The amount of compensation is a disgrace!

Bronte

Frequent Poster
Messages
13,681
Yes I agree the compensation needs to be higher. BUT, it is Irish taxpayers and the other bank customers who will pay for it. 50K would not compensate for losing a house. 3K would not compensate for the financial stress on a family nor would it make up for all those years.

Insulting posters or assuming things about them when they are well known on here for giving good advice, just because you perceive a bias that does not exist, is no help on here. We accept all views.

You have no idea what I have or haven't read. And by the way, my previous posts on bankers were fairly testy. Just dont' have the energy as I now know nothing will ever change and bankers will always win. Socialising losses and capitalising gains.
 
D

Descart

Guest
Bronte

Do not be disheartened, there are changes coming ! The CBI have been told to get their ass in gear in relation to it's consumer protection functions.
 

Bronte

Frequent Poster
Messages
13,681
I have no faith ever in the CBI. Nor the ombudsman's office after my own cases, which were nothing compared to the PTSB customers, so I can not complain, in comparison.
 
Last edited:

Fella

Frequent Poster
Messages
379
Sarenco,

Why on earth would Mr Kissane post this evidence on an open forum for the bank's to view and try to come up with legal defences ? You are even more naive than I thought. Ever hear of the phrase " Keep your powder dry." From taking to other posters it appears, not many take note of your waffle and attempt to keep the scales firmly balanced in favour of the banks. Yourself, Brendan44, Delboy and Andy836 should get together for coffee to come up with another strategy.
Your behaving like a child , this guy Sarenco has given great advice .
It's a forum for everyone to have an opinion and help each other save money or pay debts or whatever financial problems they have, if someone doesn't agree with you that doesn't mean they are working for the banks .
Your coming across terribly , I stick up for banks regularly myself I don't believe in the Fair mortgage SVR campaign I think banks should be allowed charge what they want to maintain profitability , I am cash rich i want more interest on my cash in bank I want more repossessions I want strategic defaulters dealt with strongly
I don't work for a bank they are just my views , they may be wrong to some and others may agree but they are mine - accusing someone who doesn't agree with you of working for the banks is childish and pointless , he says he doesn't you say you do it goes on forever and clogs up forums so zip it and let the good guys keep posting and help educate others in the best way possible without paying a financial advisor .
 

Dermot

Frequent Poster
Messages
1,037
I broadly agree with Fella and I would consider Sarenco one of the top posters. I do think that PTSB have dealt with their customers in an atrocious way and there are probably a lot of similar issues in other banks as well. I cannot understand how lethargic the vast majority of mortgage holders are in this country. They vast majority just sat on their hands and waited for a small number of people to fight their fight for them. There are more than likely a great number of people up in arms about the amount of compensation they are getting but could not have been bothered to read their mortgage contract or complain.
 

Bronte

Frequent Poster
Messages
13,681
I see nothing wrong whatsoever in Fella and Dermot's posts. I too would like higher interest rates, but in the interest of getting the country back on it's feet and benefiting all of society I would firstly like more of the mess to be sorted out as people are suffering. And like Dermot it amazes me the energy spent on things like protesting Irish water instead of going and taking on the PTSB or one's own bank.

What is also striking about all of this is the amount of customers who don't have one clue about their contracts, they didn't even know what they were signing in a lot of cases. This is serious stuff, the mostly costly investment in normal people's lives and the one they need to take the most care about, but in the vast majority of cases it seems people just signed what was put in front of them.

Also agree about the strategic defaulters, that the court system of repossessions is unbelievably slow or actually not functioning (thanks to Coffee for his analysis). As for the totally idiotic idea of the Insolvency service with hardly any cases, what do all the workers do in there !
 
D

Descart

Guest
Fella,

All I can say is, read this article:


FBI Reports 80% of Mortgage Fraud Committed by Lenders
When most people think of mortgage fraud, they think of a clever borrower conning an unwitting banker into extending him a loan he cannot afford. But this isn’t really how fraud usually works in the mortgage business. According to the FBI, 80% of mortgage fraud is committed by lenders.


Now, here is actually some great advice that might save you a packet.

