# My Debt Story



## baz6679

Have been a long-time reader of posts and finally decided it's about time I share my experiences. So here goes:
I worked in the construction industry up until 2008 and was left high and dry like so many people in this country by being owed a large amount of money for work I had completed. I was getting married in August of 2008 and ended up rupturing my Cruciate Ligament playing Soccer 3 weeks before wedding!!! This coupled with not being able to get the money I was owed meant I quickly found myself sinking deeper and deeper in debt.
The problem culminated in January 2009 when it ended up I have between 30-40 grand of debt with one of the major banks across credit card, overdraft, personal loan and the balance of a hire purchase Van which I returned. I was beside myself with worry and stress and after much searching and looking for help found a debt management company who have handled all for me. I now pay 300 a month back and have been doing since November 2009.
However it is a struggle. We as a family have also decide to emigrate to Australia and will  have our permanent residency visa inside the next month. I am selling my house and am hoping to have a few thousand maybe 4 grand left so we can go and start all over again. Here is the thing though.
I am seriously considering running and leaving this debt. I know howls of horror and the moral issues and how the Irish taxpayer will be footing this but seriously until your in the situation you shouldn't judge people like me who see it as the only option. I spoke with my advisor in the debt agency who is an absolute star. I am going to sit down with the bank and tell them to settle for 40-50 cent in the euro and give me the next 15 years to pay this back which I know I can do by working my backside off as I have good contacts where I am going with good work prospects.
If they don't like this then its bye bye bank and do whatever the hell you like because I ain't coming back in that case!
I must add the tactics employed by these big banks and the stunts they try and pull are so backhanded that it has left people like me with no other option.
I want to finish by saying there is no point in posting back to me and taking the moral line because the following is fact:
-yes i borrowed the money
-yes I have to live with the guilt of saddling the taxpayer if i do run
-yes I know I should be made pay back what I borrowed

Thanks for reading and any comments/advice much appreciated


----------



## niceoneted

In fairness you actually come across to me as someone who wants to take responsibility for it. 
Also what you owe is small fry in comparison to the like of Fitzpatrick et al and with all that has gone on especially with revelations over the last weeks I don't blame you. 
One thing I realised the other day when talking to someone who owes a lot of money - they are still getting the take aways having the hols etc when I have scaled back due to pay cuts and it sickened me. 

I wish you the best of luck with your move to the southern hemisphere.


----------



## baz6679

Thank You. I will be taking responsibility by presenting them with a manageable reasonable plan to have this paid off. With selling my home I wont have a mortgage here so therefore I hope to pay a back some each year. I can honestly say some of the People they have working for them are unreal. I can tell you for a fact now that one of the Big Boy Banks in this country sends letters from a firm of Solicitors who actually don't exist. By all intents and purposes the letter you get from said firm is very real and scares people for sure but it's another scare tactic to make people pay up and pay up quickly. Obviously they have their solicitors they use for serious cases etc but for smaller debts they employ this tactic!


----------



## niceoneted

I can tell you for a fact now that one of the Big Boy Banks in this country sends letters from a firm of Solicitors who actually don't exist. By all intents and purposes the letter you get from said firm is very real and scares people for sure but it's another scare tactic to make people pay up and pay up quickly.


That is scandalous you should email Shane Ross about the likes of that.


----------



## ontour

Usually the reason that banks settle for a fraction of the debt is to get the money now.  Given your intention to pay it off over 15 years it is debt forgiveness rather than a settlement that you are proposing.  It will be very interesting to hear how your discussions with the bank go.

If there is equity in your property the bank may become concerned with your intentio to walk away from the debt and register a judgment against the property making it less advantageous for you to sell.

Emigrating is the logical decision for many in the construction industry whether it is to maintain skills that will position you well to return in a number of years or to simply build a new life elsewhere.

You should check with the law society about the solicitors.  There are a number of solicitors that do not have office for the public and are part of accountancy practices or other companies


----------



## mchugh2008

Hi, I thik you're dead right and I wish you well. I'm thinking the same. If you search for my post re bankruptcy, you'll see my story. I'm getting so very good advice at the moment as I thought my only way out was to go Bankrupt but there maybe aother option. I still dont have a full understanding of the process but its getting court protection and then going into negotiating with your creditors and forcing them to agree at somewhere between 10c and 20c in the euro. Why offer 50c in the euro. Start low and work up if you can. Definitely worth checking out this angle but make sure you use someone that knows what they are talking about nad actually has experience in this specific area. Too many chancers out there so be careful.


----------



## baz6679

Yes I know you are right. My intention is to sell the house take the minor small bit of equity and start again. There is so many people out there in the same boat and who are going to do the same. Banks have lied cheated and gorged on ordinary decent people like me and you. For god sake I remember the day my wife and I walked in to get a mortgage. I had a fair bit of savings and they nearly made me feel guilty for only taking out the amount of mortgage I was taking out!!!
Can I ask you or maybe PM you McHugh about the process and what you are going to do?


----------



## PaddyBloggit

Be great if you could keep the discussion going on the forum rather than going the PM route .... keeping it on the forum may help others in the same situation.

Re. your position baz6679 I think you've made great efforts to sort your situation and I wouldn't fault you at all for what you are doing ..... and best of luck with the move.

Soak up some sun for those of us who'll still be weathering it out here!


----------



## Time

These solicitors wouldn't be AIB's own in house ones by any chance?


----------



## UFC

I know someone who thought the exact same as you.

He paid back the debt.

He has moved on with his life.

If you don't pay back the debt it will come back to haunt you. (I know, I used to work in credit control, you would be amazed what we do to get our money back. )


----------



## Time

Very interesting.


----------



## goingforgold

You say after house sale you will have c. 4K left over. Is this before you clear the 30-40K of debt?


