# Bank sold house 60% of its value and pursuing owner for balance



## Dermot (9 Sep 2015)

A friend of mine who has fallen on hard times has had an Investment Property repossessed by Bank of Ireland and sold to a company called Targeted Investment Opportunities PLC.
The house was sold for 60% of its market value and this would have been easily achieved if anyone knew it was for sale.
Grant Thornton was the receiver.
A valuer called to the Tenant and shortly thereafter the owner was notified that the property was sold.
There was no advertising of the property in any way.
Not a person in the estate knew it was for sale and it would be safe to say that other than the tenant and the owner know it has been sold.
Very few properties come for sale in the estate and this house would be sought after.
This was a secret deal between the parties involved.
Another issue arising from this is that the owner is currently being pursued in the courts by Bank of Ireland for the balance due to them.
If they had marketed it at all the would have achieved over 60% more than they got for it and the owners liability would be less.
Do the Bank not have some duty of care to both the owner and shareholders to get the best price at the time for a property.
Is it legal to go after the owner for the full amount when it is blatantly obvious that the house was sold well under value because it did not get even €30 of advertising.
This is all factual and is not a rant or letting off steam.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Sep 2015)

Why did he not agree a voluntary sale before Bank of Ireland appointed the receivers? 

Was he paying the rent in full to Bank of Ireland? In most cases where banks appoint receivers, it's because they are not getting the rent.  There are exceptions to this. 

Having said that, it's odd to sell a house without advertising it in any way.  Did they use an estate agent? It's quite possible that they sold a batch of houses to Target Investment Opportunities PLC at a discount. If so, then the customer should not have to pay the discount. 

But the reality is that, in almost all cases, responsible investors can avoid a receiver being appointed.

Brendan


----------



## Bronte (9 Sep 2015)

The fact there was a sitting tenant might mean that the receivers were willing to take 60% just to get a buyer. 

Dermot you've made a lot of claims there.  Can you back them up. 

Many many times on here we've mentioned it's better to go a voluntary sale as a) the owner will get the best price, b) you avoid receiver costs c) you avoid bank costs d) you avoid legal costs e) you avoid a bank/receiver taking the first buyer that comes their way - especially if the owner has money/income/assets, which seems to be the case here. 

If you're broke the above doesn't matter.


----------



## Bronte (9 Sep 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Having said that, it's odd to sell a house without advertising it in any way.



It wouldn't be odd if the receivers/bank had had it with the borrowers.  Or if borrowers were with one of those land league types or if tenants were not paying any rent.  Cheap to offload at 60% to a willing buyer in those circumstances.

I would be amazed if there weren't a lot more to this story.  No rent handed over, borrower not engaging, tenant stopping receiver, tenant paying low rent to owner behind the receivers back.

It might have got more than 60% in reality, how does Dermot know the sale price?  Maybe it's 60% knocked off the mortgage but a lot of the 'costs' were deducted first.  Having seen these cases on here and from people I know those receivers don't come cheap.


----------



## Gerard123 (9 Sep 2015)

Agree with other contributors, more to this than appears at first and more information and background required really to fully understand the situation.  I googled Targeted Investment Opportunities PLC.  Turns out that they are a large fund and linked to an investment firm Oaktree, appear very large.  These guys are not buying one off houses as a rule. 

I am guessing that the loan/mortgage was sold as part of a package and that the discount was 60% probably to the loan/mortgage balance.  Receivers would not participate in a 'sham' sale process selling at 60% to the market value, they may or more likely would get sued.  Receivers have responsibilities also.

At the same time, while easy for outsiders to indicate that people should engage with banks, frequently not as easy as it sounds to someone who is deeply in distress, is under huge pressure, is fearful, etc.  Often it is very easy to bury ones head in the sand, fear takes over, etc.  I have seen at first hand how otherwise intelligent people appear to get almost paralysed with fear in these situations and have no idea what to do and panic.  So they do nothing.  Never the right answer of course, they should engage, talk to advisors for example, etc.  But in these situations I can completely understand and I have seen the impact of what these situations can do to people, who in all other situations are responsible investors. 

Dermot - tell your friend to talk to an advisor who can help to sort the 'mess' out.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Sep 2015)

Gerard123 said:


> I am guessing that the loan/mortgage was sold as part of a package and that the discount was 60% probably to the loan/mortgage balance. Receivers would not participate in a 'sham' sale process selling at 60% to the market value, they may or more likely would get sued. Receivers have responsibilities also.



A very good point and the most likely explanation.  There was no specific price paid for this property. 
It was part of a deal.

However, if that is the case, how should the shortfall be treated?   Even if the mortgage holder were irresponsible, they should not have to pay a much bigger shortfall than had the property been sold individually.

Brendan


----------



## Bronte (9 Sep 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> However, if that is the case, how should the shortfall be treated?   Even if the mortgage holder were irresponsible, they should not have to pay a much bigger shortfall than had the property been sold individually.




