Law Society slams 'onerous conditions' of BoI Life Loan - Irish Independent

The 'onerous' conditions that are referrred to is that :

1. The person has a will;
2. Has an executor.

In fact if this was my mother I would welcome those two conditions as it might mean the mother had advice even if she did not discuss it with the children. And by the way she is an independent person and is not obliged to discuss with the children, who would have a vested interest.

This is classic legal Law Society twaddle and nonsense. They ought to be asked to explain themselves as they have raised a spectacular non issue.


If they really had the customer at heart could they explain:

- How a certificate of title is only addressed to one lender when it could be good for all and reduce the spectacular cost of the greatest con job .. CONVEYANCING.
- Why they are dragging their feet on the 'automation' of conveyacing which is a 19th Century parctice with 21st Century pricing.

They address Certificates of Title to one lender for normal mortgages. Asky yourself why this cannot be used on another loan allowing for up to date searches and you will find yourself looking at a trough, which is being filled by buyers and extracted by Solicitors. The practice is quite unlike anywhere else in Europe.
 
The onerous conditions referred to are a little more significant than that.

First of all, the law as it stands is that a will operates only from death - i.e. you can change it as often as you want. When you name an executor in your will, you have no obligation to let them know of the fact. If you think that you might want to change your will and\or your executor in the future, you might prefer to keep it quiet for the moment. The Bank of Ireland requirement has the effect of requiring an old person to "nail their colours to the mast" in terms of notifying both the bank AND the executor of the executor's appointment (and the executor has to sign an undertaking to co-operate with the bank). There is no doubt in my mind that this is an un-necesssary intrusion into an old person's legitimate wish to keep their affairs private. For this reason alone, there are many situations in which I would recommend not using the BOI product.

Secondly, a Life Loan customer is required to give the details as to who will benefit under the will. This is potentially a far more serious issue. Of course, a person is still free to change their will, but the details notified to the Bank are now on record and may well be accessible after death ( a solicitor on the other hand will, if so instructed, destroy all record of an old will when a new one is made). So, a subtle pressure is now being exerted on the old person not to change their will, for fear of the agro it may cause in the future.

These are not small issues.

There are customers out there for whom these issues will not be important (for example an old widower with one child, that child being executor and sole beneficiary), but for many customers, these issues are important enough that no solicitor could do his\her job properly without raising these concerns.

However, by the time the customer comes in to their solicitor, they may already have been sold this product and the solicitor is left in the uncomfortable position of being the bearer of the bad news about the product drawbacks. (I like the Bank of Ireland line that they are not selling it - just giving it to people who ask for it. )
 
I think you seriously miss the point.

1. LifeLoan applicants are NOT asked to produce any will, merely confirm that they have one, and the name of the executor. The problem has more to do with the fact that the son or daughter actually do not have to be informed or asked by their parents. Maybe the Bank thought somebody else ought to know other than the Solicitor. The real issue is more likely that the Law Society potentially feels that the Solicitor is being put in a position of independently advising the client in what they might see as a delicate situation. If this is the case, how then are they able independently to advise a straight forward mortgage customer on the merits of a fixed or a floating rate? Maybe they should get out of conveyancing all together. Did they, for example ever explain what 'securitisation' or 'selling your mortgage' means. Golly on reflection maybe they do not understand any of this!

2. The new poor are in fact over 65 on a fixed state pension. The reality is that many of these people 'exist' as opposed to live. Examine how the means tests are conducted if you want to see what invasive really is.

3. The house is often in need of repair and they dont have money;
Many older people value the relationships they have with their family and do not want to move, even though this would mean no Life Loan at all.

4. Sons / daughters seem unaware of their parents situation.


If they have substantial other assets the Life Loan is not for them.

I note no adverse comments on the product that provides for a sale, that involves solicitors as well. This is a tremendously expensive product in relation to Life Loan. But there is not a word about this.

That sale of course does not the require confirmation that there is a will or knowledge of the executor, and has potentially significant 'cost' if the person dies in a relatively short term. And because it is not a loan IFSRA can do nothing about it. The Law Society is of course silent on this. So it cannot be the financial element.

Which means this is not about the customers interest at all but about some selective comments from some members of the Law Society ..with income such that they dont know what poverty is. Let them eat some cake. Financial distress for the elderly is surely a killer.

Better still ask the people who took the Life Loan out, it seems to have changed many of their lives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top