# A professional needs to keep a house befitting his/her professional status?: liveline



## gaius

From Liveline.
It's at 1hr 21min 50secs

As said above, a professional (and he specifically mentions a solicitor) should be allowed keep a palatial house as this befits his/her standing in society and sends out the signal to neighbours and clients about who they are, thus allowing them to continue to earn a living.
They need a bigger house than a PAYE worker.
"Really?" said Mary Wilson, "even if they are insolvent?".
Yes said the speaker...the bigger house is in line with their standing in society and he will argue this point with the insolvency board as being a totally legitimate viewpoint.

Is this the level of public discourse we can expect on the matter?


----------



## advice pls

There is not enough rolly eyes.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Gaius;
I hope not. That said , to EVEN suggest that someones standing in society should impact on a {palatial} house proves how in this Financial Tsunami the old pals social network still believe they are {entitled} . 
And worse he may get away with it !


----------



## gaius

[broken link removed]


> *Mary Wilson (reading a listener email):* What happens to my home if I enter into a PIA?
> 
> *Jim Stafford:* Well, under the legislation the PIP is to try and keep the family in their family home if at all possible. The PIP will have to assess the existing mortgage on the family home, if it's a modest house, if it's a trophy house.
> 
> In practice, the PIP will also have to assess the type of house that might be needed for a professional person such as a solicitor, accountant or a hospital consultant as opposed to a house that's needed by someone who is in the PAYE sector for example, so that, as a PIP, I would be making a very strong case, for example, that a solicitor should have a bigger house that accords with his professional status in society so that his neighbours and clients can see that, yes, this person is a good solicitor who's is living in a good house etc. etc.
> 
> *MW:* Really?
> 
> *JS:* Absolutely. The same as for hospital consultants, people like that
> 
> *MW:* Despite the fact that he's insolvent?
> 
> *JS:* Despite the fact that he's insolvent, because remember, if we want the solicitor to continue to earn money or the accountant or the hospital consultant it's important that he has his tools of trade for example
> 
> *MW:* Well, he may need an office, but he hardly needs a palatial house in South County Dublin
> 
> *JS:* Believe me, the clients who we have on our books are insisting they continue to stay in their palatial houses, now, it's possible that some of them might have to down trade, but that all goes into the pot and at the end of the day the banks, the creditors have to agree to that process.


----------



## advice pls

So those of us that borrowed sensibly and are now living in modest houses with expanding families and negative equity should keep working hard to keep certain people in the style to which they have become accustomed.


----------



## Jim Stafford

As it is impossible to talk about all of the complexities of personal bankruptcy in a 10 minute radio interview it is inevitable that misunderstandings can arise, and that statements can be taken out of context.

I believe it is clear to many people that the vast majority of people are passionate about retaining their family home: whether it is a trophy house or a one bedroom apartment. For some people, the word "passion" would not be an adequate description of their feelings! The first comment that many insolvent debtors make to us when they meet with us initially is that "we must keep the family home." The depth of the feeling behind that comment is generally the same whether it is expressed by a person who lives in a "trophy" house or a person who lives in a one bedroom apartment. 

The commercial reality is that mortgage affordability is dependent on income, and so it follows that the more income you earn, the bigger mortgage you can afford, and therefore a bigger house.

Personal Insolvency Practitioners are obliged to comply with the Personal Insolvency Act 2012. Section 104 of the Act states that a PIP shall "insofar as reasonably practicable" formulate a proposal that does not require the debtor to vacate his family home. In formulating such a proposal, the PIP shall consider factors such as the cost of the house, the debtors income etc.

Whether a debtor gets to retain his family home is wholly dependent on the creditors. The same rules apply to trophy houses as they do to one bedroom apartments.

The commercial reality is that some debtors will generate enough income to retain their home, whether it is a trophy home or a one bedroom apartment. The law is the same for all types of houses.

In some cases, the banks will obtain a better recovery of their monies if they allow a debtor to retain their home, whether it is trophy home or a one bedroom apartment. However, in other cases it will simply not be possible for some people to retain their homes, trophy or not.

In conclusion, the law treats all insolvent debtors equally.


----------



## jdwex

Sorry Jim - here is what you said


> the PIP will also have to assess the type of house that might be needed for a professional person such as a solicitor, accountant or a hospital consultant as opposed to a house that's needed by someone who is in the PAYE sector for example, so that, as a PIP, I would be making a very strong case, for example, that a solicitor should have a bigger house that *accords with his professional status in society* so that his *neighbours and clients can see* that, yes, this person is a good solicitor who's is living in a good house etc. etc


.

*So all other things being equal*, you are saying that a mere PAYE worker may lose his home, while his "superior" accountant (or similar) neighbour should be allowed to keep his, by virtue of his social clas


----------



## joeysully

I'm sick and I need to see a Consultant.
Is there a list of Consultant Urologists that sorts them by the size of their  house? 
Obviously by your reasoning here, the bigger house they have, the better they are at their job.
I really wouldn't want one that lives in an apartment he/she would be terrible


----------



## ashambles

> while his "superior" accountant (or similar) neighbour should be allowed to keep his


I got the impression from the now famous interview that a PAYE person shouldn't be a neighbour to the accountant in the first place. 

It's be fine if the people listening to these plans were likely to laugh at this snobbery, but unfortunately they're likely to be sympathetic 'faintly dim former rugby playing' bankers.


----------



## Importer

That would be indeed a very extreme interpretation of the legislation and I would love to hear about real life examples where creditors have bowed to that interpretation. I dont think its going to happen folks.
I'm really surprised that Jim Stafford came out with that.

The legislation also clearly specifies that other things need to be taken into account when determining if the debtor can retain their home and I quote the legislation as follows  :
"the reasonable living accomodation needs of the debtor and his or her dependants and having regards to those needs the costs of alternative accomodation (including the costs which would necessarily be incurred in obtaining such accomodation)"

My interpretation of the legislation is that the debtor should be facilitated in remaining in their PPR as long as the cost of remaining living in the PPR is reasonable in light of the debtors living accomodation needs and as long as the cost of remaining living there is reasonable when compared with alternative living accomodation which might also be considered reasonable to meet the needs

If the debtor is living in a trophy house whose living accomodation needs could reasonably be met by moving to an alternative accomodation that is worth 20% of the former, then my expectation is that the debtor will come under pressure to move.

I dont believe there is anything in this legislation that indicates or hints that certain types of people need to be "preserved" in the status quo to protect their place in society. Anyone making this type of reference is doing so subjectively as there is nothing in the law to back it up. I dont believe that the banks will be pandering to this type of rhetoric either


----------



## Importer

Yes he made a reference that his clients are insisting on staying in their trophy homes and this may be  where this comment stems from.

A PIP is a facilitator / negotiator between an individual and lender. The PIP needs to be fair impartial and balanced to both parties in the negotiation.