How does it matter what the bank sold the portfolio/properties to this new company/fund.  All the matters is that a borrower owes X. House achieves Y.  Borrower now owes X - Y = Z.

Isn't the whole point of these large sell offs that there is good and bad.  And they will go after any borrower for the maximium shortfall where that borrower has a salary or assets.


----------



## Gerard123 (9 Sep 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Even if the mortgage holder were irresponsible, they should not have to pay a much bigger shortfall than had the property been sold individually. Brendan



You are kidding right Brendan?  An irresponsible borrower should certainly be pursued.  It depends on the level of irresponsibility of course as to what degree they should be pursued and how robustly of course.  

If a borrower was renting out and withholding the rent, refusing to engage with the Bank, using delaying tactics, etc, all with a view to extracting as much cash as possible - no sympathy there. Pursue fully.   

If there isn't proper follow up of amounts owing the whole system would collapse.  Moral hazard, etc. 

Of course a need to do deals, etc, and strong argument to say that they are not where they should be and huge reluctance on Banks/Financiers part.

However, I would strongly disagree with the view that just because a Bank sells a mortgage book at a discount that this entitles all borrowers to avail of a discount.  There would be chaos.  It's a case by case basis with individual borrowers, looking at facts and circumstances of each case.


----------



## Andy836 (9 Sep 2015)

Is the property sale on the PPR? Or did the borrower just receive notice of a change in mortgage ownership?


----------



## Dermot (9 Sep 2015)

To Bronte.  Yes absolutely can back up the claims otherwise I would not have "exposed" the forum to any claims.  As a matter of fact the rental return is in excess of 10% so there would be no problem in achieving a higher price with a good tenant in situ from an investor.  A private buyer would even give more for it.
Has the bank not a duty to its shareholders to achieve the market value of the property.  As an investor I would have given a lot more for it but given the circumstances I could not contemplate purchasing same as I am a friend of the owner. 
I know two people in the estate who are renting in the estate would give over 60% more and are in a position to do so.
This was not a discount on the mortgage that I am doing the calculations on.  It is a discount on the market value.
No estate agent was involved and no advertising done as stated in my post.  
He was paying over all he could until a "bull dog" in the bank took over his account and  when my friend engaged a responsible advisor within a few days of the engagement "bulldog" was announcing that receivers were being appointed and it all went downhill rapidly after that. 
I cannot understand the concept that if something is worth say €250k/ the mortgage outstanding is say €400k that the bank can sell it for €150k and that they can sail in to a court and say that they are owed €250k.
I believe that the banks should be able to repossess more quickly than is the case as I have consistently stated in previous posts.  The problem in this instance is how it was done and I do not believe it to be isolated.
The property is listed on the property price register with a price.
A director of the Investment company is also a director of a firm who has done a lot of work for BoI.
I know receivers ought to have responsibilities but they did not act responsible in this instance for the reasons stated in OP.  
This was an attractive property so why was it sold on the cheap without advertising it or using a local estate agent. 
My friend is neither financially or mentally capable  of contesting this.
I  think that it is odd that a fund like Targeted Investments would be chasing after this type of property unless there was a phenomenal discount involved.
My primary purpose in posting this is to highlight something that may be going on and to debate it in a reasonable fashion.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Sep 2015)

Hi Gerard - you misunderstand me. 

If I owe the bank €150k and they sell a property for its market value of €100k, then should pursue me for the €50k shortfall.

My issue is that if it suits the bank to sell a package of properties at 60% of the loan value, so that my property gets only €90k, then they should not be allowed to pursue me for the full €60k. Just for the €50k. 

Dermot says it was sold for 60% of its market value.  People often claim that their property has been sold for below market value, but the bank or Receiver can justify a 10% or 20% discount.   60% is too much.  

Brendan


----------



## Dermot (9 Sep 2015)

The property is on the PPR


----------



## Sarenco (10 Sep 2015)

Hi Dermot

In answer to your original question, yes, a receiver has a positive duty to a borrower to take reasonable steps to obtain the best price in the market where he exercises a power of sale.  The fact that the relevant loan may have been acquired by the party appointing the receiver at a discount, either as part of a bundle of loans or otherwise, is not a relevant consideration in assessing whether or not a receiver has discharged his duty to a borrower.

For commercial property or large scale residential blocks, there will often be a discount associated with a receiver sale.  This is because a receiver will offer no warranties to a buyer (as to planning, etc) but I doubt this fact would have a meaningful impact on price in the context of a one off house sale.

The next question, of course, is what meaningful steps your friend can take in the circumstances?  Proving that any property was sold at a discount to its fair market value is rarely straightforward.  However, in my opinion, your friend would be well advised to consult with a solicitor to assess the likely success of any action for breach of duty by the reciever and the possibility of obtaining a stay on the debt recovery proceedings pending the resolution of this action.


----------



## Bronte (10 Sep 2015)

Dermot said:


> *He was paying over all he could* until a "bull dog" in the bank took over his account
> 
> 
> I cannot understand the concept that if something is worth say €250k/ the mortgage outstanding is say €400k that the bank can sell it for €150k and that they can sail in to a court and say that they are owed €250k.
> .



