You will be very "lucky" to find an actual case of where someone shows up in court and wants to keep their home and actually loses it. Neither Karl nor Séamus saw one. I saw two in Wicklow. One had made no payment since 2012 and the other had made no payment since 2011.
In over 300 cases we have yet to find even one case of someone showing up in court, paying something, no matter how small, regularly, and losing their home.
Seamus Coffey spoke of certain people who hadn't paid anything in years and suggested that non payment of anything amounted to a selective default. Of course, as the 'research' was superficial in the extreme he never found out why these people stopped paying anything. These people may have stopped when the bank told them they were taking back the home.
The idea that the bank will not attempt to repossess your home if you pay something is not based on fact and, as such, is a very dangerous and factually inaccurate message to be disseminating.
the registrar is not concerned with sustainability but rather with regular payments.
How many appearances have the 300 made in court?
Seamus Coffey spoke of certain people who hadn't paid anything in years and suggested that non payment of anything amounted to a selective default. Of course, as the 'research' was superficial in the extreme he never found out why these people stopped paying anything.
In the case of my own bank sustainability is assessed as being able to meet payments at a minimum annual level of 5% of the outstanding balance. This may not be consistent across the banks.
From what you say, it seems to me that the current position is a waste of the time and resources of all concerned.
On the one hand a lender concludes that a loan is “unsustainable” while on the other hand the registrar is not concerned with sustainability but rather with regular payments.
One is looking at red; the other at green.
Same old, same old....71 cases, very few turned up and even fewer repossessions took place
And that last sentence sums it all up...officers of the Court blatantly ignoring contract law and letting emotions dictate proceedingsPat O'Sullivan, a barrister from New Beginning, said: “It was quite sad, the amount of actual repossession applications. Now it ended up with just five repossession orders being granted, and they were in cases where there was no alternative. The county registrar who was making the orders was very reluctant to make an order for repossession, if – putting it bluntly – he could find any excuse not to make an order.”
Well, it seems that this is the case...the Registrar is repeatedly adjourning for 6 months at a time. Is enforcing Contract law now no longer part of the Courts remit !If the lender sticks to their guns and insists on an order for repossession can the Registrar keep adjourning it every time? I just don't know.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?