Where the argument really collapsed for me was when he tried to make a point that the trophy house was necessary to give the impression of a successful "good" professional which in turn would generate more business which would mean that the Debtor would have more money to repay his creditors..............I mean, talk about smoke and mirrors. He also indicated that the trophy house might be considered as part of the "tools of trade" at which point I almost fell off the chair.


----------



## so-crates

If he'd said, they needed a larger house because they were running a business from there or had an expensive and specific office set up that would be difficult to transfer, I'd understand, but simply a big house to impress clients... sounds ... quaint. Besides, having their name listed publicly as insolvent surely undermines any impression given by the big house!


----------



## Dr.Debt

As a Personal Insolvency Practitioner, I would just like to say that Jim Stafford's views on trophy houses for professionals is not the same as mine or of other PIPs that I am in contact with. 

I would very much welcome Jim Stafford's clarification on this issue. I can only assume that it was a slip up from someone not so familiar with live radio.


----------



## futures

Dr.Debt said:


> As a Personal Insolvency Practitioner, I would just like to say that Jim Stafford's views on trophy houses for professionals is not the same as mine or of other PIPs that I am in contact with.
> 
> I would very much welcome Jim Stafford's clarification on this issue. I can only assume that it was a slip up from someone not so familiar with live radio.



LOL that's no slip up.


I'm a private self employed individual - but not a "professional". I aspire to owning a nice house, but I still think there's not much value out there. Thanks to the likes of Jim Stafford looking after "people like us" there never will be. And to think


> Jim has been a member of the Chartered Accountants Ireland Ethics Committee for the past ten years, being the sole representative of Insolvency Practitioners.



Jim you really need to examine the true meaning of "ethics" - because if you cannot understand the simple concept of fairness then I have doubts I am unable to express on this forum


----------



## Importer

He's tried to explain himself on live line and apparently regrets his clumsy use of words.Im afraid that doesnt cover it. He wouldnt have said it if he didnt believe it. 

On the program yesterday evening, the presenter gave him an opportunity to retract the statement but he ploughed on.


----------



## STEINER

I am an accountant and I live in a duplex apartment.


----------



## futures

STEINER said:


> I am an accountant and I live in a duplex apartment.



obviously you are not as good an accountant as Jim. Otherwise you'd be loaded up with a mortgage on a red brick pile in Dublin 6


----------



## ang1170

Jim Stafford said:


> Personal Insolvency Practitioners are obliged to comply with the Personal Insolvency Act 2012. Section 104 of the Act states that a PIP shall "insofar as reasonably practicable" formulate a proposal that does not require the debtor to vacate his family home. In formulating such a proposal, the PIP shall consider factors such as the cost of the house, the debtors income etc.


 
Just out of interst, does the Act or PIP guidelines (I assume these exist?) make it explicit factors other than cost of house and debtors income? What's covered by that "etc." in the quote above? In particular, the debtor's "professional status"? It seems inconceivable to me that anything like that would be included, which begs the question: is this a common interpretation and will it be applied in practice?


----------



## needtoknow12

When I visit my doctor or solicitor I don't see their houses only the office where they work--they shouldn't keep trophy houses if they can't afford them.


----------



## Nalah

(as seen on another forum)

I reckon it's quite disingenuous of Jim to gloss over  _subsection (2)_ of part 104 of the law *he* cites , specifically "the reasonable living accommodation needs of the debtor and his or her dependants and having regard to those needs the cost of *alternative *accommodation (including the costs *which would necessarily be incurred in obtaining such accommodation*"

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/act/pub/0044/sec0104.html#sec104


> 104.— (1) In formulating a proposal for a Personal Insolvency Arrangement a personal insolvency practitioner shall, insofar as reasonably practicable, and having regard to the matters referred to in subsection (2), formulate the proposal on terms that will not require the debtor to—
> 
> (a) dispose of an interest in, or
> 
> (b) cease to occupy,
> 
> all or a part of his or her principal private residence and the personal insolvency practitioner shall consider any appropriate alternatives.
> 
> (2) The matters referred to in subsection (1) are—
> 
> (a) the costs likely to be incurred by the debtor by remaining in occupation of his or her principal private residence (including rent, mortgage loan repayments, insurance payments, owners’ management company service charges and contributions, taxes or other charges relating to ownership or occupation of the property imposed by or under statute, and necessary maintenance in respect of the principal private residence),
> 
> (b) the debtor’s income and other financial circumstances as disclosed in the Prescribed Financial Statement,
> 
> (c) the ability of other persons residing with the debtor in the principal private residence to contribute to the costs referred to in subsection (2), and
> 
> (d) the reasonable living accommodation needs of the debtor and his or her dependants and having regard to those needs the cost of alternative accommodation (including the costs which would necessarily be incurred in obtaining such accommodation).
> 
> (3) Where—
> 
> (a) the debtor confirms in writing to the personal insolvency practitioner that the debtor does not wish to remain in occupation of his or her principal private residence, or
> 
> (b) the personal insolvency practitioner, has, having discussed the issue with the debtor, formed the opinion that, taking account of the matters referred to in subsection (2), the costs of continuing to reside in the debtor’s principal private residence are disproportionately large,
> 
> the personal insolvency practitioner shall not be required to formulate the proposal for a Personal Insolvency Arrangement on terms that will not require the debtor to cease to occupy his or her principal private residence.
> 
> (4) A Personal Insolvency Arrangement shall not contain terms providing for a disposal of the debtor’s interest in the principal private residence unless—
> 
> (a) the debtor has obtained independent legal advice in relation to such disposal or, having been advised by the personal insolvency practitioner to obtain such legal advice, has declined to do so, and
> 
> (b) to the extent that the provisions of the Family Home Protection Act 1976 or the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 apply to the property, all relevant provisions of those Acts are complied with.



Jim Stafford, would you care to respond?


----------



## so-crates

STEINER said:


> I am an accountant and I live in a duplex apartment.



Am sure there is an Accountants Anonymous group that meets somewhere - might be good to get it off your chest


----------



## dub_nerd

Lets face it -- the statement made will be considered completely outrageous by any fair-minded individual. Nor is it good enough to say that there wasn't time to go into the details. There is no level of nuance or clarification that I can think of that would turn the statement into anything other than: "the average Joe won't be getting the same sort of deal as his betters". To be honest, it makes me feel quite ill to think we live in a society where a solicitor must be seen as the sort of person who can afford a big house .... even if he can't !


----------



## STEINER

futures said:


> obviously you are not as good an accountant as Jim. Otherwise you'd be loaded up with a mortgage on a red brick pile in Dublin 6



I studied accountancy later in life and worked in industry as opposed to JS and anyway I spent the last 3 years not working but being treated for cancer.  I have no kids and the duplex suits me. 

I think most people would laugh at the idea of the thread title.

The trophy house remark to the TV presenter Pat Kenny is funny though...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8x3sr4cCXE


----------



## STEINER

so-crates said:


> Am sure there is an Accountants Anonymous group that meets somewhere - might be good to get it off your chest




theres a few on AAM!


