Report on today's Cork repossession court

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,802
Séamus Coffey has another excellent report on the carry on in today's repossession court in Cork.

Here is a summary of the 96 cases. There was no repossession where the borrower showed up and contested it.

o the summary of the 95 cases is:
  • 9 couldn’t proceed because service hadn’t been completed
  • 10 orders for possession were granted
  • 8 cases were struck out
  • 58 cases were adjourned by the lenders
  • 10 cases were adjourned by the County Registrar

Last April, one couple got an adjournment although they had paid nothing at all since 2009. At today's hearing, the bank again sought a repossession order, but the couple sought and were granted an adjournment. The couple have paid €600 per month, although €1,100 is due. They have not engaged with the bank. They have arrears of €77k on a mortgage of €346k . They initially borrowed €317k in 2006. The Registrar adjourned it again.
 
Last edited:
That's a joke Brendan. There's no way anyone, in their wildest dreams, could think that mortgage is sustainable. Between these decisions and those of the criminal courts (guys given suspended sentences with 100 previous convictions) in dublin there can't be any faith in the judiciary.
 
These reports are really shocking.

At this stage, I think you would have to conclude that this approach is starting to seriously erode confidence in the administration of justice, never mind exacerbating the financial consequences of the property market crash.
 
Never mind not paying your next water charges bill because no one else seems to be, why bother paying your mortgage when you could play the system like this. You don't even have to really try hard, the Registrar will string it along forever and a day...just pay a few quid every now and then and be sure to show up for every 2nd or so court hearing.

How can the Registrars have such powers to be able to do this time and time again, nationwide
 

I have to disagree. People losing their homes to bankers who through greed and ignoring laws and guidelines (their own) created the circumstances leading to their customers' inability to repay their debts has nothing whatsoever to do with justice. It may have repercussions for the legal system but that has nothing got to do with justice either. PTSB anyone?

Note the word "homes" in my post, not "properties".
 
Sophrosyne said:
Almost 62% adjourned by the lenders. Did the article say why?
Click to expand...

Hi Sop

He hasn't given this analysis in his report which you can read in full here:
http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/2015/07/repossession-cases-adjourned-in-april_29.html

From my experience, the reasons for adjournments by the lender are as follows:

1) Practice Direction Adjournments - All cases must be adjourned on their first appearance by direction of the President of the Circuit Court
2) An alternative repayment arrangement has been entered into and they want to see how it goes - at the next sitting, the bank will either proceed or have it struck out
3) The borrower has made contact with the lender since the court date was set and they are now awaiting or assessing the SFS.
4) Paperwork not ready - waiting on a certificate of rateable valuation from the Valuation Office
5) Various others - the borrower has applied for a PIA; the case is affected by a High Court judgement and they are waiting for Counsel's opinion on how to proceed; etc.
 
Hi mathepac

The administration of justice refers to the process and structure which allows conflicts between parties to be settled by a body dedicated to that purpose. It is not a value judgment on lender practices or behaviour.

In my opinion, the continual adjournment of uncontested applications for possession orders is starting to erode confidence in the administration of our justice system. Bear in mind that in some cases, the property will actually have been abandoned and will not be available to provide accommodation for anybody.

I think you would also have to question whether the typical stays being granted on possession orders are appropriate. In one reported case, the borrower actually consented to the possession order and argued for the stay to be reduced from three months to one month!

I don't think anybody is suggesting that borrowers shouldn't be given sufficient time to try and negotiate an alternative sustainable arrangement with their lender. However, where this is not possible then surely it is in everybody's interest to bring matters to a conclusion without undue delay?

As regards your final comment, I would have thought that every occupied residential property is somebody's home, regardless of whose name is on the deeds.
 
Last edited:
Sarenco said:
I don't think anybody is suggesting that borrowers shouldn't be given sufficient time to try and negotiate an alternative sustainable arrangement with their lender.
Click to expand...

Banks unilaterally decide what's sustainable, which is unfair. The recent the passing by both the Dáil and Seanad Eireann of the Personal Insolvency (Amendment) Bill 2014 might help to redress this issue where a borrower seeks a PIA to make a mortgage sustainable. .
 

Of the 95 cases I only see potential " carry on " in 10 cases, the last 10 referred to above.
 

Hi demoivre

I don't think we should stray into a discussion on this thread on the adequacy or otherwise of the Central Bank's guidelines on sustainable mortgage solutions or the wisdom of the recent amendments to the personal insolvency legislation.

My issue is with the fact that we are seeing on-going reports of uncontested applications being adjourned repeatedly without any apparent justification. When a party to a dispute is in a position to proceed with an application, and no objection is raised by the other party, then surely the process should facilitate the hearing of that application without undue delay.
 

That happened on at most 10 occasions in the above sample, if at all. A cursory analysis of the Cork numbers show that of the 28 cases that the banks wanted to/could proceed with , they were granted possession orders in 10 cases ! I would be confident in saying that the 8 cases struck out were at the behest of the banks ! So in effect of the 20 cases that the banks wanted to/ could proceed with they succeeded in getting 10 possession orders.
 
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you arguing that there is an acceptable number of uncontested applications that could or should be adjourned in any given session?

I can't see any good reason why a Registrar would adjourn a hearing of any application where one party wants to proceed and the other party has not raised any objection to proceeding. What's to be gained by adjourning the hearing?

Whatever about adjourning hearing an uncontested application on one occasion what possible justification could there be for repeatedly adjourning such hearings?

Of the 10 possession orders that were granted, it's worth noting that the report suggests that none were contested and 5 of the properties were actually vacant with no mortgage payments being received since 2011.
 

Why these 10 cases and not the other 10 cases? Why couldn't the Banks get orders for possession granted in all 20 cases?
The story unfolding in the courts is that the registrars are extremely happy to uphold a Borrower's rights under a facility letter but aren't willing to uphold a Lender's rights without undue delays.
This isn't a lottery. If the Bank should've been allowed the 20 possession orders then they should've been given them.
By delaying them their rights, they are undermining the integrity of mortgage documents.
 

Where is the evidence of this ? None of the 10 adjournments in Cork were uncontested ( The banks didn't want to proceed with 58 cases so that's not the court or the borrower "carrying on" ). All I'm saying is that the notion that there is "carry on " in the courts or mass uncontested adjournments is not supported by the Cork numbers, at all !
 
Andy836 said:
Why these 10 cases and not the other 10 cases? Why couldn't the Banks get orders for possession granted in all 20 cases?
Click to expand...

Because orders weren't granted at this sitting doesn't mean they won't be granted at the next one!
 
I note in case 2 of the possession orders granted, that the borrower was granted a mortgage of almost 11 times his/her base salary.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register