I'd like if you could try and answer each of BB's questions in the second post in order to get a clearer picture.

What do you mean by paying over all he 'could' can you clarify please.  Was he paying his mortgage in full.  He clearly wasn't.  Was he pocketing some or all of the rent.  Was he paying dribs and drabs.

Are properties on the PPR in the estate for the same year for a much higher price.

You think the bank sold it for too little, but it might have been enough for them as they may be in a situation of dealing with many messes and are in a hurry to offload.  Time is money to them.  In those circumstances, with a problem owner, with goodness know what more to this story and with an inconvenient sitting tenant they may have actually achieved top price.

Why did it take until what appears to be the end of the road before your friend appointed an advisor.

You have skin in the game here as it's your friend.  I am not attacking you in asking these questions, and I'm no fan of banks as you know, but I'm trying to be fair and understand what has happened.

In relation to your comment 'sail into court' looking for the balance.  They are within their legal rights to seek the balance.  And it looks like your friend must have the wherewithall to pay it off, so to me he was very very foolish not to engage earlier.  I could be wrong.  But this is a very risky business if your friend was trying to outsmart a bank.  I have a relation at it myself, they think they're going to end up with a house for free and have paid nothing for years now.


----------



## Bronte (10 Sep 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> View attachment 834
> 
> My issue is that if it suits the bank to sell a package of properties at 60% of the loan value, so that my property gets only €90k, then they should not be allowed to pursue me for the full €60k. Just for the €50k.
> 
> Dermot says it was sold for 60% of its market value.  People often claim that their property has been sold for below market value, but the bank or Receiver can justify a 10% or 20% discount.   60% is too much.



But contractually you are obliged to pay the amount owing after sale price plus costs.  That's why it's so important to engage and come to a voluntary sale early on if possible.  Otherwise it's bound to be the case that it will sell for less than what you yourself would sell it for.  All these people in the chain of selling are in for a buck and a quick one. 

Surely banks are allowed sell their property loans on at a discount if they so need to do so.  And it is my understanding the Irish banks need to sort out their books by selling.


----------



## Branz (10 Sep 2015)

Dermot:
re


Dermot said:


> To Bronte. Yes absolutely can back up the claims



Is not the same as providing facts such as the items raised by BB and others
eg


Brendan Burgess said:


> Why did he not agree a voluntary sale before Bank of Ireland appointed the receivers?
> 
> Was he paying the rent in full to Bank of Ireland? In most cases where banks appoint receivers, it's because they are not getting the rent. There are exceptions to this.
> 
> ...



Before you engage a solicitor and more costs you had better get the facts sorted first as the money spent on legal advice will be wasted if you don't get the facts right:
lets start with some simple ones:
what were the arrears on all his debts to all his lenders just before the property was sold?
Over what period of time did these areas occur?
What other assets/income does he have now?

As to focusing on claims about corruption, sweet deals, duty of care etc,  all requires a deep pocket and should not be the focus now.
My guess is that your friend just switched off, engaged with nobody, ignored all the obligatory  paperwork, and thought it would just go away.

This happens I know but to build a decent case you need facts, not woolly, non focused discussions that might run well in the pub but get no progress.


----------



## Descart (10 Sep 2015)

Dermot,

Bronte has talked a lot of tripe on this thread too date, listen to BB and Sarenco whom have given more balanced replies to your questions.

Here is the settled Law relating to the appointment of receivers and their duties to the mortgagor ( borrower ) ( see cuckmere brick v mutual finance ). A receiver has a duty of care to act in good faith and in equity towards the mortgagor. The receiver must take reasonable steps to obtain the best proper price for the property at the time of sale. ( see Glatt v Sinclair ). The receiver is under a duty not to sacrifice the mortgagor interest recklessly, such as selling the house well under market value.

Now in relation to your case, if the bank instructed the receiver to sell the properties to a fund, this is called an off market sale and is relatively rare. Receivers need to be extra diligent and must take extra care to show the mortgagor the transparency of the transaction, that the property was adequately valued etc and that the receiver received the proper price for the property,reasonably attainable, at the time of sale. If, it is indeed the case that the bank instructed the receiver to sell the property as part of a portfolio to a fund, then I am afraid the bank has overtly interfered in the receivership and has expressed directly the progress of the receivership. ( see Silvern Properties LTD v RBS [2004] ) and now can be sued for any professional negligence claims for damage, together with the receiver. ( as the bank is no longer at arms length from the receiver ). This can also be used as a defence against the bank seeking summary judgement against your friend for the outstanding debt. ( contributory negligence )

My advice to you and your friend, is to look for other similar properties ( same amount of bedrooms, detached, etc. ) that were for sale in the immediately vicinity of your friends property, in and around the time of sale of the property by the receiver. If there is a marked difference in price and the receiver did not take the adequate steps necessary to achieve the proper market price for the property,( such as no marketing, appointment of estate agent etc ), then the margin test will apply to the property. ( see K/S Lincoln v CB Richard Ellis Hotels LTD [2010] EWH  1156 ) in which Justice Coulson held, that the margin that a valuation may fall within, without being negligent-

For a standard residential property the margin test is  +/- 5%

If it be the case that the receiver sold outside the relatively tight margin test, then go to a good solicitor armed with these facts, he / she will take it from there. Please keep this thread up to date with any developments. Good luck !