----------



## Brendan Burgess

> as a PIP, I would be making a very strong case, for example, that a  solicitor should have a bigger house that accords with his professional  status in society so that his neighbours and clients can see that, yes,  this person is a good solicitor who's is living in a good house etc.  etc.


I don't agree with Jim's interpretation of this at all. 

But he is absolutely right about the starting point for nearly everyone is that the borrower retains the family home. 

I have argued for some years, that insolvent people should voluntarily sell their family home and have their mortgage shortfall written off.  I have been frequently criticised and attacked for suggesting that anyone should ever lose their family home. I have been asked on so many occasions "But where will they live if you make 10,000 people homeless?"  I have found myself on TV and radio panels defending myself against the all other panelists and often the presenter as well. 

I challenged George Mordaunt on this on the Saturday Show 



> He said that banks are insisting that people live in appropriate  accommodation and said that they expected "a family of two adults and  two(?) children to live in a  3 bed semi-d" . I was taken aback by this  as I see nothing wrong with requiring people who are insolvent to live  in a 3 bed semi-d. (Actually I see nothing wrong with solvent people  living in 3 bed semi-ds)   I said that while I was happy enough to pay  more taxes to pay for MIS or Rental Supplement for people living in  modest houses,  I was not happy to be paying for his losses while he  lived in a trophy home. He was furious, saying that he could not believe  that I raised his personal circumstances on "national radio" and that  he was not living in a trophy home.
> 
> I then asked if he was living in a modest 3 bed semi-d but he would not  discuss his own circumstances.  But he was happy enough to tell us that  he was required to get rid of Sky Sports.
> 
> I asked if he agreed that people in living in homes worth more than  €500k should be required to sell them and he said that he did not agree.   People should not be required to take the posters off their childrens'  walls and move them, apparently, irrespective of how much these  borrowers have cost the taxpayer and irresespective of how much their  homes are worth.



Paschal Donohue, FG TD, was also on the panel, and seemed happy for me to be the bad guy telling people that they should lose their homes. He made some political type, fence sitting comment, but to be fair, did not attack me.  The presenter Audrey Carville, was very happy to sit back and let George and me go for each other - it was good radio. I seem to remember she agreed with me. 

I have suggested, in private, to quite a few insolvent people that they should sell their family home - and they simply never agree.   In a few cases, where people have traded up and kept the former home as an investment, I have suggested that they sell the current home and move back to the former home, and they just say that it is not an option.  

What does a PIP do in these circumstances?  Much is made of the bank's veto, but the borrower has a veto as well. If the borrower says "we will not sell", then the PIP can refuse to put a PIA to the bank or they can see if the bank will accept it. 

The reality is that in many situations the bank will accept it.   I don't agree with it, but it's the reality. 

Take a separate but related set of circumstances.  A property developer owes the bank €100m. They have commercial property worth €40m and a trophy home worth €2m.   If the borrower does not cooperate, the bank appoints a receiver or will apply to make the guy bankrupt. The borrower will often agree to cooperate with the lender subject to them keeping the family home. A banker has told me that in one such case, the borrower has been left with the family home with a reduced mortgage of €1m. 

On a fairness and equity basis, I don't agree with this. But from the bank's point of view, they are likely to recover far more if the insolvent borrower works with them instead of forcing them to drag them through the courts for years. 


As a PIP who is an independent mediator between the bank and the borrower, I would not make Jim's point. 

As a negotiator working on behalf of the borrower, I would argue the point on the borrower's behalf.  "My client is in the Law Library and regularly would have clients and solicitors to his home in Ballsbridge.  They might lose confidence if they are invited to a one bed apartment in Gardiner Street.  Can we do a deal which allows him keep his home and his mortgage?"  I know I would be chancing my arm, but I also know that I would succeed most of the time.

The Insolvency Act is very clear about the objective of keeping the borrower in the family home.  I would have been happier if it had put a maximum figure on it e.g. where the property is not worth more than €400k. But no one else seemed to think that was a good idea. 

In summary, I understand where Jim Stafford is coming from, although I disagree with him.


----------



## Jim Stafford

I would like to acknowledge and sincerely apologise for the hurt and distress that my comments to RTE have undoubtedly caused.

Simply it was not my intention to offend.

In particular, it was not my intention to create a distinction between so called professional classes and PAYE workers nor appear to further the causes of a particular debtor type.

I believe that every person has a passionate concern to retain their family home.

I fully appreciate the distress that financial difficulties cause any one, no matter what their financial circumstances may be.

I fully and unreservedly apologise for my comments.

Jim Stafford


----------



## futures

Jim,

You may be a good man, but that was no slip of the tongue. You clearly believe someone like me should doff my cap to my betters. I'm a successful self employed person, but obviously that's not enough.

The laughable thing is how poorly Irish "professionals" compare to their international counterparts. The litany of scandals in every "profession" provides ample testimony. I compete and do business across the world every single day. In contrast, your cohort have your cliques with your schools, golf and rugby clubs and you should really get a grip. If your colleagues were half as good as your salaries would suggest you'd actually be in London or New York.

Have a good evening


----------



## Brendan Burgess

According to the Irish Times, the Insolvency Service has issued a statement tonight 



> The agency said in a statement today that according  to the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 a PIP was not required to formulate a  proposal which would force a borrower to dispose of their interest in a  principal private residence (PPR) “unless the running costs of staying  in the [broken link removed] are disproportionately large” .
> 
> 
> The ISI insisted that the “professional standing of a borrower is not expected to be a factor in this assessment”.


----------



## Marion

Jim

You have issued an apology for "hurt and distress." I don't honestly believe that many people will be hurt and distressed by the comments.

Bemused might be more accurate.

I am also bemused by the reference to "so called professional classes"

Can a professional not also be a PAYE employee?

I'm a PAYE employee. 

Many consultants working with the HSE are PAYE.

Marion


----------



## Evening

Leave Jim alone, he is one of the entitled and how could a man on the Chartered Accountants Ireland Ethics Committee for the past ten years be wrong...
Don't question your betters!

[broken link removed]


----------



## Luternau

Jim got it wrong live on national radio. He is not the first to do so and wont be the last. Subsequently he has issued an apology. While many may be enraged by what he said, there is no evidence that what he said was the norm.

For the record, I don't know Jim, and have no connection with him, his company or the ISI.


----------



## Dr.Debt

Jim

You haven't caused any hurt or distress to me.

I did find your comments sad misguided and sickening.


----------



## dub_nerd

Jim Stafford said:


> I would like to acknowledge and sincerely apologise for the hurt and distress that my comments to RTE have undoubtedly caused.
> 
> Simply it was not my intention to offend.
> 
> In particular, it was not my intention to create a distinction between so called professional classes and PAYE workers nor appear to further the causes of a particular debtor type.
> 
> I believe that every person has a passionate concern to retain their family home.
> 
> I fully appreciate the distress that financial difficulties cause any one, no matter what their financial circumstances may be.
> 
> I fully and unreservedly apologise for my comments.
> 
> Jim Stafford



I'd prefer if you explained to all of us what you meant, rather than make apologies that sidestep the issue. We'd like to understand what we're up against when debt forgiveness is being doled out to the "professional classes". After all, we're paying for it.