----------



## Guest105

goingforgold said:


> You say after house sale you will have c. 4K left over. Is this before you clear the 30-40K of debt?


 

Did you read the OP's post 

baz6679 - 30 or 40 grand is not a huge amount of money to owe in the grand scheme of things.  Don't feel you are being forced out of the country because of this debt unless yourself and your family really want to go for a better quality of life etc.

Don't let the banks know you are selling the house until you have the bit of equity you are due safely in your back pocket then go in and negotiate with them and maybe some settlement can be reached to suit all parties.

Good luck in your new life, enjoy the sunshine and relaxed way of life and don't ever feel you are missing anything from this wild west managed and debt ridden country.


----------



## Time

> Don't let the banks know you are selling the house until you have the  bit of equity you are due safely in your back pocket then go in and  negotiate with them and maybe some settlement can be reached to suit all  parties.


Sage advice there. If they get wind of you selling up they will rush to court to stick a few judgement mortgages on your house. Then you will have no room to be able to negotiate a settlement with them?


----------



## Wishes

Thanks for sharing your story Baz.



baz6679 said:


> I walked in to get a mortgage. I had a fair bit of savings and they nearly made me feel guilty for only taking out the amount of mortgage I was taking out!!!



I had a similar situation too.  Not far from where I'm living there was a beautiful estate in the process of being built and a couple of staff at the bank had purchased properties there, all in all in and around the 1 million mark.  They were looking at me as if I had lost my marbles buying a very old house while I could have been living in a more prestigious estate; crazy, crazy stuff.


----------



## goingforgold

cashier said:


> Did you read the OP's post


I did and just did again. It seems pretty vague. He says when house is sold he will have about 4K to his name. Then he says he may just leave country and forget debt...is this before or after house sale and even if after house sale does that mean he will still only have 4K to his name if he runs away from debt.

You seem to know a lot. Maybe you can enlighten me?


----------



## PaddyBloggit

My reading of it is that he'll have about €4k after he sells house and will still have the €40k debt to deal with.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

niceoneted said:


> I can tell you for a fact now that one of the Big Boy Banks in this country sends letters from a firm of Solicitors who actually don't exist. By all intents and purposes the letter you get from said firm is very real and scares people for sure but it's another scare tactic to make people pay up and pay up quickly.
> 
> 
> That is scandalous you should email Shane Ross about the likes of that.



Scandalous indeed! They should use a full registered firm of solicitors - preferably one of the Top 10 - and insist on the borrower paying the full fees of the debt collection process. The banks are cheapskates trying to use inhouse firms. The borrowers don't mind paying these additional fees on top of their existing debts.   The legal profession is really suffering. The banks should use external firms if only to help this struggling legal profession.

Come to think of it, the banks should abandon their credit control department altogether and hand all arrears over to solicitors. They would save a lot of money and it would help the legal profession.


----------



## baz6679

Hi everyone. Firstly thank you for all the replies. Think I need to clarify here. I mean I am going to sell my home ok. I hope to have at least 4 maybe 5 grand left over. I am then sending this to my Australian bank account. I still have the debt to deal with. As for MR "I used to work in Credit Control" I am well aware of the lengths you people went to. Do you want to know something else. I left a 2007 van back to this Bank because I couldn't pay for it. Same van i bought in June 2007 with a loan from this bank. They approved the loan in 20 mins. So I leave van back at the end of 2008 and its a year and a half old. Guess what they do? Have their Finance Rep in my area pick it up. He then sells it for 5,000 euro and then announce to me I now owe them the balance which is about 19000 euro. If I had known that I could have tried to sell it private. I agree I was very naieve and extremely stupid but for god sake they are scum and I mean that people.
Why should this come back to haunt me? I have armed myself with knowledge and decided they dont care about me, I am just a number so therefore my attitude is I think I should screw them the way they have screwed me.
However as i pointed out in my first post. I am prepared to sit down and come to an agreement


----------



## UFC

baz6679 said:


> I should screw them the way they have screwed me.



How have they screwed you?

They lent you money, you aren't going to pay it all back... only one person is doing the screwing...


----------



## baz6679

UFC said:


> How have they screwed you?
> 
> They lent you money, you aren't going to pay it all back... only one person is doing the screwing...



By adding 6,500 euro to A HP Agreement my friend that I knew nothing about. I dont have 500 euro to pay to a barrister to review the HP contract, as my solicitor has seen it and feels a barrister needs to look at it.  I don't want to go in to major detail here because for all i know you could be one of them!!


----------



## millieforbes

Leaving aside the issue of walking away from the debts, do you have a contingency plan if the sale of your house doesn't go quite as you plan? 4k could easily get eaten up in additional costs or of you don't get the price you hope?


----------



## Bronte

You need to negotiate hard with the bank if you want to pay less than 50C in the Euro.  Do not tell them where you are going or that you are selling your house.  We would be very interested to hear that the bank has come to an arrangement of the kind you have suggested.  My take on your story is that you agree to pay back half of the 40K debt over the next 15 years (50c in the Euro).  You would want this agreement in writing.  That would mean no interest being added and a write down of half the debt.  


If you can negotiate the above that would be fantastic on a number of fronts.  But mainly it would leave you free to return to Ireland without the issue hanging over you.  

You are correct that to the bank you are just a number.  They will get every penny they can out of you.  The current nicey nicey approach of the banks is just a facade.  

For others on here can you post back now or when in Oz how you got on.


----------



## kramer2006

Baz, I'm struggling to understand the purpose of your post? Do you want people to clap you on the back and validate you shirking your responsibilities? Or are you simply try to goad people into an argument?