----------



## Dermot (10 Sep 2015)

The reality for my friend is that he has no funds whatsoever or income and any other assets he has are in serious negative equity. No he did not have a rainy day fund out of the whole episode. He went into denial and would have been in terminal trouble before he brought himself to tell me.  Yes he did not engage and neither did he obstruct them taking over the RIP's.  The properties were there effectively for them to take over. When he did engage over the last two years in a mild mannered way he was not offered the facility of selling them in a voluntary manner. I know of quite an amount of sales that have been concluded by the voluntary manner with other banks but I personally am not aware of ones where 
BoI are involved but that does not mean that they are not happening.   
My friend engaged with the advisor almost two years ago and that achieved nothing whatsoever.  
I cannot pretend that I know what it is like to be on your own and facing absolute ruin but it cannot be a nice place and not a place for clear thinking. So unless you have been there it is very difficult to really understand it.  I have been in tough situations but could see a way out of it.  
His situation deteriorated so rapidly during the crash that it all went out of control rapidly and because of the length of the crash he cannot recover.  
As I said in my second post he does not have the means to contest it or the mental wherewithal to deal with it.  
He was never trying to outsmart the bank and he does not have the means to pay them.
The tenant in the house in question is a brilliant tenant.  
I raised the issue initially outlining the case in as balanced a manner as I could in order to highlight an issue that I think is wrong for the reasons set out in the OP.  Yes there were questions but I do not want to identify the individual by giving any more specific answers as I have already narrowed down who it could be to a BoI "trawler".
I just do not believe that the Bank should be able to do what they done in the manner that they done it and be able to pursue the owner for what I term an "inflated" balance.  I feel that the bank should be made take a hit in circumstances like this when the go to court and not having marketed it properly.
A mickey mouse add on Daft for one fee and a set fee to a local estate agent would have achieved a far higher price within a month.  I believe I know what I am talking about when it comes to the value of this property.
The bigger question is how much of this is going on as I am sure this is not an isolated case. Why all the secrecy about selling any package of property.  Why should there be certain groups made aware of assets that are for sale.
Thanks to all the contributors.  
My friends situation is not redeemable and I just felt that this sale was so rotten that I would do a post on it


----------



## Outsider (16 Sep 2015)

Descart said:


> Dermot,
> 
> Here is the settled Law relating to the appointment of receivers and their duties to the mortgagor ( borrower ) ( see cuckmere brick v mutual finance ). A receiver has a duty of care to act in good faith and in equity towards the mortgagor. The receiver must take reasonable steps to obtain the best proper price for the property at the time of sale. ( see Glatt v Sinclair ). The receiver is under a duty not to sacrifice the mortgagor interest recklessly, such as selling the house well under market value.
> 
> *Now in relation to your case, if the bank instructed the receiver to sell the properties to a fund, this is called an off market sale and is relatively rare. Receivers need to be extra diligent and must take extra care to show the mortgagor the transparency of the transaction, that the property was adequately valued etc and that the receiver received the proper price for the property,reasonably attainable, at the time of sale. If, it is indeed the case that the bank instructed the receiver to sell the property as part of a portfolio to a fund, then I am afraid the bank has overtly interfered in the receivership and has expressed directly the progress of the receivership*. ( see Silvern Properties LTD v RBS [2004] ) and now can be sued for any professional negligence claims for damage, together with the receiver. ( as the bank is no longer at arms length from the receiver ). This can also be used as a defence against the bank seeking summary judgement against your friend for the outstanding debt. ( contributory negligence )


----------



## Outsider (16 Sep 2015)

Descart
As someone who finds himself in a very similar predicament to the one outlined by Dermot above, your post is a very interesting one.

Our property was sold a year ago for 70-100k below what we believe could have been achieved. (I have no issue with the bank selling it from under us...we were in big arrears)

They did not advertise the property, nor did they place it with an estate agent.
When we realised that they had no intention of marketing the property we tried to engage with the receiver but they basically cut off communication with us...not taking calls, not replying to emails and not returning calls. They refused to engage with an interested buyer.

It was about three weeks after the sale before they told us that the property had been sold "as part of a portfolio" - presumably on the instructions of the bank - but no further details as to how the process was conducted have been forthcoming.

Could you please explain what you mean by this line (I'm afraid my legalese is a bit rusty)* -
"I am afraid the bank has overtly interfered in the receivership and has expressed directly the progress of the receivership*. ( see Silvern Properties LTD v RBS [2004]"

Thanks for your time on this matter.