----------



## dub_nerd

Jim Stafford said:


> As it is impossible to talk about all of the complexities of personal bankruptcy in a 10 minute radio interview it is inevitable that misunderstandings can arise, and that statements can be taken out of context.



Please explain to us what was misunderstood or taken out of context. You have issued apologies on many web forums but have not addressed this. Sorry, it's not good enough. This is a serious issue that is going to make insolvency practitioners the subject of suspicion and derision up and down the country. How is any faith going to be restored when you have explicitly said (and not thus far retracted) that it's going to be different rules for different "classes". We don't want to hear apologies. We want to hear that you have made a horrendous mistake (as the ISI has now told you) and have completely changed your mind.

Your own [broken link removed] tells us that you "drafted the complete syllabus for the Diploma in Insolvency course run by Chartered Accountants Ireland". I'd like to know if the outrageous class-ridden views you expressed on Drivetime have been imparted to other insolvency practitioners.


----------



## Importer

Yes, I also would like to know what he meant by his comments and why he said them.

Apologies for hurt caused is not enough.


----------



## LS400

It begs the question, if this is whats being said, my god, what are they thinking.


----------



## fobs

Probably how some classes of people will be able to keep their kids in private schools as well as part of the process.


----------



## JayPee

One thing that certainly jumps out at me is if there is equity in the property then it has to be sold ( if it is above the reasonable size etc) to pay creditors no matter what you are or who you are. Or is this personal insolvency set up just another facet of the currupt and poorly regulated system that has got us in this mess in the first place.


----------



## Delboy

This was always going to fade away. There's an opinion piece in the Indo today (by Martina Devlin I think), having a lash at him and the 2 tier citizenship in this country.

My take on this is that very few of the professional class will do the PIA route as it means having your name published. Now how would that go down with the neighbours!
Instead, as with the recent interview with a strategic defaulter on Karl Deeter's blog, they will try to work out a deal directly with the banks.

The last thing they want is their names published. PIA is for the small man/woman....if they can afford the fees that is!


----------



## dereko1969

Luternau said:


> Jim got it wrong live on national radio. He is not the first to do so and wont be the last. Subsequently he has issued an apology. While many may be enraged by what he said, there is no evidence that what he said was the norm.
> 
> For the record, I don't know Jim, and have no connection with him, his company or the ISI.


 
Yes but his apology and "explanation" do not address the point that people are raising here - which is that what he said is obviously what he thinks, that people in certain "professions" deserve better housing than those in the waged sector. 

There was no "out of context" and his statement on radio wasn't a simple mis-speaking, it was a reflection of what he thinks and feels, that those of a certain status (in his eyes) should retain trophy houses due to the profession they're in whilst the rest of us can whistle dixie.

This isn't a case where the interviewer could be deemed to have goaded him into saying it, it was a case of one rule for the "professionals" and another for the rest of us. 

Hate to break it to you Jim, but we're all professionals we're not working for free!


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Delboy said:


> My take on this is that very few of the professional class will do the PIA route as it means having your name published. ...
> 
> 
> The last thing they want is their names published. PIA is for the small man/woman....if they can afford the fees that is!



Interesting point. 

People who have only a mortgage on their home will be dealing directly with their mortgage lender and trying to sort out their unsecured debt through the Central Bank Framework. 

People who have in excess of €3m in secured debt, can't use the PIA process anyway - unless the creditors agree. 

But a solicitor or accountant who has a home and a few investment properties with loans from a few different lenders could derive real benefit from a PIA.  As far as I know, they can still practise if they are in a PIA, but would have to cease practice if they are declared bankrupt. 

But as you rightly point out, they would probably prefer to cut an informal deal with their lenders than have the publicity of a PIA.


----------



## T McGibney

dereko1969 said:


> Yes but his apology and "explanation" do not address the point that people are raising here - which is that what he said is obviously what he thinks, that people in certain "professions" deserve better housing than those in the waged sector.
> 
> There was no "out of context" and his statement on radio wasn't a simple mis-speaking, it was a reflection of what he thinks and feels, that those of a certain status (in his eyes) should retain trophy houses due to the profession they're in whilst the rest of us can whistle dixie.
> 
> This isn't a case where the interviewer could be deemed to have goaded him into saying it, it was a case of one rule for the "professionals" and another for the rest of us.
> 
> Hate to break it to you Jim, but we're all professionals we're not working for free!



There is no suggestion that Jim said "what he thinks". If you read the transcript again, he says that he " _would be making a very strong case_, for example, that a solicitor  should have a bigger house that accords with his professional status in  society" 

As an advocate, his role is to represent, and argue on behalf of, his clients. The argument that some people need bigger houses than others may well be a tendentious one, but he is well entitled to make it, regardless of whether he actually believes it himself in the context of any particular situation. 

And no more than a barrister who makes a questionable or downright outlandish claim on behalf of a defendant client, he is still entitled to make such arguments in specific situations without having his character impugned in any way.


----------



## Luternau

dereko1969 said:


> Hate to break it to you Jim, but we're all professionals we're not working for free!



Just so the above quote is not taken out of context-I am not Jim. 

In the truest sense of the word, not everyone can claim to be from the professional class.


----------



## ashambles

T McGibney said:


> There is no suggestion that Jim said "what he thinks".





> Jim Stafford: ... In practice, the PIP will also have to assess the type of house that might be needed for a professional person such as a solicitor, accountant or a hospital consultant as opposed to a house that's needed by someone who is in the PAYE sector for example ...


In the above quote Jim seems to be saying what he thinks. It's unnecessary to tell us what the "owner" of the house thinks as in trophy houses cases of course they'll be thinking they need the house not assessing if they need it.


----------



## mandelbrot

t mcgibney said:


> there is no suggestion that jim said "what he thinks". If you read the transcript again, he says that he " _would be making a very strong case_, for example, that a solicitor  should have a bigger house that accords with his professional status in  society"
> 
> as an advocate, his role is to represent, and argue on behalf of, his clients. The argument that some people need bigger houses than others may well be a tendentious one, but he is well entitled to make it, regardless of whether he actually believes it himself in the context of any particular situation.
> 
> And no more than a barrister who makes a questionable or downright outlandish claim on behalf of a defendant client, he is still entitled to make such arguments in specific situations without having his character impugned in any way.



+1


----------



## RainyDay

T McGibney said:


> There is no suggestion that Jim said "what he thinks". If you read the transcript again, he says that he " _would be making a very strong case_, for example, that a solicitor  should have a bigger house that accords with his professional status in  society"
> 
> As an advocate, his role is to represent, and argue on behalf of, his clients. The argument that some people need bigger houses than others may well be a tendentious one, but he is well entitled to make it, regardless of whether he actually believes it himself in the context of any particular situation.
> 
> And no more than a barrister who makes a questionable or downright outlandish claim on behalf of a defendant client, he is still entitled to make such arguments in specific situations without having his character impugned in any way.