Your post comes across as extremely immature and petulant. You can blame the bankers and the politicians as much as you like, but the fact remains: you borrowed the money, you agreed to assume personal responsibility for those loans and now that you've been caught out, you stick two fingers up to the bank. Well done you...

You sound as if you've already made your mind up, so go for it. What happens if you balls up your financial affairs in Australia? States? Canada?


----------



## Pope John 11

kramer2006 said:


> Baz, I'm struggling to understand the purpose of your post? Do you want people to clap you on the back and validate you shirking your responsibilities? Or are you simply try to goad people into an argument?
> 
> Your post comes across as extremely immature and petulant. You can blame the bankers and the politicians as much as you like, but the fact remains: you borrowed the money, you agreed to assume personal responsibility for those loans and now that you've been caught out, you stick two fingers up to the bank. Well done you...
> 
> You sound as if you've already made your mind up, so go for it. What happens if you balls up your financial affairs in Australia? States? Canada?






UFC said:


> ... only one person is doing the screwing...


Sorry UFC, it takes two to screw 

Its very difficult for the ordinary citizen in this country to face up to their responsibilities when its quite plain that the banks, developers and  the politicians in this country have left this country down. Like I previously said in a previous post the level of corruptness  in this country is scandalous with no law at all for white collar crime.

So as I said to a previous poster, good luck in your travels, hope it works out for you, take no guilt or no shame with you.


----------



## baz6679

kramer2006 said:


> Baz, I'm struggling to understand the purpose of your post? Do you want people to clap you on the back and validate you shirking your responsibilities? Or are you simply try to goad people into an argument?
> 
> Your post comes across as extremely immature and petulant. You can blame the bankers and the politicians as much as you like, but the fact remains: you borrowed the money, you agreed to assume personal responsibility for those loans and now that you've been caught out, you stick two fingers up to the bank. Well done you...
> 
> You sound as if you've already made your mind up, so go for it. What happens if you balls up your financial affairs in Australia? States? Canada?



First of all i did not try to goad anyone in-to an argument. The purpose of this post was to give an honest account of how it feels to be in a certain situation i.e in debt. Also how it feels to have not much option but what I'm thinking of doing. Secondly if you have read my post in detail if I had been paid money I was owed I would not have found myself in this situation. The Banks of this country have to take some responsibility for what has happened as do people like me who borrowed the money.
If me giving an honest and truthful account of a situation I have found myself in, a situation that thousands of people in this country are facing now and others will face soon, leads someone in-to an argument then it's not me who should be labelled immature.
To other posters thanks for the comments. Neither looking for a clap on the back or to be applauded, fact remains a story like mine is just the tip of the ice berg. Something on a grander scale is probably going to have to be done to help people because there are people in far worse debt problems than i am.


----------



## Bronte

baz6679 said:


> , fact remains a story like mine is just the tip of the ice berg. Something on a grander scale is probably going to have to be done to help people because there are people in far worse debt problems than i am.


 
Banks are not there to help people.   Their only interest is in getting as much money back as possible with as much profit as possible.   Based on the news yesterday your debt if piffling.  So far nothing has been done to help people in debt and nothing probably will be done.  Deals are done only for the big boys.  

The moratorium on banks going after homeowners is not help.   It is help for the banks not the borrowers.  Don't be fooled.


----------



## mchugh2008

Hi Baz, sounds like all are having their personal opinions stated here with or without facts. For you I don't believe that its very helpful especially with the serious nature of your present circumstances. Its hard to see from what I'm reading what is being constructively offered to you. Baz I fully understand your side and I have fully experienced the workings of those ruthless scummy individuals working for banks (may I add that this is a minority of individuals who wish to play dirty). Now as far as you should be concerned, you clearly need to decide on what you want to do first and FULLY understand the consequences. Sell the house and run in which case you may have problems with injunctions in the future or (2)try to sell the house and then offer something to the bank via an arrangement option. If you run, you may have an enforceable injunction against you in Australia but this will certainly depend on the bank, on the amount you owe and on what you actually do to aggravate the situation with the bank(another problem is that should Australia ask for a credit report, it may not help you - but I'm not 100% they will ask - you need to check this out though). As I said, its critical to evaluate your options and to get some good advice on your options before making your final decision but its up to you. I certainly did. I wish you luck. If you need to PM, no problem.


----------



## Time

For God's sake do not tell the bank anything about where you are going.


----------



## Bronte

mchugh2008 said:


> . If you run, you may have an enforceable injunction against you in Australia but this will certainly depend on the bank, on the amount you owe and on what you actually do to aggravate the situation with the bank.


 
Can you elaborate on this?  It may be of help to other people on here not just Baz.  

I realise that many of you don't want to post on here because of all the negative comments about people defaulting but if you have experience of how defaulting works or going to Oz etc please post it in public to help those who will not post on here.  There are many of them who need help and advice.  

In your own case looking at some of your previous threads it looked like you had thought about bankruptcy, how did you get on?  Would you be willing to share your experiences for the benefit of others.


----------



## mchugh2008

I dont believe Baz is going to inform the banks but let me tell you, the banks may simply find out. I know they have in the past and very very simply may I add. Just by a simple phone call to a parents house looking for the individual concerned. Then the bank got an injunction against that person in that country with the help of lawyers. All I am saying is be very very careful.


----------



## Bronte

So an Irish bank took out an injunction in Australia (?) against an Irish person resident there?  An injunction would be presumable at a Higher Court and so public (I don't see the banks going after people in another jurisdiction for under 100K unless it's a very cheap legal system).  What was the injunction for?  Can you tell us?


----------



## Time

Indeed. 

Also I would be briefing people to tell any callers simply that the person concerned is not available and to not call again. Some people are very naive indeed. 