If you got a mortgage in Ireland prior to 2007, a high proportion of these contracts could be voidable ( written off due to unconscionable behaviour of the banks- fraud ) Send a routine access request to the banks looking in particular for your mortgage application, if the bank amended it, in any way, without your permission or knowledge, so as to circumvent their credit risk department, they may have committed mortgage fraud. A proportion of loan managers did doctor these applications so that they would receive their monthly bonus. Structural changes to banks after 2007, reduced the likelihood of this type of fraud occurring. If you prove a fraud was committed, the contract is void.

" No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything."

Justice Denning

Debtors in this Country need to arm themselves with facts, not grovel before the banksters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,695
@ Bronte, Fella and Dermot,

Thank you for your comments.

@ Descart

Looking behind that headline, the FBI actually said that "based on existing investigations and mortgage fraud reporting, 80 percent of all reported fraud losses involve collaboration or collusion by industry insiders." They certainly didn't suggest that 80% of US mortgage loans in any particular period were fraudulent or that borrowers were innocent bystanders in the majority of mortgage fraud cases. Obtaining a loan by deception is a crime in this jurisdiction that carries a penalty of up to 5 years imprisonment. As such, I would suggest that borrowers need to be extremely cautious before alleging that a lender collaborated or colluded in mortgage fraud.
 

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,695
Getting back on topic, it strikes me that the amount of any debt-write off should also be a relevant consideration in assessing the appropriateness of any compensation award.

All other things being equal, would you award the same level of compensation to a borrower who had €500k in arrears written off as a borrower that only had €50k written off? Revenue has already clarified that it will not treat a bona fide debt write off as a taxable event so writing off mortgage arrears may actually prove to be more tax efficient than a cash payment as a way of compensating impacted borrowers.

Unscrambling this particular egg is not going to be easy.
 
D

Descart

Guest
Sarenco,

In relation to the Mortgage fraud post I never said that. The headline I posted was just to get posters to look at what is going on in the industry. Here is a synopsis of a 2010 FBI key report about the level of mortage fraud within the Country.

Key Findings

  • Mortgage fraud continued at elevated levels in 2010, consistent with levels seen in 2009. Mortgage fraud schemes are particularly resilient, and they readily adapt to economic changes and modifications in lending practices.
  • Mortgage fraud perpetrators include licensed/registered and non-licensed/registered mortgage brokers, lenders, appraisers, underwriters, accountants, real estate agents, settlement attorneys, land developers, investors, builders, bank account representatives, and trust account representatives.
  • Total dollar losses directly attributed to mortgage fraud are unknown.
  • A continued decrease in loan originations from 2009 to 2010 (and expected through 2012), high levels of unemployment and housing inventory, lower housing prices, and an increase in defaults and foreclosures dominated the housing market in 2010. RealtyTrac reported 2.9 million foreclosures in 2010, representing a 2 percent increase in foreclosures since 2009 and a 23 percent increase since 2008.
  • Analysis of available law enforcement and industry data indicates the top states for known or suspected mortgage fraud activity during 2010 were California, Florida, New York, Illinois, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Texas, Georgia, Maryland, and New Jersey; reflecting the same demographic market affected by mortgage fraud in 2009.
  • Prevalent mortgage fraud schemes reported by law enforcement and industry in FY 2010 included loan origination, foreclosure rescue, real estate investment, equity skimming, short sale, illegal property flipping, title/escrow/settlement, commercial loan, and builder bailout schemes. Home equity line of credit (HELOC), reverse mortgage fraud, and fraud involving loan modifications are still a concern for law enforcement and industry.
  • With elevated levels of mortgage fraud, the FBI has continued to dedicate significant resources to the threat. In June 2010, the Department of Justice (DOJ), to include the FBI, announced a mortgage fraud takedown referred to as Operation Stolen Dreams. The takedown targeted mortgage fraudsters throughout the country and was the largest collective enforcement effort ever brought to bear in combating mortgage fraud.
  • The current and continuing depressed housing market will likely remain an attractive environment for mortgage fraud perpetrators who will continue to seek new methods to circumvent loopholes and gaps in the mortgage lending market. These methods will likely remain effective in the near term, as the housing market is anticipated to remain stagnant through 2011.
Just stating that the banks are not as pure as driven snow. Sarenco, can you name me a lender who has never had an employee convicted of fraud ? Seeing that the employee is acting in a position of authority, the bank takes responsabilty as body corporate.