Is there any ethical base or limitation on his role as advocate? He's actually making a case to allow his clients to explicitly mislead their own clients. He said that " that a solicitor should have a bigger house that accords with his professional status in society so that his neighbours and clients can see that, yes, this person is a good solicitor who's is living in a good house etc." - so the size of the house is a measure of how 'good' the solicitor is.

But yet, the person is insolvent, and there does not in reality, own the house. Therefore the person is by definition NOT a good solicitor by Jim's own measure. But Jim wants to use the insolvency process to allow his clients to mislead their own clients about how good they are. Nice....


----------



## dub_nerd

T McGibney said:


> There is no suggestion that Jim said "what he thinks". If you read the transcript again, he says that he " _would be making a very strong case_, for example, that a solicitor should have a bigger house that accords with his professional status in society"
> 
> As an advocate, his role is to represent, and argue on behalf of, his clients. The argument that some people need bigger houses than others may well be a tendentious one, but he is well entitled to make it, regardless of whether he actually believes it himself in the context of any particular situation.
> 
> And no more than a barrister who makes a questionable or downright outlandish claim on behalf of a defendant client, he is still entitled to make such arguments in specific situations without having his character impugned in any way.


 
I find that laughable. If there is nothing untoward about his suggestion "that a solicitor should have a bigger house that accords with his professional status in society", what exactly was his apology all about?

The OECD report today said that the country was uncompetitive when it came to professional fees, specifically mentioning solicitors. Hardly surprising when you have people like Jim Stafford prepared to argue that they need to be seen to have the trappings of "status" in order to ply their trade. Whatever happened to attributes like competence and integrity?

To be honest, I don't care whether JS _thinks_ a solicitor deserves more than the rest of us -- it is that he is planning to argue such an odious case that gets me. I hope that this little debacle hardens the resolve of secured creditors to not put up with the bleatings of his ilk, since he has set it out plainly that he's going to be spinning fables about his clients' needs.


----------



## T McGibney

My point stands. 

An advocate's role & ethical obligation is to represent their client & advance arguments on their behalf. The argument that their advocacy should somehow be weakened in order to reflect an actual or mythical public interest is a novel one.

As for the point that banks, Revenue or other secured  creditors should "harden their resolve" not to accommodate insolvency applications from distressed borrowers who have the temerity to actually negotiate with them, I dont know where to start.


----------



## Dr.Debt

I think some people have missed the point about PIPs 

A PIP is not an advocate for the Debtor. A PIP sits in the middle between Creditor and Debtor with an obligation to look out for the interests 
of both sides  in an effort to pen an arrangement that is acceptable to both sides

A PIP is not a "financial" Solicitor acting for the Debtor


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Dr Debt 

There is a problem with the role of the PIP as an independent mediator. 

There is a conflict between their initial debt advisor role as an advisor acting in the client's best interest and in their later PIP role as a mediator. 

So when I go to Jim Stafford for an intial meeting to explore my options, he is a debt advisor acting on my behalf.  As a good advisor, he will set out the options and the pros and cons. 

For most professionals, he would advise against a PIA and try to negotiate a deal directly with the bank. He would be firmly on the clients' side.  He would adopt the role as described by Tommy McGibney - his opening negotiating position would be "Well my client must maintain a house and car in line with his status in society. And he gets a lot of his clients through the Parents' Council in St Gerards and on his two annual holidays to very expensive places. So to maximise his income, he needs to spend a lot". 

Tommy sums it up well: 



> As an advocate, his role is to represent, and argue on behalf of, his  clients. The argument that some people need bigger houses than others  may well be a tendentious one, but he is well entitled to make it,  regardless of whether he actually believes it himself in the context of  any particular situation.


The problem for Jim and for other debt advisors/PIPs , is that if he accepts his clients' nomination as a  PIP, he must then switch from debt advisor mode to independent mode. That will not be easy to do. 

In fact, I think that this is where Jim slipped up badly on the radio. He was talking as if he was acting on behalf of his client and making these "tendentious" arguments.  

I was taken to task by a would-be PIP at a public meeting for suggesting that a  Split Mortgage might be a fair outcome. He said that he would be batting very hard for his client to get the negative equity written down. He had to be reminded that his role as a PIP, was as an independent mediator. 

The legislation, and all the publicity  around it, has been very clear - we want to keep people in the family home, except in really exceptional circumstances. I don't agree with that, but I am in a minority.


----------



## ang1170

Brendan Burgess said:


> The problem for Jim and for other debt advisors/PIPs , is that if he accepts his clients' nomination as a PIP, he must then switch from debt advisor mode to independent mode. That will not be easy to do.


 
I'd argue that it's downright impossible to do: a bit like the concept of "self-regulation", only worse. I'm surprised that this issue hasn't been raised more.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

I will be raising it in my submission to the Central Bank's consultation paper on Debt Advice. 

If you go to Dr. Debt for debt advice and he recommends a PIA, then he should refer you to someone else to act as the PIP, so that the independence can be maintained.  And the debtor could continue to consult Dr Debt for advice on the PIA's proposal.


----------



## Dr.Debt

The independence "guarantee" is achieved through the veto.

If the PIP leans to the side of the Debtor and produces something completely one sided, then the creditor just says no.

There's not much room for conflict of interest, otherwise all the arrangements fail at voting stage.

You must keep reminding yourself that the creditors need to agree to the arrangements no matter what is being proposed.

The PIP is always considering 1) what is the optimum solution and 2) how to get the creditors to accept it. Its a constant juggle between these two.


----------



## RainyDay

T McGibney said:


> My point stands.
> 
> An advocate's role & ethical obligation is to represent their client & advance arguments on their behalf. The argument that their advocacy should somehow be weakened in order to reflect an actual or mythical public interest is a novel one.


Does the advocate have an ethical obligation to be honest and fair? If so, the advocate knows that allowing the debtor to keep the trophy house when he hasn't earned it is fundamentally unfair to the debtor's professional peers and competitors, and is misleading to the debtor's potential clients.

But regardless, it is useful to have confirmed my long-held suspicion that when I hear the 'usual suspects' moaning about any vague suggestion of tax increases, they are really just 'mouth for hire' advocates aiming to get the best outcome for their clients. That will help to keep things in perspective in future.


----------



## T McGibney

RainyDay said:


> But regardless, it is useful to have confirmed my long-held suspicion that when I hear the 'usual suspects' moaning about any vague suggestion of tax increases, they are really just 'mouth for hire' advocates aiming to get the best outcome for their clients. That will help to keep things in perspective in future.



I presume that isn't an attack on me? 

