying a bill, so I wonder where the balance of logic has been applied...

    Do pray tell how your reading of the constitution is at variance from several governments and AGs, past and present? What beautiful nugget of 1930's DeValera wisdom supports your conjecture that water charges are unconstitutional? We are all on the edge of our seats :rolleyes:
     
  15. The Edge

    The Edge Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    39
    I doubt it.
     
  16. Leo

    Leo Moderator

    Posts:
    8,346
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
    The rights to free stuff in the constitution is limited to the likes of conscience, expression, peaceful assembly, and to vote.

    Where the water rabble derive their 'free water' for everyone (except the significant proportion of the population on private wells or group schemes, 'cause they don't care about those people) is from section 1 of Article 10 which vests 'All natural resources, including the air and all forms of potential energy' within the territory in the state'. Perhaps they don't understand what vesting means?

    They certainly either gave up reading before they reached, or can't have understood section 4 of Article 10 which explicitly says that the State is entitled under provision of law to sell or transfer ownership of these 'land, mines, minerals and waters'.

    So along with my free water, can I also get my free natural gas, wood, zinc, oh, and I'd love lots of potential energy too!!

    Really, if there was any jot of truth about the people having any right to natural resources, don't you think that would have been exercised to prevent the state handing over the Corrib gas field?
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
  17. trasneoir

    trasneoir Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    316
    "the extent to which an order under this section will impact the future aspirations and opportunities of all members of the household"
    What if my aspiration is to keep a property without paying for it?
     
  18. Delboy

    Delboy Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    1,319
    This was discussed on Sean O'Rourke show this AM. Boxer is now a Minister and was asked if he'd resign should the Govt not progress the bill.
    Boxer said it won't come to that as he expects it to be brought in and he hinted that Leo had given him that level of assurance.

    Dan O'Brien later warned against the bill. He pointed out that repossessions were practically non-existent. And that this has the potential to keep mortgage rates higher than the Euro average as well as keeping competition out.
    Mary Murphy, lecturer at NUI Maynooth, seemed to think higher rates was a small price that society had to pay to keep people in their homes. Especially as she expects a very large ramping up of repossessions over the next 2 years....she reiterated that point a few times!
     
  19. Andy836

    Andy836 Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    250
    So those who are paying their bills should pay higher bills than normal to cover people who won't/can't pay their bills............ Makes sense............... *shoot me*
     
    RedOnion likes this.
  20. cremeegg

    cremeegg Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    1,900
    I thought Dan O'Brien made the point that a more difficult repossession regime makes rates higher for everyone well. He seemed to largely miss making the point that the overall level of lending is surpassed due to the difficulty in repossessing. That is also contributing to homelessness.

    BofI recently bought a large mortgage book from a vulture fund, proven performing mortgages. From societies point of view that money would have been better given out in new lending. More houses, more employment.