I knows of many people who have left Ireland for good years ago and have not had any trouble since.


----------



## mchugh2008

Re callers, thats all fine until it catches someone off guard. Its easy say now but you can't always cover all avenue as I'm sure you will understand. Re injunction, it all depends on the amount of money in question but injunctions are en-forcible in other jurisdictions for example in any EU country, etc. Australia is in the commonwealth and therefore it must be possible as was the case in this situation. But I must stress that its down to the amount owed to the financial institution. Re Australia, their acceptance system is fairly stringent and getting more and more each year. Many irish are leaving and moving there with credit issues. In some countries, the Australians require the that they be furnished with credit rating reports as part of the acceptance procedure. I dont know about Ireland/Australia but one would want to check this out. If its not the case right now, it could be in the very near future.


----------



## Time

If a person wants to disappear and not be found it can be easily be done. I shall say no more.


----------



## Deiseblue

baz6679 said:


> Yes I know you are right. My intention is to sell the house take the minor small bit of equity and start again. There is so many people out there in the same boat and who are going to do the same. Banks have lied cheated and gorged on ordinary decent people like me and you. For god sake I remember the day my wife and I walked in to get a mortgage. I had a fair bit of savings and they nearly made me feel guilty for only taking out the amount of mortgage I was taking out!!!
> Can I ask you or maybe PM you McHugh about the process and what you are going to do?


 
I gather from the above post that you are still paying a mortgage to your lending Bank.

Such being the case it is extremely unlikely that you will be able to proceed with any sale of your house without the Bank's knowledge.

Do the Bank , for example , hold the Title to your house until the mortgage is cleared ?

I think you may be snookered in terms of hoping to present the Bank with a fait accompli in selling your house w3ithout their knowledge.


----------



## Time

I would be thinking the debts are with different banks to the one the mortage is being held with. If the house is sold for over the mortgage amount the mortgage is paid off and the bank have no say.


----------



## Bronte

Deiseblue said:


> Such being the case it is extremely unlikely that you will be able to proceed with any sale of your house without the Bank's knowledge.
> 
> Do the Bank , for example , hold the Title to your house until the mortgage is cleared ?
> 
> .


 
He doesn't have a problem in relation to the mortgage, he can sell the house and still have a surplus of circa 4K.  His problem is the other debt.


----------



## Deiseblue

Time said:


> I would be thinking the debts are with different banks to the one the mortage is being held with. If the house is sold for over the mortgage amount the mortgage is paid off and the bank have no say.


 
That may very well be the case but as a general principle most people have their borrowings with one institution , perhaps the OP would clarify ?

The only growth areas in the Bank's at the present time are the areas dealing with NAMA and debt collection and the level of expertise in chasing debts is growing in tandem.


I agree with those who feel that a mutually agreed compromise is the best way forward.


----------



## baz6679

Ok to clarify. My mortgage is with one bank. All  the personal debt is with another. Worst case scenario guys is that I sell my house at rock bottom price I will have about 4 grand left. Best case scenario is i sell and have maybe 20 grand left. My intention is then to speak to bank via debt agent who i can honestly say is brilliant and say to bank look here is 7-8 grand. Lay off me for a year so I can get my act together and let me come up with some more.
What we are talking about here is that Bank says i owe them 35-40 grand. But this includes interest etc. 
Believe me also I am not naive to be telling them I'm moving. OP no I dont need a credit report for Australia, just police checks and medicals. Have a permanent residency visa which means after 2 years out there i can get citizenship as well.

Just a big thank you to all posters for the comments. I don't think you can blame people for wanting to send PM's because the last thing anyone wants is to be getting the morality card being waved at them. Cheers everyone


----------



## Bronte

I was listening to Newstalk about 6.30 yesterday evening and they were talking about mortgages and default, they mentioned that so far banks had not chased people to Australisa, as I was cooking I didn't catch the full interview but that's what I thought I heard and Epurican or Epicurian or Experian. A podcast of that might be of benefit to those heading overseas.

Also I mentioned before on here an interview between Rachel English and Mary Coughlin about debt which would make your hair stand on end and the lengths banks will go to get every penny out of you once they have you in their clutches in debt.


----------



## fizzelina

baz6679 said:


> but for god sake they are scum


 
They are scum?? For lending you money and wanting it repaid?? Banks are and always have been a business. Credit unions are community based lending but banks are business. You borrowed the money and spent it so stop blaming the banks for being scum, if someone owed you 40k I'm sure you would do all in your power to get it? And re selling your house, in this climate how do you think it is going to sell? It's so difficult for buyers to get a mortgage.


----------



## Time

Well the government won't make the banks pay. In fact the banks are being rewarded for their loutish behaviour. More power to anyone that gets one over on the banks.


----------



## Bronte

fizzelina said:


> , if someone owed you 40k I'm sure you would do all in your power to get it?.


 
Like a lot of people the OP stated that part of the reason he can't pay his debts is that other people owe him money for work done.


----------



## JoeB

Brendan Burgess said:


> Scandalous indeed! They should use a full registered firm of solicitors - preferably one of the Top 10 - and insist on the borrower paying the full fees of the debt collection process. The banks are cheapskates trying to use inhouse firms. The borrowers don't mind paying these additional fees on top of their existing debts.   The legal profession is really suffering. The banks should use external firms if only to help this struggling legal profession.
> 
> Come to think of it, the banks should abandon their credit control department altogether and hand all arrears over to solicitors. They would save a lot of money and it would help the legal profession.



Is this tongue in cheek or sarcastic?

Why would the banks change their working practices in order to give another industry a leg up?


----------



## Kev

Bronte said:


> He doesn't have a problem in relation to the mortgage, he can sell the house and still have a surplus of circa 4K.  His problem is the other debt.