In any case, perhaps you might please clarify it, as Jim Stafford is not a tax specialist and I've never heard of him making public comments in relation to tax rates.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

RainyDay said:


> Does the advocate have an ethical obligation to be honest and fair? If so, the advocate knows that allowing the debtor to keep the trophy house when he hasn't earned it is fundamentally unfair to the debtor's professional peers and competitors, and is misleading to the debtor's potential clients.



You can make the same argument that it is "unfair" for "ordinary" people to want to keep their family home if they can't afford the repayments.  Especially as any concessions such as split mortgages, or extensions of cheap trackers will come at the expense of shareholders and taxpayers. 

I don't think it's "unfair" to try to get the best possible deal for your client, whether that is MABS acting for someone with a €100k mortgage or Jim Stafford arguing for someone with a €1m mortgage.


----------



## Crugers

Brendan Burgess said:


> ...whether that is *MABS acting for someone with a €100k mortgage* or Jim Stafford arguing for someone with a €1m mortgage...


AFAIK - MABS will only be doing DRN's - 
Debt Relief Notices
A Debt Relief Notice (DRN) is a notice  from the court that states that you are unable to pay your debts, and  stops the lender from being able to take any action against you for  three years.  It is issued to debtors who have  qualifying debt of *€20,000* or less, have low assets, and a net disposable income of €60 or less per month.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Crugers

MABS are the primary source of advice for people with unsustainable debt, whether it is a home loan or unsecured debt. 

They will not be acting as PIPs. They will be acting as  AIs (?) Approved Intermediaries for DRNs.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Dr.Debt said:


> The independence "guarantee" is achieved through the veto.
> 
> If the PIP leans to the side of the Debtor and produces something completely one sided, then the creditor just says no.



which is just another way of saying...



Jim Stafford said:


> Whether a debtor gets to retain his family home is wholly dependent on the creditors. The same rules apply to trophy houses as they do to one bedroom apartments.


----------



## ashambles

> Whether a debtor gets to retain his family home is wholly dependent on the creditors.


While probably the wrong thread to ask - but I'll give it a go anyway.

What is a "family" home - in the legal terms of the Insolvency act. 

Why couldn't they just say "home"? I'd assume that any discrimination based on what a family is considered to be would be illegal. 

Perhaps they were trying to restrict the legislation to cover only one family home per family, no shoving someone into the holiday home and claiming it's also the family home.


----------



## RainyDay

T McGibney said:


> I presume that isn't an attack on me?
> 
> In any case, perhaps you might please clarify it, as Jim Stafford is not a tax specialist and I've never heard of him making public comments in relation to tax rates.


It's not an attack on anybody. Your explanation of the role of the advocate professional advisor was not just about Jim Stafford, but was relevant for the entire profession of advocate professional advisors.



Brendan Burgess said:


> You can make the same argument that it is "unfair" for "ordinary" people to want to keep their family home if they can't afford the repayments.  Especially as any concessions such as split mortgages, or extensions of cheap trackers will come at the expense of shareholders and taxpayers.
> 
> I don't think it's "unfair" to try to get the best possible deal for your client, whether that is MABS acting for someone with a €100k mortgage or Jim Stafford arguing for someone with a €1m mortgage.



My point isn't about the fairness or otherwise of whether the debtor gets to keep his home. It is not about 'getting the best possible deal' for the debtor.

My point was about the ethical basis of 'getting the best possible deal' for the debtor. If the basis for the 'best possible deal' is misleading future clients of the debtor about his financial stability by helping him to retain a house that he can't afford, then there surely is an ethical issue here.

If a MABS advisor enabled his debtor to retain a house by misleading the lendor about the future income of the debtor, there would be a similar ethical issue here.


----------



## T McGibney

RainyDay said:


> It's not an attack on anybody. Your explanation of the role of the advocate professional advisor was not just about Jim Stafford, but was relevant for the entire profession of advocate professional advisors.



...and also to the industry of quango and union advocates and lobbyists that dominate Irish public discourse, which I presume you equally disregard on the basis of their naked vested interests.


----------



## dub_nerd

Brendan Burgess said:


> which is just another way of saying... "Whether a debtor gets to retain his family home is wholly dependent on the creditors. The same rules apply to trophy houses as they do to one bedroom apartments."


 
In which case I suppose the only thing we can accuse Jim Stafford of is encouraging his clients' delusions of grandeur. I can't see too many banks agreeing that a debtor needs a trophy house befitting their professional status if it involves large debt write downs.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

dub_nerd said:


> I can't see too many banks agreeing that a debtor needs a trophy house befitting their professional status if it involves large debt write downs.



In practice, banks rarely require people to leave their family home, whether it is a €100k home or a €1m home. 

Most borrowers living in trophy homes will have other assets and liabilties which dwarf the value of the family home and the debt associated with it. The lenders will do an overall deal which leaves the borrower in the family home. In some cases, instead of writing off debt, they will transfer the shortfall on another mortgage to the family home.


----------



## Dermot

Brendan Burgess said:


> In practice, banks rarely require people to leave their family home, whether it is a €100k home or a €1m home.
> 
> Most borrowers living in trophy homes will have other assets and liabilties which dwarf the value of the family home and the debt associated with it. The lenders will do an overall deal which leaves the borrower in the family home. In some cases, instead of writing off debt, they will transfer the shortfall on another mortgage to the family home.



There are quite a number of borrowers living in trophy homes which are already in serious negative equity so what would be achieved by piling on the shortfall of other properties to this family home.  I cannot see how the bank would see this as a solution to their problem.  I do think that people living in trophy homes should have to downsize in order to make their debt more sustainable.  After all why should the plebs subsidise the trophy home.  There is no sustainable argument for it. Yes the people involved may lose a bit of face. So what.


----------



## Cantalia

I know a local GP doctor, good professional, living in a private 5 bed home. The cost of selling it and trading down to a four bed semi in a housing estate would realise such little profit that when that and the associated costs of sale, auctioneer, solicitor, engineer etc were all calculated it made more sense to stay put. Only later did she realise that a lot of her business was around the fact that people knew where she lived, would ring at the weekend or show up at her door.   I would like to think that Jm Stafford expressed himself badly. The maintaining of the family home is probably the keenest issue in everyone's debt problem. Some will be happy to see the back of it and others will do anything to hang on. It really is a case by case basis. The resolution of the issue of keeping the family home in each case will be lead by the client, not the PIP, perhaps he was expressing, albeit badly, what he has experienced from the clients he has met to date.  Incidentally my GP friend sold her privately owned "clinic" building and rents a new smaller two room clinic nearby.


----------



## Delboy

Dermot said:


> .....  I do think that people living in trophy homes should have to downsize in order to make their debt more sustainable.  After all why should the plebs subsidise the trophy home.  There is no sustainable argument for it. Yes the people involved may lose a bit of face. So what.



Simply not happening unfortunately, the big houses are being kept after deals are struck with banks. Some high profile examples of this.

Even some of the developers in NAMA (those draawing down 150k+ salaries) have kept their kids in private schools.