----------



## Descart (18 Sep 2015)

Outsider,

If the bank instructed the receiver to sell your property to a property fund, ( off market sale ), then the bank are deemed to have interfered in the receiver sale ( as the receiver did not sell the property by usual means,  ie, by using an estate agent or auctioneer ).  As such, the bank are no longer at arms length from the receiver, whom, is now acting as an agent for the bank. In other words any claim for damages due to the professional negligence of the receiver can now be directed at the mortgagee ( bank ). See Standard Charter bank v Walker.


----------



## Outsider (18 Sep 2015)

Descart
Thanks for that. I very much appreciate you taking the time.
Would the "average "solicitor be sufficiently au fait with these matters or would you recommend I go talk to one who "specialises" in this area?
And if the latter, how would you suggest I go about finding one?


----------



## Descart (18 Sep 2015)

most good solicitors should be au fait with these matters.


----------



## Outsider (23 Sep 2015)

Descart said:


> most good solicitors should be au fait with these matters.


Thanks again


----------



## Descart (23 Sep 2015)

Outsider,

My advice to you would be to send off a data access request ( can get a template letter on the Data Protection Commissioner website, it will cost you 6.35 euro per request ) to both the bank in question and the receiver requesting in particular all documentation relating to the sale of the property, this would include all emails between the receiver and the bank discussing your property, this is your data, as it refers to your property.


----------



## LS400 (23 Sep 2015)

That's a very interesting post Dermot, I have to say you are correct in the hinds sight scenario of should have, would have , could have, but yes, when it's all happening around you and coming down the hill so fast, you really don't know which end is up. But it's always seems that folk that have none of this pressure are the ones who have difficulty understanding  why a difficult situation is not handled differently. Descart has given some interesting information and I hope some take comfort from it. I'm not a fan of the won't pay parasites and God knows there plenty piggy backing the genuine cases out there, which is the reason I feel posts like yours should be hi-lighted if there is an injustice, the other reason, its not long back when I was at  a funeral where another individual fell on hard times and didn't know where to turn. So again, it might be too late for your pal, but if someone benefits from the information gained here, well done in hi-lighting the issue.


----------



## Bronte (24 Sep 2015)

Descart said:


> most good solicitors should be au fait with these matters.



They are?  And maybe you could link us to an actual Irish court case where one succeded in taking on the receivers?  I see the rich and fully legally qualified Mr. O'Donnell with all the tricks in the book, lost his house, but it hasn't been sold yet presumably, maybe he'll be taking a new case later.


----------



## Descart (24 Sep 2015)

Bronte,

I know of many complaints taken against receivers where the bank, on the advice of the receiver, has agreed to write off all residual debt after sale. ( receivers usually have an indemnity bond with the bank to protect themselves from claims of professional negligence, so in any case where they are found liable, the bank picks up the cost ). These types of cases do not get to court or are settled before any court case is at plenary stage.

The only Irish case that actually went to full hearing that I can think off that springs to mind is Merrow Ltd v Bank of Scotland. It got so much attention that William Fry called it the Foleys Bar Saga. The banks hate publicity like that, if may move the great unwashed to start challenging shoddy receiverships, which in most instances, the award for damages, the banks will have to pay


----------



## Bronte (24 Sep 2015)

So you're saying just the mere fact of taking a case gives one  a good chance of a settlement?  But if you're broke how can you hire a solicitor to take a case.  On a no win no fee?  Seeing as you mentioned Fry's, top notch, top price, but maybe the go to people for Dermot's friends case.  Do they do no foal no fee?


----------



## Descart (24 Sep 2015)

Bronte,

I do not know what tablets you are taking but I have said nothing of the kind. I have laid out the settled law on the matter. Sticking to the topic of the thread, if a receiver sold a property at a 40% discount in an off market sale, and the property owner can prove same, then I believe as a lay litigant he would have a good chance of success in prosecuting the case himself ( as it is relatively straight forward case to prove and does not involve complicated legislation. ) It would certainly get the banks attention when they receive a summons in relation to the matter, the bank will consult their legal experts and risk assessors to see the probability of the case been successfully defended, if the odds are not with the bank, and in the case stated in the thread, they certainly are not, then they will contact the plaintiff and come to a settlement.


----------



## Descart (24 Sep 2015)

Bronte,

Being a consumer champions with over 10,000 post to this site, what do you propose Dermot's friend should do ?


----------



## cremeegg (24 Sep 2015)

Descart said:


> Bronte,
> 
> Being a consumer champions with over 10,000 post to this site, what do you propose Dermot's friend should do ?



Where is the Don't like button.

Bronte has never put herself forward as a legal expert.

It is perfectly reasonable for her to asking probing questions like this without being in a position to provide solutions. There has been a great deal of value in many of her previous posts, some from her own knowledge and experience and some from asking relevant questions to tease out issues.


