gnf_ireland
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,441
The McNamara case has got me thinking over the last 2 days. In this scenario, the PIP agreed allowed them to remain in their house, valued at 550k. They will repay the mortgage on 520k at very favourable terms, and the remaining 30k shelved.
However, this is quite a large house, currently 435 square meters (according to the below report) and it also appears to have extensive grounds, although some are being sold as part of the arrangement.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-ne...had-been-planned-to-store-music-38431882.html
But it does raise the question, in a PIP arrangement, what is a reasonable house to be allowed (or expected) to remain in? The McNamara's had nearly 3m of debt written off, and yet are allowed to remain in a pretty large house, on very favourable terms. Terms which I am unable to get if I go into the bank today. In effect it is being subsidised by others, including ourselves.
I understand they have 4 children, but they are between their late teens and mid 20's. Its likely they have already moved out, or will be doing so soon.
Would it not have made a lot more sense for the PIP arrangement to downsize to a house for half the cost (and size), and have a mortgage finishing at a reasonable age, rather than their late 70's. I fully expect this to be back in the courts within the next decade !
The bigger question is - are there guidelines on the size of the house a people in a PIP arrangement can keep, or the value of the house they can keep? If not, should there be ? My view yes !
However, this is quite a large house, currently 435 square meters (according to the below report) and it also appears to have extensive grounds, although some are being sold as part of the arrangement.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-ne...had-been-planned-to-store-music-38431882.html
But it does raise the question, in a PIP arrangement, what is a reasonable house to be allowed (or expected) to remain in? The McNamara's had nearly 3m of debt written off, and yet are allowed to remain in a pretty large house, on very favourable terms. Terms which I am unable to get if I go into the bank today. In effect it is being subsidised by others, including ourselves.
I understand they have 4 children, but they are between their late teens and mid 20's. Its likely they have already moved out, or will be doing so soon.
Would it not have made a lot more sense for the PIP arrangement to downsize to a house for half the cost (and size), and have a mortgage finishing at a reasonable age, rather than their late 70's. I fully expect this to be back in the courts within the next decade !
The bigger question is - are there guidelines on the size of the house a people in a PIP arrangement can keep, or the value of the house they can keep? If not, should there be ? My view yes !