That's how we roll in this fair Republic of ours!


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Dermot

If a borrower has a very good income e.g. €300k and they are in €2m negative equity between a home worth €1m and investment properties.  They sell the investment properties and end up with borrowings of €3m on a property worth €1m. 

If they really want to retain their home, they will end up working for years and paying over most of their income for the privilege. 

I think that they would be better giving up their home, but many  people feel funny about their home and will suffer massive negative equity for years to stay in it.


----------



## Dermot

Brendan. I know that the figures you quoted are only an example for the point you are making but at the same time there would be quite a number of people with similar ratios of income to borrowings in the trophy home class.
The reality of the situation in the example you give is that this would represent a debt of 10 times gross income and possibly 19 to 20 times net income which is not sustainable and is going to lead to the house having to be sold after further losses to the bank/taxpayer.
I am not a begrudger but all classes in society have to take some pain for their mistakes.
The person with a €300,000.00 income has a much better chance of getting back up the property ladder even from the bottom than the person on €30,000.00


----------



## JayPee

Chances are the lad on 30 k with very little to offer the creditors will not even be allowed a PIA and will have to fend for himself.


----------



## Delboy

well, it's good to see that Jim has some support from within the 'establishment'.
David Hall, who must now be renting a room in Montrose, was on with the 4hr a week 492k a year star Marian Finucane earlier....and both agreed that Jim was telling "the truth" about the great and the good being allowed to keep the big houses


----------



## Time

Are insolvent/bankrupt solicitors forbidden from practicing?


----------



## RainyDay

Cantalia said:


> I know a local GP doctor, good professional, living in a private 5 bed home. The cost of selling it and trading down to a four bed semi in a housing estate would realise such little profit that when that and the associated costs of sale, auctioneer, solicitor, engineer etc were all calculated it made more sense to stay put. Only later did she realise that a lot of her business was around the fact that people knew where she lived, would ring at the weekend or show up at her door.



Maybe this is a Dublin/rural thing, but in Dublin, any GP I know makes huge efforts to AVOID business coming to their house. When they're in the house, they are off duty, and aren't looking for work. If you want a doctor, go to the surgery during business hours. If you have an emergency, go to A&E or call out the locum.

No-one chooses their doctor based on the size or location of their house.


----------



## T McGibney

RainyDay said:


> No-one chooses their doctor based on the ... location of their house.



Certainly untrue for my neck of the woods.


----------



## ashambles

> Certainly untrue for my neck of the woods.


Remember Jim clarified that by professional he meant "high income".

If you're far enough away from the major population centers then you'll find that the trophy house will have cost a couple hundred thousand more than it should have. A genuinely high income person will be able to absorb that level of disappointment.

To get into trouble a high income person would have needed to buy in one the most expensive locations. The most expensive locations are city areas, in city areas in general clients won't know or care where the professional/high income person lives.


----------



## Marion

I live in a smallish country town . 

I have absolutely no idea where my current doctor or current solicitor live. I don't know where my hairdresser or dentist  or tai chi teacher or yoga teacher live.

My Yoga  teacher is a GP. 

Evidently, they don't live over their respective office premises.

None of them are Ordinary PAYE workers (like myself)

Should I be worried that I don't know this vital (?) information on where they live? 


Curious Marion


----------



## Bronte

Marion said:


> Should I be worried that I don't know this vital (?) information on where they live?


 
I have two ongoing professionals, one lives in a modest enough house, from which business is transacted, I've no idea of his income/wealth/status or car size nor do I care. the other professional, I know the street where he lives, and it's upmarket, that's all I know about that, no idea of house size etc. And he's up to his neck in debt. 

I do business with both of them because they are extremely professional, better than anything you'd find in D4 or the big firms, in my opinion. I have a one on one relationship with someone who is competent and who gives me great advice. 

Some people in Dublin live in some kind of bubble, including Jim Stafford. His apology was nonsense, he could not back track on what he originally said, but sadly he meant it. But at least it's given us a window on this rarified world. They can keep it. I guess the type of clients he's seeking to attract are delusional people like the notorious Killeny couple (of the tent varity) last year. But the banks saw to them. So for once praise from me to the bankers and I hope they and the advertisment Jim has given to the sitation will make the insolvency service buck up a bit.  It reminded me so much of the Killeny couple because they too insisted on staying in their trophy home, and Jim has mentioned his clients expect him to manage this for them.  Time will tell on this.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

I don't think that the Killiney couple is a fair comparison. They were straigtforward strategic defaulter who had not paid anything on their home loan while owning lots of properties.  I suppose if a solicitor had represented them in Court, he would have put forward arguments on their behalves, but any solicitor or insolvency advisor would have simply told them to pay their mortgage. 

Jim was not suggesting that a solicitor needed to live in a trophy home and not pay for it.


----------



## Bronte

Brendan Burgess said:


> Jim was not suggesting that a solicitor needed to live in a trophy home and not pay for it.


 
No he's not suggesting that, he's suggesting that other taxpayers subsidise them and their bad financial decisions. That's it plain and simple. 

I have no problem with debt write down, where the person cannot afford their loans, no problem with keeping people in modest homes where the alternative doesn't make social or financial sense. But allowing someone live in a mansion just because of their 'professional' 'status' which means less of their income will go to pay off their debts sounds cuckoo. The only time it would do so is if the person threatened UK bankruptcy. Not too many Irish solicitors, barristers, consultants and accountants have that nuclear option.

Nobody has said anything about the converse situation. What about the couple with 3 kids in a 2 bed apartment that is not suitable for their needs. And we all know Irish 2 beds is actually a 1.5 bed with zero storage space. There are many people stuck in these, who cannot afford their mortgage and cannot afford to move and now cannot afford the new insolvency regime. 

The whole thing stinks from top to bottom. How on earth did we end up with once again the most ill thought out insolvency regime, that gives no proper end date, no hope, possibility of 20 years on the hook, and is too costly for ordinary people.


----------



## ang1170

Well said!


----------



## ashambles

Bronte said:


> I have no problem with debt write down, where the person cannot afford their loans, no problem with keeping people in modest homes where the alternative doesn't make social or financial sense. But allowing someone live in a mansion just because of their 'professional' 'status' which means less of their income will go to pay off their debts sounds cuckoo.


Personally I believe it's politically impossible to define a modest family home.

I think this is the crux of the problem we have, unlimited protection for family homes will always be of most benefit to the people in the most expensive homes.


----------



## Cantalia

+1 bronte 
Most solicitors I know do not live in mansions.


