Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,774
I was in the Registrar's Court in Dublin today, and here is what happened in the Tanager cases
Case 23 CO'S
Tanager's barrister sought an adjournment to the 14th June. The borrower sought a much longer adjournment.
The borrower said that she had tried to engage with Tanager but that they were not engaging with her.
Tanager's barrister was very robust saying that his story was completely at odds with the borrower.
She had submitted a single page SFS.
Tanager were engaging - she had a meeting which was attended by staff from Lapithus and Tanager.
The borrower had complained to the FSO and the lenders had engaged in mediation, but it came to nothing. It was now going to adjudication. The Registrar asked how long that would take and the borrower told her that she had told the FSO that it was a priority, but got no indication of time. (The of the complaint was not discussed.)
The borrower said that she could not get a deal from Tanager.
The Registrar was not impressed with the borrower and told her that it was wrong to claim that they were not engaging, when she meant that she had proposed a deal which was not acceptable to Tanager.
Furthermore, the borrower had appointed a solicitor who had not gone on record.
Case 27 DW and NMcA
The barrister sought a lengthy adjournment as this was covered by the Ralph Kane case. It was adjourned to the 4th October.
NMcA objected saying that she had not lived in the house since 2010 and consented to an order being granted. She wanted this over with.
The barrister for Tanager said that there was no point in granting an order in the circumstances.
Case 28 MF & LF
The barrister sought a lengthy adjournment as this was affected by the Kane case and because Tanager had offered a discount to the borrowers to pay off their mortgage, and they had indicated that they would avail of it.
Case 41 LMcC
Adjourned to 10 May as it was the first time in court.
Case 49 CD and RD
Case 50 SB and SMcC
In both these cases, the barrister sought a New Return Date because they had not served the papers. In neither case could he explain why they had not served the papers. The Registrar said that this was not acceptable and while she gave an adjournment to 10th May, she would not grant a NRD
There was no discussion of the issue of Tanager calculating the arrears incorrectly
No borrower raised it. And Tanager did not seek any adjournments to amend the affidavits to show the right arrears figures.
I was told afterwards, that an order was granted against a Tanager borrower a couple of weeks ago.
He showed up in court. Tanager had recalculated his arrears at €70k down from €130k.
He had paid nothing for some years.
Lessons learned
Don't assume that just because Tanager has been calculating your arrears incorrectly that your case will not be proceeded with.
Show up in court.
Continue paying your mortgage as much as you can.
Case 23 CO'S
Tanager's barrister sought an adjournment to the 14th June. The borrower sought a much longer adjournment.
The borrower said that she had tried to engage with Tanager but that they were not engaging with her.
Tanager's barrister was very robust saying that his story was completely at odds with the borrower.
She had submitted a single page SFS.
Tanager were engaging - she had a meeting which was attended by staff from Lapithus and Tanager.
The borrower had complained to the FSO and the lenders had engaged in mediation, but it came to nothing. It was now going to adjudication. The Registrar asked how long that would take and the borrower told her that she had told the FSO that it was a priority, but got no indication of time. (The of the complaint was not discussed.)
The borrower said that she could not get a deal from Tanager.
The Registrar was not impressed with the borrower and told her that it was wrong to claim that they were not engaging, when she meant that she had proposed a deal which was not acceptable to Tanager.
Furthermore, the borrower had appointed a solicitor who had not gone on record.
Case 27 DW and NMcA
The barrister sought a lengthy adjournment as this was covered by the Ralph Kane case. It was adjourned to the 4th October.
NMcA objected saying that she had not lived in the house since 2010 and consented to an order being granted. She wanted this over with.
The barrister for Tanager said that there was no point in granting an order in the circumstances.
Case 28 MF & LF
The barrister sought a lengthy adjournment as this was affected by the Kane case and because Tanager had offered a discount to the borrowers to pay off their mortgage, and they had indicated that they would avail of it.
Case 41 LMcC
Adjourned to 10 May as it was the first time in court.
Case 49 CD and RD
Case 50 SB and SMcC
In both these cases, the barrister sought a New Return Date because they had not served the papers. In neither case could he explain why they had not served the papers. The Registrar said that this was not acceptable and while she gave an adjournment to 10th May, she would not grant a NRD
There was no discussion of the issue of Tanager calculating the arrears incorrectly
No borrower raised it. And Tanager did not seek any adjournments to amend the affidavits to show the right arrears figures.
I was told afterwards, that an order was granted against a Tanager borrower a couple of weeks ago.
He showed up in court. Tanager had recalculated his arrears at €70k down from €130k.
He had paid nothing for some years.
Lessons learned
Don't assume that just because Tanager has been calculating your arrears incorrectly that your case will not be proceeded with.
Show up in court.
Continue paying your mortgage as much as you can.