----------



## Descart (24 Sep 2015)

Cremeegg,

Bronte is well able to speak for herself ( Having posted over 10,000 posts. )  I asked a simple question of her. I do not understand your interjection, have you a point to make about receiverships or could it be that you are Bronte using another username ? I will await her knowledgable response so that we can tease out the issues in the thread more or maybe you could contribute to the subject matter of the thread.


----------



## Asphyxia (24 Sep 2015)

Descart,

It is most obvious that Bronte and Cremeegg are one and the same user. You have given some good consumer advice to people in relation to receiverships within this Country and all you receive is snipey comments for your efforts. I do not know why Brendan Burgess allows this type of behaviour to be tolerated on his site, it should be reported.


----------



## Bronte (24 Sep 2015)

cremeegg said:


> Where is the Don't like button.
> 
> Bronte has never put herself forward as a legal expert.
> 
> It is perfectly reasonable for her to asking probing questions like this without being in a position to provide solutions. There has been a great deal of value in many of her previous posts, some from her own knowledge and experience and some from asking relevant questions to tease out issues.



Apparently two posters believe you and me are one and the same ! Thanks for the valiant effort but you can see it was to no avail.


----------



## Descart (24 Sep 2015)

Bronte,

I am still awaiting your reply to my question, what do YOU think Dermots friend should do. ?


----------



## Bronte (24 Sep 2015)

Descart said:


> Cremeegg,
> 
> Bronte is well able to speak for herself ( Having posted over 10,000 posts. )  I asked a simple question of her. I do not understand your interjection, have you a point to make about receiverships or could it be that you are Bronte using another username ? I will await her knowledgable response so that we can tease out the issues in the thread more or maybe you could contribute to the subject matter of the thread.




I was trying to tease out the issues but why bother.  It's simple to throw off a receiver it appears and happens all the time and who am I to question you.  As it happens I have a sibling and partner who managed to get rid of two receivers and I commentated about it on here.  Said people are in war (multiple court cases) with two banks and to my utter amazement still hold the properties.  And no, they don't use lawyers.

This is at least the second time you've decided that you don't like my questions, but I fail to see why.  I only tried to figure out how one would succeed and I note you showed us no cases, very conveniently they were 'settled'.


----------



## Descart (24 Sep 2015)

What issues were you trying to tease out ? What would you do in Dermot's friends case ? Also what valiant effort are you talking about ? In relation to giving you an example of an Irish Court case where the receiver was removed I quoted you the case, or did you not even take the time to read my post ?


----------



## Bronte (24 Sep 2015)

Descart said:


> What issues were you trying to tease out ? What would you do in Dermot's friends case ? Also what valiant effort are you talking about ? In relation to giving you an example of an Irish Court case where the receiver was removed I quoted you the case, or did you not even take the time to read my post ?



How does the Merrow case compare to Dermots case?

http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/36a33d5cddd8a6eb80257b4a0051a4da?OpenDocument

Which seems to be a case about the validity of an appointment but not about a sale that was below value.


----------



## Descart (25 Sep 2015)

Bronte,

If you do not remember what you said in a previous post, I will refresh your memory. You asked can you link us to an Irish court case where one succeeded in taking on the receivers, this I did. You also alluded to your very own sibling and partner who managed to usurp the receiver not once, but twice. Thus proving that the little man can take on the receivers and win. I do not understand what point you are trying to make.

Again, I call on you to answer my one question to you, what would you do if you were in Dermot's friends shoes ?, with over 10,000 posts under you belt, other viewers to this forum and myself await your enlightening response.


----------



## Descart (25 Sep 2015)

still waiting


----------



## Gerry Canning (25 Sep 2015)

Having been educated by  posters on quite a few occasions and having in a few cases been correctly chided for my views can I request all chill out ,please.
This is an open talk shop ,not definitive judgments ! 
................
From reading posts it looks like mr 60% has an arguable case against Mr Bank.
If mr 60% is being hard pressed by Mr Bank it seems that for small money and minimal cost he can issue summons against Mr Bank.
It also appears that Mr Bank will be slow to press on (my view is that even if Mr Bank win there is no money in mr 60%)

So maybe my advice (gleaned from what is posted) is take mr bank to court?


----------



## Descart (25 Sep 2015)

Gerry Canning,

Love to see Bronte actually contribute something positive to the thread rather than having a go. I agree with you that Dermot's friend has nothing to lose.


----------



## Gerry Canning (25 Sep 2015)

Descart,

I think Bronte highlights that in the vast majority of cases Mr Bank and indeed our system is loaded to favour Mr Bank.
I am more than inclined to agree with that.

I understand your points and would not advise mr 60% to proceed if he held chaseable assets ( I assume he doesn,t) .
I think mr 60% can afford (forgive the pun!) to sue if Mr Bank keeps after him.


----------



## Descart (25 Sep 2015)

Gerry Canning,

This is one of Bronte's posts on the matter.



Bronte said:


> How does it matter what the bank sold the portfolio/properties to this new company/fund.  All the matters is that a borrower owes X. House achieves Y.  Borrower now owes X - Y = Z.
> 
> Isn't the whole point of these large sell offs that there is good and bad.  And they will go after any borrower for the maximium shortfall where that borrower has a salary or assets.