----------



## Purple

Bronte said:


> No he's not suggesting that, he's suggesting that other taxpayers subsidise them and their bad financial decisions. That's it plain and simple.
> 
> I have no problem with debt write down, where the person cannot afford their loans, no problem with keeping people in modest homes where the alternative doesn't make social or financial sense. But allowing someone live in a mansion just because of their 'professional' 'status' which means less of their income will go to pay off their debts sounds cuckoo. The only time it would do so is if the person threatened UK bankruptcy. Not too many Irish solicitors, barristers, consultants and accountants have that nuclear option.
> 
> Nobody has said anything about the converse situation. What about the couple with 3 kids in a 2 bed apartment that is not suitable for their needs. And we all know Irish 2 beds is actually a 1.5 bed with zero storage space. There are many people stuck in these, who cannot afford their mortgage and cannot afford to move and now cannot afford the new insolvency regime.
> 
> The whole thing stinks from top to bottom. How on earth did we end up with once again the most ill thought out insolvency regime, that gives no proper end date, no hope, possibility of 20 years on the hook, and is too costly for ordinary people.



+1
We live in a republic with no stratified class system. There is no such thing as "Professional Classes" or even working classes and middle classes. There are different income levels and different socio-economic groupings that people can find themselves in. Using the term "class" is a tacit acceptance that not only is society unequal (which it is) but that it should be unequal. 

This country had been badly let down by it's leaders over the last 15 years, be they political, banking, union or public sector leaders. The one thing they all have in common is that they are over 40 and nearly all over 60. They have escaped the worst of the property crash and they have escaped the worst of the cuts.


----------



## Dr.Debt

Isn't "socio economic grouping" as you call it, not the modern name for "Class"

Just because its frowned upon to have a class system doesn't mean its not there. Just because we play around with words and call it something different doesn't mean its gone.

At least in olden times, people were upfront about it and acknowledged its existence. If its gone, when did it go ? I didn't notice it going away.

As far as I'm concerned the class system is alive and well and living in Ireland (but we're not allowed to talk about it)

Ask Jim Stafford, he'll tell you.


----------



## Purple

Dr.Debt said:


> Isn't "socio economic grouping" as you call it, not the modern name for "Class"
> 
> Just because its frowned upon to have a class system doesn't mean its not there. Just because we play around with words and call it something different doesn't mean its gone.
> 
> At least in olden times, people were upfront about it and acknowledged its existence. If its gone, when did it go ? I didn't notice it going away.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned the class system is alive and well and living in Ireland (but we're not allowed to talk about it)
> 
> Ask Jim Stafford, he'll tell you.



In a class system you are born into one and accept your place in the order of things. It presupposes that one person is better than another by virtue of birth, with no bearing being put on ability or hard work. It is the opposite of a meritocracy, the opposite of what we should strive towards.
Using phrases life working class and professional class is an acceptance of the world view that Jim Stafford seems to have.


----------



## dub_nerd

Dr.Debt said:


> Isn't "socio economic grouping" as you call it, not the modern name for "Class"
> 
> Just because its frowned upon to have a class system doesn't mean its not there. Just because we play around with words and call it something different doesn't mean its gone.
> 
> At least in olden times, people were upfront about it and acknowledged its existence. If its gone, when did it go ? I didn't notice it going away.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned the class system is alive and well and living in Ireland (but we're not allowed to talk about it)
> 
> Ask Jim Stafford, he'll tell you.


But that's the bizarre thing. Jim Stafford seemed to consider his own world view so unremarkable that he thought nothing of trotting it out on national radio. Admittedly he used the term "professional status in society" rather than "class", but I don't think he left us in much doubt when he said that not only their clients but their _neighbours_ should be able to see that they are (for example) a good solicitor, by virtue of the size of their house. If we're not supposed to talk about class, Jim Stafford shouted it from the rooftops. Maybe he just thinks that such niceties can be abandoned when talking about offloading the debts of the privileged onto the less privileged. After all, if professional business is all about client optics, then I guess Mr. Stafford has to be heard to say the right kind of things by his target clientele. So maybe the whole thing was just a bit of soft advertising that backfired.


----------



## Bronte

Dr.Debt said:


> At least in olden times, people were upfront about it and acknowledged its existence. If its gone, when did it go ? I didn't notice it going away.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned the class system is alive and well and living in Ireland (but we're not allowed to talk about it)
> 
> .


 
I don't recognise this Ireland that you are referring to. 

Are you saying that if you have a professional qualification in the area of law, medicine or accountancy that makes you a certain class of person? 

If the people that Jim Stafford deals with and indeed he believes that they are of a different class to the rest of us, and you seem to agree too, well that's doesn't mean it's true. He can look down his nose on the rest of us, as that is what he appears to be doing, but it's quite pathetic that certain people actually judge people by the size of house they live in. No doubt they are discussing it in the fine drawing rooms in SDC.

Other than those pathetic people does anyone on AAM hire any professional based on their house size and location? I'm sure Michael Lynn lived in a fine house, Thomas Byrne also, Tom McFeeley (maybe he doesn't count as he's not 'professional'), Breifney O' Brien, Gay Byrne's accountant, Fingleton, Seanie..... These people managed to -----(use any word you like) PAYE workers and I see no difference to what they did then to what Stafford is now trying to imply into the insolvency legislation.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Bronte; 
Yup , the best word you used is PATHETIC.

This does not change my strong perception that the (RULES) are for the Little People.
Us Leprechauns will just have to accept that our Professional Bankers/Solicitors/Accountants can and do work in the same Rules as we do.
The DIFFERENCE THOUGH is HOW the RULES are applied.
Inadvertently MR Stafford was honest !
ie Same Rules but Different outcome.

You couldn,t make it up !

Another strong coffee please!


----------



## Time

The funny thing is that not too many solicitors will go through the personal insolvency procedures as they will be disqualified from practising. They will use private deals etc so they can carry on making a living.


----------



## JayPee

The scenario with the 'professional' is rarely going to happen, deals will be done behind closed doors and most will probably end up with their 150k jobs like the majority of the NAMA family. The ones that concern me are the couples with 2 or 3 kids in a 3 bed semi with 100k NE, one wage just about covering the house keeping and interest only agreement on their mortgage that is in 30k arrears.They are just digging themselves deeper and deeper into the hole. And from what I have seen to date they will get no help from anybody because they can't afford it. The Celtic Tiger lives on, he's just so well camouflaged and of cource a protected species in these parts.


----------



## Sesed

Jim Stafford's comments were outrageous but sadly I sense some truth in them.  The Insolvency legislation that so many people have been waiting for has been set up in a way that will assist "professionals" with decent incomes, a family home and a few investment properties.  I imagine they will seek to sell the investments, the negative equity portion will become unsecured debt which they will pay a portion of over a period of years while retaining the family home.  In effect the tax payer will be taking the hit for their bad investments.  On the other hand people with a single family home who are unemployed or on very low incomes will not have this option.


----------



## Time

You will be hard set to find a solicitor doing a PIA. Professional suicide.


----------



## JayPee

Just goes to show what a sham this insolvency situation is , and will be untill there are a number of various cases built up that will give the PIA a certain guidline to work to on certain workable conclusions. This could take years before a real solution is found to an ever growing problem. If this is what they have been teaching prospective PIA's in PIA school then God help us. Just more kicking of the well dented can.


----------

