High Court upholds complainants' appeal against Ombudsman

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...c-s-failure-to-return-mortgage-deed-1.1382055

The couple borrowed €55,000 in 1997 secured on their home.

They repaid the loan in 2007, but ACC refused to hand back the deeds because "the deed of charge covered not only present but future advances due by the Havertys “either in their own names or as guarantors for another party”.

The ombudsman, noting that Mr Haverty currently owes €1.3 million to ACC, said he was satisfied that money was due and owing on the deed of charge. The Havertys appealed the ruling to the High Court.

Mr Justice Kearns said the matter should be reconsidered on the ground that the ombudsman had failed to have regard for provisions of the 1976 Family Home Protection Act.

IMO, this is a very important direction issued by the High Court. This really places importance on the rights of borrowers, especially in the case specified, the loans where the charge on the property was used, had been repaid.

The interesting issue is where in the case mentioned, there is no mention of where the costs of the case were to be borne. Basically did the Ombudsman have to pick up the tab for the High Court hearing ??

The Ombudsman lost so they pay.

Brendan Burgess said:

Mr Justice Kearns said the matter should be reconsidered on the ground that the ombudsman had failed to have regard for provisions of the 1976 Family Home Protection Act.

Click to expand...

I don't understand this story and what the Judge is saying in relation to the family home protection act.

It's actually interesting for me as I've repaid a mortgage on one property, not a family home, and I've other borrowings with the same bank. I didn't yet apply for the deeds back as I thought they were just as safe there as anywhere, but maybe I'll apply for them back now and see if there is any problem getting them back.

Bronte said:

It's actually interesting for me as I've repaid a mortgage on one property, not a family home, and I've other borrowings with the same bank. I didn't yet apply for the deeds back as I thought they were just as safe there as anywhere, but maybe I'll apply for them back now and see if there is any problem getting them back.

Click to expand...

Banks are not that keen in releasing security back to borrowers, whether there are borrowings against them or not. In the main there is little notice taken if there are borrowings against a particular property or not.

I tried, in the past to have a charge against a property released, but the Bank have refused even though there was never any borrowings on the property from the said Bank. Other assets of greater value were offered but the Bank said No, even though any other borrowings I have are in my own name with a PG.

So I will try again this week.

Bronte said:

I don't understand this story and what the Judge is saying in relation to the family home protection act.

Click to expand...

I found it difficult to understand as well. I presume that the judgement will eventually be published on the Courts site.

My understanding is that the later borrowings were in Mr Haverty's name only and that Mrs Haverty had not given the bank permission to secure these later borrowings against the family home. Under the 1976 act both spouses have to give permission to secure any borrowings against the family home regardless of whether both names are on the deeds.

If Mrs Haverty had nothing to do with the later borrowings then it would go against the act to have them secured on her family home without her express permission.

Hi Mrs V

That makes eminent sense. If this is a clear matter of law, why did it even get to the Ombudsman?

It's very odd.

Brendan

Mr H wanted to save legal costs by having the complaint adjudicated by the Ombudsman?

Yes indeed Banks are very reluctant to release the deeds back to the borrower when a mortgage is cleared. We applied for the return of our deeds (on a rental property) immediately the mortgage was cleared. They huffed and puffed and it took over a year to get them but I was not for turning.