 I bet these lovely people that have his debt are adding interest on top of interest just to keep him paying thousand of over the original debt so he will always keep them with an income for them.


----------



## scwazrh

Everyones seem to forget that lending money is a risk business.The banks loaned money to people at a rate that they thought was profitable based on the element of risk that it would not be repaid.

The banks assessed the risk, set the rate and ultimately with many customers , got it wrong.It is not the borrowers fault.It is the lenders fault.The lender should have included in their equations the potential of default.

The lender should have made sure that the borrower had the money to repay the debt and should have viewed the options to repay in case of default
And without starting a new topic , *the lender is being repaid* , even though it is through a different channel ,ie the taxpayer/goverment instead of the individual,who is also a taxpayer.At the end of all events the bank/lender/Large bondholder is still making their mark up.Maybe a smaller markup than they had hoped but it is still a profit.

To put it in simple terms. Fast forward 2 to 3 years , The bank will have received substantially more from the Irish taxpayer than it has lost due to a number of Irish taxpayers not paying their debts.


----------



## chook

scwazrh said:


> The lender should have made sure that the borrower had the money to repay the debt and should have viewed the options to repay in case of default



And they did not. About 5 or 6 years ago at a visit to my local BoI branch, the employee I was dealing with shoved a piece of paper across the counter with a figure equating my annual (low) income. Our conversation went like this:
Me: What's this?
She: A pre-approved loan.
Me: But I did not ask for a loan.
She: [shruggs] Yes. But it's pre-approved.
Me: Do you realize this is the same as my annual income?
She: Umh. Well, this is what I am supposed to offer you.
Me: Thanks but no thanks. That's crazy.
She looked at me like I had two heads.



> To put it in simple terms. Fast forward 2 to 3 years , The bank will have received substantially more from the Irish taxpayer than it has lost due to a number of Irish taxpayers not paying their debts.


True, true. Privatize the profits, socialize the risk.


----------



## callaghanj

you should move to northern ireland for 2 months and file for bankruptcy. Your  roi debts will be discharged in the bky. You will be able to move to  Australia with a clean slate.


----------



## mchugh2008

Baz, apologies for not responding sooner but I have been abroad. Just catching up with the threads and all the advice. I would say be very very careful with this whole bankruptcy think whether it be in Ireland or UK. It should be your last preference. O' and by the way I came across the crowd I used. Will send you a private message. I wonder can I put the name of the company in a private message??? or will I get a warning.
Bronte, yes I looked at the bankruptcy option in the past but thankfully by getting some worthwhile advice I was able to steer clear and follow other routes.


----------



## mchugh2008

Brendan, I totally disagree. Its the solicitors of this world charging exuberant rates that makes it so difficult for us to flight the banks. I remember the prices I was been asked for just to sit with solicitors for 30min to discuss my situation. In the past I used some of the big firms and I found them to be more of a waste of time than some of the small operators. Although I must say, when it came to invoicing they were far ahead. The banks realise that too and hence they dont want to be wasting their money on over paid solicitors. All one needs to do is read the papers and see who benefits everytime a tribunal is setup, its certainly not you or I, but these overpaid legal firms.


----------



## Time

Also if you go to a solicitor for advice on dealing with a court case regarding debt, you will have a struggle finding impartial advice or representation. The vast majority of solicitors especially in small towns handle work for the banks and do not want to upset their masters from whom most of their work is coming from these days.


----------



## mchugh2008

Agreed and now even the big solicitor firms are exactly the same. Their masters are the banks and NAMA. Easy money for the boys.


----------



## baz6679

Hey All. Have been busy myself McHUGH so no worries. Basically I have been reading as much information as I possibly can. There is a growing body of thought out there and it is gathering pace big time, people are starting to take on the banks and are up for the fight big time. If Banks are going to pull each and every citizen in this country to court over unpaid debt and have them thrown in Jail then the next big issue facing us is massive overcrowding in the prison system. Talking to an elderly neighbour the other day who told me he owed his local shop some money, 100 euro or something it was. He said he told them "I'll give it ya's next week when I get the pension", unhappy shopkeeper advised " this is not good enough, need to get this sorted", neighbour replies to shopkeeper " You can't take knickers from ma bare AR*E", Made me laugh!


----------



## mchugh2008

You're dead right. Its time the banks were shown that their unhanded methods just wont work. They have got to understand that they must work with us. If they dont, then we all lose. But remember it sounds like no matter what the banks do, it seems like they cant lose because all our taxes will end up in their shareholders / senior management pockets anyway.


----------



## jambo

Time said:


> Well the government won't make the banks pay. In fact the banks are being rewarded for their loutish behaviour. More power to anyone that gets one over on the banks.


What's Anglo's share price today? AIB's?


----------



## JoeB

I'm not sure. It's higher than 0.00 though is it? And if it is that's only because of state intervention in private industries.


And what has our government done to prevent 'too big to fail' banks? Nothing I'd suggest. So we may be bailing out private banks again in the future... so no 'once bitten twice shy' here... we're destined to repeat our mistakes.


----------



## Wishes

I heard on the radio this week that some banks have now resorted to hiring private detectives to track down vanishing homeowners.


----------



## PaddyBloggit

*Banks using private eyes to hunt vanishing homeowners*

More here:

http://www.independent.ie/national-...yes-to-hunt-vanishing-homeowners-2518903.html


----------



## Wishes

Thanks for that Paddy.  Very interesting they are now telling people to hand back the keys.


----------



## Time

Private detectives have no more powers than a private citizen. They can only access information in the public domain unless they are corrupt of course and exert undue influence over public servants.



> Very interesting they are now telling people to hand back the keys.


It saves them on legal costs. They may not win a defended case which would cost them more.