I do not think this incorrect post by Bronte does anything but misinform readers of the thread that receivers can sell your property for any price they like, as it is you, the borrower, who have defaulted on the loan agreement. There is settled law on the matter, which somewhat redresses the significant imbalance. I was merely pointing out this fact and actually trying to give some constructive information to the original poster.

In fact, maybe mortgage deeds between consumers and the banks could be open to challenge under the unfair terms directive 93/13/EEC, worth investigating I think.


----------



## Bronte (25 Sep 2015)

Descart said:


> Bronte,
> 
> If you do not remember what you said in a previous post, I will refresh your memory. You asked can you link us to an Irish court case where one succeeded in taking on the receivers, this I did. You also alluded to your very own sibling and partner who managed to usurp the receiver not once, but twice. Thus proving that the little man can take on the receivers and win. I do not understand what point you are trying to make.
> 
> Again, I call on you to answer my one question to you, what would you do if you were in Dermot's friends shoes ?, with over 10,000 posts under you belt, other viewers to this forum and myself await your enlightening response.



I've no idea why you are attacking me.  Dermot asked for all views and indeed he thanked all of us.  If he has an issue with what I posted he can come back to me and he's been on here long enough to know and expect questions from me.  He said he couldn't answer and I accept that, but it does mean we do not have the full story.  In particular I'd like confirmation that an exact same house in the estate is on the PPR for 40% more in the same time period.

Do you have an issue with how many posts I've done, why is this mentioned by you constantly.  Did I ever hold myself out as a consumer champion.  I don't appreciate your tone as I don't understand the vitriol that seems to underline it?

I wouldn't be surprised if now this post and yours are deleted so I'm probably going to regret writing it (and it won't be me that reports it, I only report trolls or spam)

I simple asked you for a court case that proves a receiver has been taken to task where the property was undersold, when you mentioned one, I took the time to investigage and low and behold you're now saying that case isn't proving that but is proving one can take on receivers.  That was a very very specific case but it does not show what I asked.  So I'll ask again

*Do you have a court case in Ireland, recently, where a borrower was able to prove a receiver acted illegally in selling a property for much less than it was worth.*

I'm sure this would be of help to Dermot should he decide to go the legal route.  I realise you've listed losts of cases, settled laws and EU directives etc but an actual case would be much more helpful and I really really do not understand how you referred to the infavour Fry Foley case, as though you are in the know, and then when I bothered to read the case (no I didn't read all of it) and some analysis I see it was more to do with an issue with how an receiver was appointed than anything else.  I do not hold myself out to be a legal expert either.


----------



## Bronte (25 Sep 2015)

Descart said:


> Gerry Canning,
> 
> This is one of Bronte's posts on the matter.
> 
> ...



I NEVER EVER said that a receiver can sell a property for any price they like.  But I would agree that one is highly likely to get a lot less for a house/home if you let a receiver sell it rather than undertaking the task onself, as in a voluntary sale, which is what I've advised on here many times.  In addition when you have a receiver, you run the risk of sky high fees for everything.  The most expensive auctioneer, the most costly locksmith, the dearest advertising etc.


----------



## Bronte (25 Sep 2015)

Descart said:


> Bronte,
> 
> If you do not remember what you said in a previous post, I will refresh your memory. You asked can you link us to an Irish court case where one succeeded in taking on the receivers, this I did. You also alluded to your very own sibling and partner who managed to usurp the receiver not once, but twice. Thus proving that the little man can take on the receivers and win. I do not understand what point you are trying to make.
> 
> Again, I call on you to answer my one question to you, what would you do if you were in Dermot's friends shoes ?, with over 10,000 posts under you belt, other viewers to this forum and myself await your enlightening response.



I actually think my sibling etc acted illegally but the whole thing is such a mess and there's the land league and all sorts so I cannot fully make head nor tail of it.  They have made themselves such a nuisance that locksmith, receiver, estate agent won't go near it, but still the bank won't take them and they are now corresponding direclty with the banks legal team and are on first name terms with the banks counsel !


----------



## Descart (25 Sep 2015)

Bronte,


Here to remind you, is your actual post,


Bronte said:


> They are?  And maybe you could link us to an actual Irish court case where one succeded in taking on the receivers?  I see the rich and fully legally qualified Mr. O'Donnell with all the tricks in the book, lost his house, but it hasn't been sold yet presumably, maybe he'll be taking a new case later.



Sardonic post to say the least, and also not the question you stated you posted originally in your immediate posts above, a bit of a backtrack I believe, and manipulation of the original question thrown in for good measure, but if that your game your welcome to it.

It's Dermot friend that has the problem with the receiver, if you bother to read the content of the posts. I have spoken with Dermot in conversation mode and given him advice, I don' t intend to post same on a public forum that the bank's have access to.

Bronte, your not a consumer champion, your not a legal expert, what exactly are you ?

