# My article in today's Indo: Report on Trim court where 5 repossessions were granted



## Brendan Burgess (13 Nov 2015)

I have an article in today's Indo. Predicted "tsunami of repossessions" has not happened  For space reasons, I had to cut it in half. Here is a full report on the proceedings in Meath Circuit Court on Monday.


Since the mortgage arrears crisis began 8 years ago, a total of 1,471 family homes have been actually repossessed by the banks by court order.  When you consider that in excess of 120,000 people have been in arrears at some stage over that period, 1,471 is a very low figure.  When you further consider that 30,000 borrowers are currently in arrears of over 2 years, it’s an astonishingly low figure.

Of course, we don’t have the figures for the number of homes sold by borrowers under pressure from the banks, so more than 1,471 people have actually lost their homes.

I have attended the Circuit Courts in Dublin, Donegal, Wicklow and Meath in recent months to see for myself what is happening in practice.  Séamus Coffey and Karl Deeter have attended the Circuit Courts in Cork and Dublin.

Our experience is very clear: if a borrower wants to keep their family home and pays something, the lender hasn’t a hope of getting an order for possession.

I attended 198 cases in Donegal. Despite the efforts of the banks and despite the fact that some of the houses had actually been abandoned, the court didn’t grant a single order for possession. In the last 100 or so which I have attended in Dublin, I have seen no repossessions granted either.

The hearings are heard by the County Registrar, a Circuit Court official. I had heard that the County Registrar in Meath, Mairéad Ahern,  was tough on borrowers so I went down to the court in Trim on Monday last to see if she lived up to her reputation. She kicked off the proceedings with the following statement:

“If this is your first time in court, you may or may not know how to proceed. Even at this late stage, most cases are resolved. There are two authorised organisations outside – MABS and the Insolvency Service. Ask for an adjournment to consult them.

Repossessions are very rare. There has been only a handful of actual repossessions in Meath and Louth in recent years, despite what you read in the papers. Most are for vacant and abandoned properties. Take advice from the authorised groups. I will give you whatever time it takes”

She didn’t sound too tough to me.

Out of 103 cases, 25 were struck out, 73 were adjourned and the banks succeeded in getting orders in 5 cases.  Not quite the tsunami of repossessions we keep hearing about. But 5 cases is 5 more than I have seen in over 300 cases in Dublin and Donegal, so were these 5 repossessions justified? Judge for yourself.

The first repossession was for a “family home” which had been rented out. The owners appeared to have left the country. The arrears were €62,000 on a mortgage of €294,000. The last payment was €400 in June 2015. They last engagement with the lender was in June 2014 and despite 5 attempts by the bank to call them, they have not been able to speak to them. So the borrowers are collecting the rent and not paying their mortgage.  The lender, Ulster Bank, began legal proceedings back in early 2013, so it has taken them almost 3 years to get an order for possession.

The second case was a sub-prime lender where no payment had been received by the borrower since November 2012. Not surprising really, as the house had been burnt down. There appeared to be a dispute over the insurance and the solicitor representing the borrower asked the court for yet another adjournment to try to sort out the insurance. But at the last court hearing, 6 months ago,  the Registrar had told the borrower that she would give them one last chance but only one. They had not resolved it in that time, so she granted the lender an order for possession. What the lender is going to do are going to do with the burnt out shell of a house is another matter.

The third “family home” was also rented out. The owners appear to have moved to Donegal. The last payment was in 2008 – 7 years ago. *Update - On checking my notes, I think that this is incorrect. The mortgage was taken out in 2008. We may not have got a date for last payment. It is very unlike Bank of Ireland to hang around when they are not getting paid. *So they have been pocketing the rent and paying nothing to the lender, Bank of Ireland.  There was €91,000 in arrears outstanding.

The fourth order was granted to AIB. The last payment was made in June 2010 for €500 on a mortgage of €261,000 with €83,000 arrears.  One of the joint owners showed up in court and told the Registrar that as the house was in a remote place in County Meath, she could no longer afford to live in it and had moved out. She consented to the order.  She had not seen the other joint owner for 5 or 6 years.  She would have voluntarily surrendered the property but the bank had to seek an order for possession as the other joint owner could not be contacted to agree to the surrender.