In relation to the criminal law in this Country, I will have to correct you, the usual offence that the DPP use to charge a person in relation to mortgage fraud is section 26 Criminal Justice ( Theft and Fraud Offences ) Act 2001, this in fact carries a maximum penalty of 10 years. imprisonment.
 
D

Descart

Guest
Getting back to the topic, you have an interesting argument, however I feel the compensation ( ordinary damages part ) should be the same for a borrower who has lost a million euro home and a borrower who has lost a 200,000 euro home.
 

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,695
No, the offence of obtaining a loan by deception is contained in Section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001 and it does indeed carry a maximum penalty of a fine and/or 5 years imprisonment.

Section 26 of that Act relates to the quite separate offence of using a false instrument, which may or may not be committed at the same time as an offence under Section 7 is committed.

I never stated or implied that banks, or their employees, are all as "pure as driven snow". I really wish you would stop misrepresenting my posts.

Your post suggested that borrowers could seek to invalidate their mortgage contracts by proving fraud, which you you certainly implied was likely to be widespread. I am simply pointing out that obtaining a loan by deception is itself an offence and I would caution borrowers to tread carefully before alleging any fraud on the part of a lender in which they may be found to have collaborated or colluded.
 

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,695
Getting back to the topic, you have an interesting argument, however I feel the compensation ( ordinary damages part ) should be the same for a borrower who has lost a million euro home and a borrower who has lost a 200,000 euro home.
As a taxpayer, I can't agree with this logic. If a borrower has €1 million in mortgage arrears written off, I cannot see why they should get an additional compensation payment in the same amount as a borrower that has €200k in mortgage arrears written off, everything else being equal.
 
D

Descart

Guest
Sarenco,

Simple really, because PTSB erred and as a result on this incorrect interpretation of the contract, the borrowers lost their houses unlawfully. ( the error resulted in the same consequential loss, that being th loss of the borrower's home. ) In the law of tort, if possible, a Judge is obliged to put the injured party back into the same position they would have been in, if the tort had never occurred.

Sarenco, the corollary of your argument is also valid, that being, a million euro house would have gained more in monetary value from capital appreciation in the last 5 years than a 200,000 euro house.
 
D

Descart

Guest
In relation to the criminal law, the utilisation of a false instrument is invariable involved, when mortgage fraud occurs. I never suggested that 80% of mortgages issued in the USA, involved mortgage fraud. Please stop misrepresenting my posts!
 

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,695
I never suggested that 80% of mortgages issued in the USA, involved mortgage fraud.
I didn't say you did. You did, however, say that a "high proportion of mortgage contracts" written in Ireland prior to 2007 could be voided immediately after reproducing that (rather misleading) headline in relation to mortgage fraud in the US. Any reasonably reading of your post would leave the impression that you were implying some link between the two statements.
 
D

Descart

Guest
There is a difference between could and would. You should consult a dictionary. Oh yes, remember the question I posed to you earlier, I am wondering have you come up with an Irish financial institution who has not had an employee prosecuted for mortgage fraud ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,695
Sarenco,

Simple really, because PTSB erred and as a result on this incorrect interpretation of the contract, the borrowers lost their houses unlawfully. ( the error resulted in the same consequential loss, that being th loss of the borrower's home. ) In the law of tort, if possible, a Judge is obliged to put the injured party back into the same position they would have been in, if the tort had never occurred.

Sarenco, the corollary of your argument is also valid, that being, a million euro house would have gained more in monetary value from capital appreciation in the last 5 years than a 200,000 euro house.
Your mixing of concepts from the laws of contract and tort in your post is completely confusing.

The only judgment that we have to date is a High Court judgment to the effect that the FSO did not err in law in finding as he did in four test cases. PTSB has abandoned its Supreme Court appeal in this regard and has established an extra-judicial redress scheme to compensate impacted borrowers.

If a case for breach of contract was taken by a borrower against PTSB then I would be confident that the borrower would succeed and would have the "excess" interest payments refunded by way of damages and the appropriate tracker rate reflected going forward. That is happening anyway, as I understand it, under the redress scheme.

I don't know what tort you think occurred. It certainly isn't negligent advice as the complaint was that PTSB offered no advice at all to borrowers!
 

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,695
In relation to the criminal law, the utilisation of a false instrument is invariable involved, when mortgage fraud occurs.
No, not invariably. Obtaining a loan by deception often involves the use of a false instrument but this is certainly not invariably the case.
 
Top