----------



## Shuttleworth

mchugh2008 said:


> Agreed and now even the big solicitor firms are exactly the same. Their masters are the banks and NAMA. Easy money for the boys.


 
We're not all singing from the same hymn sheet within the legal profession. It's the Big Firms, and then everyone else. I had a legal practice which went to the wall. Never made millions, circa 60k a year as salary, always charged very fair rates for my work. I'm now on social welfare. Lots of my colleagues, all small practices, have had to close as well. 

In 1987 a weak and impotent Law Society agreed to the Boland Regulations which passed on the responsibility of vouching property title to banks when also acting for the purchaser, for no payment. Insurance became compulsory for solicitors as a result, effectively indemnifying the bank from any losses it might incur if its own minions didn't check title properly. A complete conflict of interest and a sell out of the profession but there you go. That system combined with the property bubble allowed Michael Lynn and Thomas Byrne to do what they did. Solicitors insurance premiums for those of us left, soared as a result. My last quotation was for 28,000 Euro for 2011 as opposed to 2008 when I paid 2,750 Euro.

I hate seeing my former colleagues act for the banks. They'll drag out every case for what it's worth even if there's no prospect of a debt being repaid. They know they have good clients backed by the taxpayer but like everyone they will do what they have to do to survive.

I would love to be in business helping people settle their debts but I can no longer afford the running costs. It's a chicken and egg situation I'm afraid.


----------



## Time

> They'll drag out every case for what it's worth even if there's no prospect of a debt being repaid.


That is something the law society should be stopping. Wasted costs for absolutely no return.


----------



## Bronte

Time said:


> That is something the law society should be stopping. Wasted costs for absolutely no return.


 
You are joking the law society has no interest, nor do it's' members in anything else.  Why else do you think the lawyers were cheering on Seanie recently in the tea room.  They can see the doller signs before them for years to come.


----------



## Bronte

Time said:


> Also if you go to a solicitor for advice on dealing with a court case regarding debt, you will have a struggle finding impartial advice or representation. The vast majority of solicitors especially in small towns handle work for the banks and do not want to upset their masters from whom most of their work is coming from these days.


 
My experience of the attitude of solicitors to the banks would that it would be negative.  Are you saying solicitiors will not act for people in debt problems with the banks.  What work do solicitiors do for the banks?


----------



## Time

> Are you saying solicitiors will not act for people in debt problems with the banks.


Where a conflict of interest exists or the solicitor will not act on moral issues.


> What work do solicitiors do for the banks?


The big Dublin firms farm out the donkey work in debt collection to local solicitors that attend the local district courts. So when you get Crosskerrys for example suing someone in Dingle, a local solicitor will get the forms stamped in the local court office and attend court on behalf of the Dublin firm. Same with instalment orders etc all the work is farmed out. When you factor in how many big firms are in the debt collection game and the number of local solicitors attending court, you will find all the regular solicitors have their case loads from the various big firms. 

Basically they act as country agents for the big Dublin firms. For many small town solicitors it is now their bread and butter and they don't want to annoy their big city masters and the banks.


----------



## Bronte

I don't understand what moral issue you are referring to but in any case you go to a solicitor for a legal issue not a moral one.

Are you saying that all the solicitors in all the small towns in Ireland are working on debt cases for banks.  This cannot be.  

The only cases I've heard of where solicitors will  not act,  and things might have changed, is when it's a case against one of their own.  For this the Law Society has in recently years a list of solicitors who will act.  

Presumably the reason people are not legally represented in court cases is because they cannot afford it and who amongst us can afford High court cases in any case.  You have to be rich or poor to go to the High Court so that excludes a lot of the population.


----------



## Time

I know quite a few solicitors with very highly held moral views and won't represent debtors in court cases. You know the "you must pay your debts!" types. 

I know that in one district court every one of the regular attending solicitors has a big workload of debt cases on behalf of the banks and the big Dublin firms. I had an awful job finding someone to take on a case where a debtor was seriously ill and needed an adjournment. In the end I found a newly qualified solicitor with no ties to the banks to take on the case. None of the others wanted to know.


----------



## Bronte

Time said:


> I know quite a few solicitors with very highly held moral views and won't represent debtors in court cases. You know the "you must pay your debts!" types.
> 
> .


 
Are your sure it wasn't a case of the client hadn't a hope and couldn't afford to make it worthwhile for the solicitor rather than the solicitor refusing on moral grounds.  Still actually don't get how morals come into it.  And it would be rare indeed in this climate the small town solicitor who can turn down business.  District court is financially not worthwhile to solicitors in general.  

In relation to your court experience.  How many solicitors did you ask and how do you know it was because they will only work on behalf of a bank?  Did not one of them say, give me 100 Euro and I'll speak in front of the judge?  Could you not have asked for an adjournment yourself for the client?  Or explained it to the banks solicitors and asked for their consent.  I'm not doubting you but I must say next trip to Ireland I'm going to pop down to the courts myself to see what's going on as I didn't realise the district court was swamped with debt cases, I've never heard about them in the papers.  In any case I cannot see how a solicitor would refuse an easy 100 to ask for an adjournment and how that would affect his relationship with the banks.

Maybe Vanilla or MF1 or one of the other legal eagles who go to court regularly could confirm your experiences.


----------



## Time

It had gotten to the stage where the district court has expanded from one day a month to 2 days a month for civil cases. The vast majority of these were debt cases.

They tend not to report debt cases in the local papers anymore. They tend to concentrate on criminal cases for the court reports.