The fifth order was the only case where it appeared that the family might still be living in the home. The balance was €611,000 and had arrears of €57,000. The last payment was received back in January 2011. Legal proceedings were initiated by the bank in early 2013. Despite not receiving any payment in almost 5 years, it has taken the bank 3 years of court proceedings to gain the order for possession.  And the Registrar in granting the order, put a 9 month stay on the carrying out of the order as “the borrowers might do something in the meantime”.

Most cases were adjourned or struck out. In four other cases the lender tried to get an order for possession but the Registrar refused.  One guy was in the court for the 5th time. Although he has a solicitor and a financial advisor, neither was available to attend court. He has a mortgage of €448,000 with €98,000 arrears and is paying €500 a month.  In my opinion, this mortgage is clearly unsustainable.  If he can afford only €6,000 a year, he can’t afford to live in a house with a mortgage of €448,000. But he has got yet another adjournment.

In another case, the EBS sought an adjournment but the borrower showed up and asked the Registrar to strike out the case.  He claimed that the EBS had told him 15 months ago that they would capitalise the arrears but they had not done so and were refusing to meet him. He has been make full repayments. The Registrar didn’t ask for any evidence to support these claims by the borrower, but to be fair, he sounded credible. She just struck out the proceedings.

In a final case, the Registrar had already granted an order to Bank of Ireland back in April of this year with a 9 months stay.  When an order is granted, the borrower has 14 days to appeal it.  But the borrowers did nothing about it. Their solicitor sought permission to extend the time to appeal it on the grounds that the borrowers did not know about the court hearing although they accepted that notice had been validly served.  Since the order was granted they had actually paid €36,500 off the loan. The bank still objected to the granting of an extension of the time to appeal the order. The Registrar gave them another 14 days to lodge an appeal on the grounds that it sounded to her as “if some arrangement can be made”. This seemed to me to be a common sense approach, although firmly on the side of the borrower.

So what have I learnt? Well of the repossessions of “family homes” I have seen most were abandoned or rented out.  Most had huge arrears and were paying nothing.  If it’s your family home, no matter how bad the situation, no matter how late in the day it is, talk to MABS or to one of the other voluntary groups. If you do so and if you pay something and if you show up in court, you will not lose your home.


----------



## Joe_90 (13 Nov 2015)

Brendan,

Good to see a review of what is going on.  Although 


> One guy was in the court for the 5th time. Although he has a solicitor and a financial advisor, neither was available to attend court. He has a mortgage of €448,000 with €98,000 arrears and is paying €500 a month. In my opinion, this mortgage is clearly unsustainable. If he can afford only €6,000 a year, he can’t afford to live in a house with a mortgage of €448,000. But he has got yet another adjournment.



Was evidence presented that he could not afford to pay more.  Some people are playing the long game and relying on the incapacity of the banks to make them cooperate. Maybe the banks will be forced into a restructure in order to deal with some borrowers.


----------



## Sarenco (13 Nov 2015)

Good article Brendan.  That level of detail really gives a good flavour of the actual position at the coal face.

I was originally sceptical of your view that no possession order would ever be granted if a borrower is making any kind of meaningful payments to their lender but that certainly seems to be the case.  That has obvious consequences for mortgage pricing into the future.

Incidentally, I wonder if Revenue is taking note of those cases where a borrower has ceased making mortgage payments but is pocketing rent on a property?


----------



## Bronte (13 Nov 2015)

Excellent BB to find out what is going on.  Why are there so many adjournments do you know.  Can you describe the courtroom, the set up the people there.  Is it intimidating.  Are people upset.  Do people go out to Mabs/Insolvency experts - that's really good news they are finally there.  What happens those people's cases, does Mabs come back in with them.  Are the Mabs/Insolvency people lawyers?

It is quite extraordinary that the newspapers don't report on these cases, don't they have reports in every district court to tell us what Paddy did last Friday night after the pub etc.


----------



## Bronte (13 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I attended 198 cases in Donegal. Despite the efforts of the banks and despite the fact that some of the houses had actually been abandoned, the court didn’t grant a single order for possession. In the last 100 or so which I have attended in Dublin, I have seen no repossessions granted either..



On what grounds are respossession orders not granted on abandoned houses?