And by the way, good job at getting the original thread off topic.


----------



## LS400 (25 Sep 2015)

Descart, you're going from hero to zero with your relentless pursuit of Bronte. This was a good post from Dermot where ordinary folk like Bronte can contribute. You should have made it clear you only want to hear from qualified individuals who have experience in this matter to reply. This is a public forum from what I gather where you don't need letters after you name to converse.  Don't ruin a good topic.


----------



## BazzaDP (26 Sep 2015)

I'm with Bronte to be honest (and also don't understand Descarte's attacks on her either).

The friend of OP borrowed money, failed to pay it back, had the securing asset taken off them and sold, and the bank is perfectly entitled to chase them for the difference as the house did not sell for enough to settle the debt.

Could the bank have got more for the house? Almost certainly, if they invested time, money and effort to get this. Was that worth their while? Not usually - they are not trying to be property investors.

While I can understand the bank selling it for a bit cheaper, to get a quick sale, I cannot think they would deliberately, drastically, underselling it to 60% of its value as the chances of getting money back from someone who has already defaulted is low. So I'd also be sceptical that's the case, and sorry it that offends OP who obviously believes this to be exactly the case. However if it is the case then o would definitely think it's worth getting legal advice.


----------



## Bronte (26 Sep 2015)

Don't send me PMs Descart, if you have something to say to me, do it here in the open.  Have I your permission to quote your untrue PM?

I have absolutely no idea why you have such a problem with me, I fight and debate with loads of people on here, but in general I don't think I hold grudges or have any real issues, but if you have something you want to get off your chest, do it here.


----------



## moneybox (27 Sep 2015)

Dermot said:


> The property is on the PPR


 
Who is to say that the correct price was entered?

http://www.independent.ie/life/home...e-register-brimming-with-errors-30405255.html


----------



## Asphyxia (29 Sep 2015)

Descart has given some insightful and pertinent case law in relation to the duties of receivers towards the mortgagor, which a few posters have found extremely useful. Bronte on the other hand has not. I believe Descart has been banned from the site, which is sad really, as Bronte is well up to the challenge and by her own admission "fights and debates with loads of people." The AAM site will be a little less colourful and informative without her. The phrase " cutting off one's nose to spite the face " springs to mind.


----------



## LS400 (29 Sep 2015)

I certainly hope that's not the case. Descart may have gotten a little carried away with emotions, but banning is pretty draconian. A word from the mods would have sufficed.


----------



## Sophrosyne (30 Sep 2015)

I agree.

Descart was the only one on this thread that gave at least a basis for legal argument, which although may have been too late for Dermot’s friend may have been worthwhile to AAM viewers in similar situations.

If everyone accepts what is, nothing would ever change.


----------



## Sarenco (30 Sep 2015)

Sophrosyne said:


> Descart was the only one on this thread that gave at least a basis for legal argument.



I beg to differ.



Sarenco said:


> Hi Dermot
> 
> In answer to your original question, yes, a receiver has a positive duty to a borrower to take reasonable steps to obtain the best price in the market where he exercises a power of sale.  The fact that the relevant loan may have been acquired by the party appointing the receiver at a discount, either as part of a bundle of loans or otherwise, is not a relevant consideration in assessing whether or not a receiver has discharged his duty to a borrower.
> 
> ...



In any event, there is no justification for attacking or abusing other posters.


----------



## Asphyxia (30 Sep 2015)

Sarenco said:


> I beg to differ.
> 
> 
> 
> In any event, there is no justification for attacking or abusing other posters.



You can beg all you like, but the fact is Sophrosyne is correct, you are not. Do you wish to qualify your remark " I beg to differ".


----------



## Sarenco (30 Sep 2015)

Asphyxia said:


> Do you wish to qualify your remark " I beg to differ".



Not really.

Sophrosyne stated that "Descart was the only one on this thread that gave at least a basis for legal argument".  However,  I would suggest that I had already given Dermot the same substantive advice on the question of a receiver's duty to a mortgagor.


----------



## Asphyxia (30 Sep 2015)

You provided no case law references and advised Dermot's friend to go a see a solicitor. " Bravo." So, no, it was not the same substantive advice.


----------



## Sarenco (30 Sep 2015)

Do you really think including case references added anything of significance to the advice?  I certainly don't.

Descart also (quite correctly in my opinion) advised Dermot's friend to consult with a solicitor.

So, yes, the advice was substantively identical.

In any event, it is clearly not correct to say that "Descart was the only one on this thread that gave at least a basis for legal argument".


----------



## Asphyxia (1 Oct 2015)

Yes, I do. It qualifies the advice, otherwise you would be self praising and patting yourself on the back for repeating the mantra " go and consult a solicitor  " for every problem on this site.


----------



## Sarenco (1 Oct 2015)

I have no interest in squabbling with you but I don't recall any other recent set of circumstances posted here where I advised anybody to consult with a solicitor - it's certainly not a mantra - and I wasn't patting myself on the back.


----------