----------



## Shuttleworth

Bronte said:


> Are your sure it wasn't a case of the client hadn't a hope and couldn't afford to make it worthwhile for the solicitor rather than the solicitor refusing on moral grounds. Still actually don't get how morals come into it. And it would be rare indeed in this climate the small town solicitor who can turn down business. District court is financially not worthwhile to solicitors in general.
> 
> In relation to your court experience. How many solicitors did you ask and how do you know it was because they will only work on behalf of a bank? Did not one of them say, give me 100 Euro and I'll speak in front of the judge? Could you not have asked for an adjournment yourself for the client? Or explained it to the banks solicitors and asked for their consent. I'm not doubting you but I must say next trip to Ireland I'm going to pop down to the courts myself to see what's going on as I didn't realise the district court was swamped with debt cases, I've never heard about them in the papers. In any case I cannot see how a solicitor would refuse an easy 100 to ask for an adjournment and how that would affect his relationship with the banks.
> 
> Maybe Vanilla or MF1 or one of the other legal eagles who go to court regularly could confirm your experiences.


 
District Court judges are sick of these cases. They want a Debt Mediation and Settlement Scheme set up, as happened with the Army Deafness claims.

Solicitors would definitely take on cases if there was a prospect of payment of fees from debtors, which there unfortunately isn't.

Most people in Ireland did not traditionally default on their debts, which is why we had the credit spree we did. Most defaults now are through genuine hardship.

There are a group of legal people and accountants recently formed who are taking on these cases pro bono. T&Cs on here probably forbids me from mentioning their name but a Google search should throw it up quickly.


----------



## Bronte

Shuttleworth I'm sure you can mention the firm taking on Pro bono cases as it will benefit others on here.

Pro bono is where a solicitor takes on a case for nothing on behalf of a client.  

I was arguing the point with Time that I thought the solicitors wouldn't take on cases because a) the client's cannot afford it and b) even if the solicitor does it for a low cost it's not worthwhile to the solicitor.

Could you or Time tell us what is actually happening in these cases, a typical case for example and what the judges attitude is to the debtors, the instituations and what orders are being sought and what orders are being given.  

If these cases are so prevelant, it's amazing that they are not being reported or investigated by the news media.  But maybe I've missed that.


----------



## Time

If you go down to any district court on the civil days you will find the list packed with debt cases in their various stages. 

A typical case would be a bank seeking an instalment order against a debtor. There could be 50 or 60 of these applications at each sitting. 

3 things can happen here:

a.) The debtor shows up and has all his/her statements of means with them. The judge asks the debtor questions about its contents and asks if the debtor is in employment or on social welfare. From that the judge will make a decision on what can be afforded per week/month. Usually if the only income is SW no order is made and the banks solicitor is told to take this information back to their masters.
Where an order is made the judge will ask the debtor if he/she can afford it first.  The bank will usually try and seek an unrealistic amount but the judge will refuse to entertain that.

b.) The debtor shows up but has no statement of means or he sent it in late. Usually the judge will put the case back for a month so that the statement can be submitted and next time situation a will happen.

c.) No show by the debtor. When this happens the judge will check that he was properly served. Upon proper service the judge will ask the solicitor acting for the bank what order they are seeking. Usually they will be seeking a massive amount of money and with no debtor present to challenge the order is granted by default.

These cases are not news worthy anymore as to report a typical sitting in a provincial paper would take up many pages. The judges are very sympathetic towards the debtors in general especially where they take the time to appear and make an effort. On the other hand judges are sick of the banks seeking unrealistic amounts and taking people on SW to court where no order will be made. I know of one judge that will strike out bank cases for minor errors in the paperwork.


----------



## missthrifty

Hello,  Good Luck in your new life.  Why would anyone in a similar situation to yourself feel morally superior to your intentions.  The temptation to hard ball the bank and offer 10c/15c (check what NAMA is giving them for their toxic loans) as opposed to 40/50c would be a good starting point.  Quote: Don Corleone: "Never let anyone outside the family know what you're thinking".  Therefore keep your powder dry and record the meeting as I understand that bank manager's offices are set up to record their meetings with customers. Slan


----------



## mchugh2008

Baz, posted you the details you were looking for re the advice, help etc i was given. See your PM. Best of luck with it and I hope it all works out. Enjoy down under


----------



## Bronte

Time said:


> . On the other hand judges are sick of the banks seeking unrealistic amounts and taking people on SW to court where no order will be made.


 
Thanks Time for the insight.  What level of costs and penalties are the banks seeking in addition to the original debt?  Do the judges look at these figures and make any comments.    You have to wonder why on earth a bank goes to the costs of a court case where the person is on SW and they know no order will be made.  Is it so they can add more costs on I wonder.


----------



## Time

They are only awarded costs where an order is actually made. So they will get nothing if they go on a fishing trip to see if they can get something.

Where they do get costs they can only get scaled costs which are quite modest €50-70 depending on the amount of the original judgement amount.

In the courts where I have had experience the judge has passed snide comments on some of the amounts sought. €400 a month was the standard amount that banks would usually seek. The judge would usually say something like "You will be lucky" and "I think you need a reality check, Ms xxxx".


----------



## Shuttleworth

Bronte said:


> Shuttleworth I'm sure you can mention the firm taking on Pro bono cases as it will benefit others on here.
> 
> Pro bono is where a solicitor takes on a case for nothing on behalf of a client.
> 
> I was arguing the point with Time that I thought the solicitors wouldn't take on cases because a) the client's cannot afford it and b) even if the solicitor does it for a low cost it's not worthwhile to the solicitor.
> 
> Could you or Time tell us what is actually happening in these cases, a typical case for example and what the judges attitude is to the debtors, the instituations and what orders are being sought and what orders are being given.
> 
> If these cases are so prevelant, it's amazing that they are not being reported or investigated by the news media. But maybe I've missed that.


 
The group is called New Beginning.  