----------



## Bronte (13 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> The fifth order was the only case where it appeared that the family might still be living in the home. The balance was €611,000 and had arrears of €57,000. The last payment was received back in January 2011. Legal proceedings were initiated by the bank in early 2013. Despite not receiving any payment in almost 5 years, it has taken the bank 3 years of court proceedings to gain the order for possession.  And the Registrar in granting the order, put a 9 month stay on the carrying out of the order as “the borrowers might do something in the meantime”.
> 
> .



So they will have lived rent free for 6 years.  And even in 9 months time it doesn't mean the bank get it does it.  There is the 'execution' procedure next.


----------



## Bronte (13 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> The third “family home” was also rented out. The owners appear to have moved to Donegal. The last payment was in 2008 – 7 years ago. So they have been pocketing the rent and paying nothing to the lender, Bank of Ireland.  There was €91,000 in arrears outstanding.
> 
> .



This is truly unbelievable.  Why would a bank wait 7 years.  What does a bank gain by waiting 7 years.  The can kicking, the hope property will rise, the avoidence of crystalising losses or the court system.


----------



## Bronte (13 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> In another case, the EBS sought an adjournment but the borrower showed up and asked the Registrar to strike out the case.  He claimed that the EBS had told him 15 months ago that they would capitalise the arrears but they had not done so and were refusing to meet him. He has been make full repayments. The Registrar didn’t ask for any evidence to support these claims by the borrower, but to be fair, he sounded credible. She just struck out the proceedings.
> 
> .



So the EBS have to now go back to the beginning and start new proceedings.  How is it that a bank with money and the best legal people let a case get struck out?  There seems to be a heck of a lot of money going to lawyers in Ireland for all these cases.  Money that ultimately the bank/society will pay for. Yet the borrowers cannot afford legal advice in most cases.  I wonder what the quality of the Mabs/Insolvency service in court is like.  Is that good enough against solicitors and barristers for banks.  Is it just someone sent down from the offices of Mabs to hold the hands of borrowers.


----------



## Sarenco (13 Nov 2015)

Why do think the bank did nothing for seven years?


----------



## Bronte (13 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> In a final case, the Registrar had already granted an order to Bank of Ireland back in April of this year with a 9 months stay.  When an order is granted, the borrower has 14 days to appeal it.  But the borrowers did nothing about it. Their solicitor sought permission to extend the time to appeal it on the grounds that the borrowers did not know about the court hearing although they accepted that notice had been validly served.  Since the order was granted they had actually paid €36,500 off the loan. The bank still objected to the granting of an extension of the time to appeal the order. The Registrar gave them another 14 days to lodge an appeal on the grounds that it sounded to her as “if some arrangement can be made”. This seemed to me to be a common sense approach, although firmly on the side of the borrower.
> 
> .



Like you I agree it's a common sense approach, especially as they really made a big effort to pay off 36K.  But I don't see how it is legal to get an order for the court to ignore their own order.

Also don't understand the banks approach, surely if they get 36K they would be happy to now see the borrower engaging.  It would be interesting to see if 'arrangements' do happen in these cases outside the courtroom.  I guess only the bankers know this.  I wonder is there a disconnect between the courts, the banks legal teams, and the banks debt units.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (13 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> He has a mortgage of €448,000 with €98,000 arrears and is paying €500 a month. In my opinion, this mortgage is clearly unsustainable. If he can afford only €6,000 a year, he can’t afford to live in a house with a mortgage of €448,000. But he has got yet another adjournment.






Joe_90 said:


> Was evidence presented that he could not afford to pay more. Some people are playing the long game and relying on the incapacity of the banks to make them cooperate. Maybe the banks will be forced into a restructure in order to deal with some borrowers.



These cases happen very quickly.  Very little information is given. In this case, we got no information at all about his income or his personal situation, although that may have been given at one of the 4 earlier court appearances or it may have been in the file. 

We have no idea how much the house is worth. If it's close to positive equity,it would not be in the interest of the lender to do any restructure. 

And of course, the Central Bank rules would not allow the lender to do a restructure which is not sustainable.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (13 Nov 2015)

Bronte said:


> Can you describe the courtroom, the set up the people there. Is it intimidating. Are people upset. Do people go out to Mabs/Insolvency experts - that's really good news they are finally there. What happens those people's cases, does Mabs come back in with them. Are the Mabs/Insolvency people lawyers?



