So now the central bank are saying that if you are in a agreement with your lender that your loan should not be sold to a vulture fund
I think that Government along with (FF) are going to legislate that if your original lender allows ARA's including split/warehousing, reduced interest, interest only for a period, capitalisation of arrears etc., then the vulture fund must also offer the same arrangements.
I'm not aware of any pronouncement to that effect by the Central Bank. As you say, it would make no sense.Where are they saying that?
Here's a link to the FF private members bill. It doesn't contain any of the provisions that you have suggested.I think that Government along with (FF) are going to legislate that if your original lender allows ARA's including split/warehousing, reduced interest, interest only for a period, capitalisation of arrears etc., then the vulture fund must also offer the same arrangements
What guarantees? These are portfolios of loan agreements. If they have been modified, then the loan agreements as modified is what will transfer to the relevant funds.There are a number of reasons for this including that the defendant could argue that their guarantees under the contract were reduced because of the sale to the vulture fund.
So it's very odd to specifically call out farms
The Minister has simply requested the Central Bank to review the CCMA (which he described as "balanced and fair") - the Government hasn't requested the Central Bank to "beef up" anything.I think the Government is planning to beef up the CCMA.
The Supreme Court held that, when hearing a repossession case, a court can have regard for only one provision of the CCMA, namely the obligation on a borrower not to bring legal proceedings within the allowed moratorium period. It would be completely impractical for the Courts to form a view as to whether or not a lender had made every effort to agree an alternative payment arrangement.Presently, only a breach of the time moratorium on issuing legal proceedings by credit institutions is a defence to repossession
Hi Andy
I had not noticed that, but a reason might be that unlike other businesses, a farm is usually also the family home.
Brendan
Why would I want to do that? I was simply trying to explain why any Central Bank review of the CCMA could not, of itself, bring about the change that you originally suggested (I note that you subsequently amended your post).I know what Justice Peter Charlton said in the Supreme Court on this issue, but you can restate it for viewers if you wish.
Again, you're missing the point. If a loan agreement has been modified prior to its transfer then the transferee will acquire any interest in that loan agreement as modified. In other words, the issue is moot.I have to ask how would it be impractical for the Courts to form a view whether a vulture fund has offered the same restructuring arrangements as were available to the borrower by the original lender.
Sure but before you amended your post you were suggesting that the Central Bank review exercise could itself result in a situation where other elements of the Code could be considered by the Courts.If (when) portions of the CCMA are put on a statutory footing then of course they could.
It's really very simple - the fund steps into the shoes of the credit institution and enjoys exactly the same contractual rights and obligations as the credit institution.In relation to loan modification, if the modification is permanent without a review, then yes you are correct.
I've no doubt that's what you believe but we have already pointed out to you that the proposed legislation does not include provisions to that effect.I believe Government are trying to strengthen consumer protection so that borrowers will be treated relatively in the same manner whether they are with a fund or regulated credit institution.
Yes, I had noticed this. They also mention small businesses. It's probably just so they're not accused of ignoring the loans that were already sold by ACC / UB.In nearly all of the radio interviews they would not only reference home "owners" but they'd also comment on farmers.
Tell them to contact the CB again, because they were misinformed!The central bank was contacted on monday by a customer who has a tracker mortgage, the mortgage is now with a vulture fund. The customer is not receiving the correct interest rate. The customer was asked by the central bank phone agent, "is the fund regulated or unregulated" the customer replied " what difference does that make?" , the lady replied " if they are unregulated they can do what they want with your interest rate"!!!. Incredible from the keepers of our financial institutions
Pure speculation. Based on nothing more than your fevered imagination.CBI has no ability to legislate, however they do have the ability, if requested, to advise the legislature. This is what is happening. You will probably read about the proposed changes in legislation in due course.
Tell them to contact the CB again, because they were misinformed!
I'm assuming the servicer is regulated?
Sorry Ides but we have had to correct you on multiple occasions on this thread alone. You seem to think it's helpful to post inaccurate statements of fact or law. I don't think that's remotely helpful to anybody.Talking about speculation, I hope my posts are more informative than your incorrect and misconceived posts regarding Bank Of Ireland Staff Trackers where you stated, again and again, that these impacted cohorts would not get their tracker mortgages restored. You were wrong of course, because a lot happens behind the scene that you are obviously not aware of. This is Ireland.
Because the acquirer of a loan agreement has to observe the term of that loan agreement - including any interest rate provision contained in that agreement.How were they misinformed exactly?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?