Time has explained what is occurring at the moment very well.


----------



## manns

Just wondering if the property that baz..... is selling has a mortgage on it with the same institution or with a different institution or maybe there is no debt on it.

On the Private Eye, haven't heard anything about these guys. Has anyone any stories on this. Its interesting to hear. I know for a fact that there are debt collectors out there though. Friend of mine owed 7k to credit card company, is seriously in debt and offered 4k to settle. CC refused and sent out debt collector. Debt collector told my friend that this particular CCC wont settle with anyone. He said its crazy in this era. Does anyone know if the debt is frozen when the debt collectors start knocking or does the interest keep clocking up? I told my friend that I though interest would continue to increase but I wasnt sure.

As for the solicitors and the legal profession...I dont have alot of sympathy for you all. It was your own guys that has caused you the problems you have today and secondly it was an unwillingness by all to modernise probably because things were just too good. I'm sure you'll agree, the practices and the processes are in complete need of change. Let me tell you a couple of stories just to verify my statements. Sold a house couple of years ago and waited and waited for my cheque to come from my EX-solicitor. Call after call to the solicitor and 6 weeks later I get my cheque. I called the buyers solicitor to find when the cheque was paid and it was verified that the cheque was with my solicitor for 6 weeks. WHY you may ask. Its called " keep your Client Account maintained with a minimum balance and we the bank will give the solicitor preferential interest rates and will allow you to borrow against the strength of your balance" Wow..so I began to understand why my payment was delayed, why so many solicitors are either property investors or developers..ist easy when you're getting money for nothing and earning interest on other peoples money..I could be one too if I was getting interest on other peoples money. When it comes to paying fees, the solicitor never seem to mention that I earned interest on your money in my client account so we'll deduct that from my fees!!!
As for the Barristers, we all you need do is be in court and during or after the case is heard, hand around and drop into the restaurant / cafe close by. It will open your eyes what you will see. You just might see your barrister and that of the other partys barrister sitting down together having a good chat and a laugh. Its sole destroying. And then try the negotiating process on the so called steps of the court. Certainly my experience and that of many friends of mine is not about actual negotiating but about maximising fees for themselves. I'm sorry but the legal profession needs to be totally reformed and quickly. I haven't seem any moves in this direction that I would call positive or proactive towards servicing the needs of the general public in a more open and fair way. The above are my personal experiences with the profession and may not be the norm across the country. Will be interesting to get the point a view of the legal profession out there.


----------



## baz6679

Just a quick update. I made a request for a full disclosure of all personal data held by my lovely bank under the data protection act. Guys you should see the toing and froing they are now doing. In my request I pointed out that I want an absolute full disclosure including all conversations they have had with any third parties.
After getting 2 phone calls from the credit card section about me not paying my monthly payment instalment via the debt agency someone from the collections section in card services wrote to me asking me to contact her urgently.
I duly did and the first thing I asked her was she recording the call. She told me she wasn't and I then advised I was , cue silence. I then advised her was she aware of the data protection legislation, silence again, i then advised I had made a full request and surely could she not see this on my file(which she apparently had in front of her)
I told her to go speak with her data protection officer and there would be no further payment until they responded to my request.

Guess what, 3 days later a lovely letter from Data Protection comes in thanking me so much for my request and they are dealing with it and giving me a direct dial for the lovely data protection officer who will do anything to help me.

Bear in mind my full request had reached them almost 2 weeks before hand by recorded delivery and they did not even bother to acknowledge!

You should listen to the effect on the other end of the phone when you tell the caller that you are recording the call!!


----------



## Derry

Good for you hope things work out.


----------



## cremeegg

Brendan Burgess said:


> Scandalous indeed! They should use a full registered firm of solicitors - preferably one of the Top 10 - and insist on the borrower paying the full fees of the debt collection process. The banks are cheapskates trying to use inhouse firms. The borrowers don't mind paying these additional fees on top of their existing debts.   The legal profession is really suffering. The banks should use external firms if only to help this struggling legal profession.
> 
> Come to think of it, the banks should abandon their credit control department altogether and hand all arrears over to solicitors. They would save a lot of money and it would help the legal profession.



Finally proof in Black and white. Brendan Burgess does have a sense of humour!!


----------



## davetaxi

*Debt Management conmpany*

Hi In your post you said that you used a debt management company and they were very good ,can you tell me the name of the company

Thanks


----------



## A11

All I say is, you do whatever you want for you and your family.  No bank or anyone else for that matter cares about you, your health, your family, or whether or not you have to beg borrow or steal to pay back that debt.  Remember, it was our politics that put us in this state, our own Irish political people, that shafted every single man woman and child of this nation.  You have the right attitude, make them an offer, if they dont accept it, then thats their problem, if they accept it, off you go to OZ and work away and pay the debt, even when you are there, you may decide to hell with them, dont bother paying anymore.

The problem we have in this country, is we can only stand up for ourselves, and cannot stand side by side to fight for our rights, my attitude is, to hell with the banks (AKA, Corrupt Mafia baX$&ds and politicians), they all have their pockets well lined with money for the rest of their lives and families.

Enjoy OZ, have a blast, raise your family in a beautiful country and look after No.1.

Mike


----------



## Sunny

Des Carty said:


> Hi Baz,
> 
> In my opinion ... you don't own the bank anything.
> You didn't borrow any money and you own nobody
> nothing.
> 
> You owe it to yourself and the people of Ireland to
> stay here and legally challenge the bank fraud.
> 
> Des : ¬ )


 
Eh???


----------



## day

*advice re solictor*

Can anyone recomend a solicitor who specialises in property debt, I have an investment property that is secured againest my family home and we are having difficulty keeping up with the mortage repayments on the investment.
Thanks


----------

