Flexibility is fine and makes sense in a large number of scenarios. However, there does need to be consistency in rules applied.I suppose GNF the rules are a bit flexible to suit a particular set of circumstances. The judge (or PIP) said the extra clothing was due to their professions.
Yes it is but no good people blaming or saying the McNamara's got lucky with a sweetheart deal when the same bad or loose law allows everyone the same "privilege" and yes, high interest rates are the price everyone else has to pay for this debacle. We may hear an awful lot more of these more well known couples, but probably not so much about ordinary people. In any case, someone is going to become a sort of winner in all of this, be that the occupant/s of the house, the people who gave them the loan, or the people who bought out the loan. In the middle of it all is the piggy, ie, the Judge. Maybe that's why we have the appropriately named, "Piggy Bank".?Hi np
Of course the judge acted within the law.
But the whole point is that the law is too biased and is costing borrowers the highest mortgage rates in the eurozone.
It looks like they had to sell other properties and the NE from those ended up on the home. The one item they don't want to sell is their home.I agree with everything said about this agreement. Apologies if this was covered but how did they end up with a debt of 2.7m secured on a property that is only now worth 550k?? And I find it hard to feel any sort of sympathy for Tanager who bought the loan on those terms presuming they could take the asset.
For a PIA to be put through the PIP has to show that the creditors would be worse off if the debtors went bankrupt.We regularly see complaints about the level of mortgage interest rates in Ireland. After yesterday's decision in the McNamara/Lowe case perhaps we can see why. A borrower makes no repayments for years, gets a PIA, has €3m written off AND keeps their big 5 bed detached house. Why can they not sell the house, downsize to a 2 bed semi and repay more of their debts? Clearly the concept of loan repayments is alien to some (including Judges).
Yes, the Bank would have written down the loan and taken the resulting loss . But it is the writing down of all those losses (and being forced to sell on a book of impaired loans to “vulture funds”) that contributes to trying to recover some of that loss through charging higher interest rates than otherwise are justified. The fact is that with all the impaired loans we have seen in Ireland it is virtually impossible to force defaulting borrowers to sell the mortgaged property, even if as part of a downsizing exercise. The McNamara/ Lowe case demonstrates this (and accepting that this is merely a celebrity version of what is happening in many other cases). But if Banks know that it is virtually impossible to recover property from defaulting borrowers in Ireland, this must factor into the pricing of mortgage rates.What would tanger have paid for loan ?The bank had already written off loan out of books but I didn't see them reduce mortgage rates.
No one thinks this. I am surprised that you think some people think this.I find the notion that our altruistic banks will lower their SVRs to be in line with other EU countries if all debts owed to them are repaid a bizarre one, and a deluded one.