I have attended 4 courts and they are all large well lit, comfortable rooms.  The Registrar sits in the Judge's seat with the court clerk sitting in front of her facing the court. The first four desks are occupied by solicitors and barristers.  The rest of us sit anywhere we want. (In Donegal, I found it difficult to hear the solicitors so I moved to the Jury's bench and so got a great view of the proceedings and could hear everything as well.) 

Only about 20% of borrowers show up.  They walk to the top of the room and say what they want to say.  I think that they should be allowed to stand at a table of some sort and maybe put papers in front of them.  They are just standing there in the aisle beside the solicitors. 

All of the Registrars I have seen have been unfailingly polite and helpful to the borrowers while tearing strips off the lenders if they do anything wrong.  But the Registrar in Bray takes no messing. "Registrar, the bank refuses to talk to me or to do a deal with me!". "Are you paying anything?" "No". " Well what do you want to talk about so?" 

Most of the borrowers are well composed and don't appear to be particularly stressed.  They can usually talk well.  I have seen only one woman in tears. I saw another guy who had no idea what was going on.  He had paid nothing for some years and the Registrar gave an order against him. But he didn't seem to understand it.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (13 Nov 2015)

Bronte said:


> This is truly unbelievable.  Why would a bank wait 7 years.  What does a bank gain by waiting 7 years.  The can kicking, the hope property will rise, the avoidance of crystalising losses or the court system.



As this was a Bank of Ireland case, and they are on the ball, I checked my notes on this. I think I have that wrong.  It was a very quick case and I have written down 7 years, but it may be that the mortgage was taken out 7 years ago.  I don't have a date of last payment.

Lenders have often waited a long time to take action. They were delayed by the Mortgage Arrears Resolution Process. And then there were legal barriers to them taking action.

Sarenco asked why would the bank wait 7 years.  This case was initiated in early 2014. So they probably waited a year or so after the last payment to begin legal proceedings. 

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (13 Nov 2015)

Bronte said:


> But I don't see how it is legal to get an order for the court to ignore their own order.



This happens all the time in court cases,as far as I know.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (13 Nov 2015)

Bronte said:


> I wonder what the quality of the Mabs/Insolvency service in court is like. Is that good enough against solicitors and barristers for banks.



MABS and the ISI do not speak in court. 

They have one person outside and one person in the court. They speak to people as they enter the court.  When someone gets an adjournment, they follow them out and talk to them and offer to help.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (13 Nov 2015)

Bronte said:


> Like you I agree it's a common sense approach, especially as they really made a big effort to pay off 36K. ...
> 
> Also don't understand the banks approach, surely if they get 36K they would be happy to now see the borrower engaging.



We don't know the full story. The borrowers ignored the last court date. They presumably had their heads in the sand. Their solicitor was very impressive and I would guess that he shook them up a bit and will help them sort it out if it's sustainable. The defendant in this case was a practising accountant and his wife was a secretary.  It surprised me that their excuse of not knowing what was happening was accepted.


----------



## Bronte (13 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> We don't know the full story. The borrowers ignored the last court date. They presumably had their heads in the sand. Their solicitor was very impressive and I would guess that he shook them up a bit and will help them sort it out if it's sustainable. The defendant in this case was a practising accountant and his wife was a secretary.  It surprised me that their excuse of not knowing what was happening was accepted.



That makes sense, their competent solicitor getting the accountant to see sense and coming up with the readies.  If you're able to 'suddenly' have 36 K then in all likelyhood one has other assets or income that can be got at so not engaging is foolish.  That reminds me of the Killiney two, where they had a vast portfolio of other properties but buried their head in the tent !


----------



## Sarenco (13 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> As this was a Bank of Ireland case, and they are on the ball, I checked my notes on this. I think I have that wrong.  It was a very quick case and I have written down 7 years, but it may be that the mortgage was taken out 7 years ago.  I don't have a date of last payment.
> 
> Lenders have often waited a long time to take action. They were delayed by the Mortgage Arrears Resolution Process. And then there were legal barriers to them taking action.
> 
> ...



Yep.  The legal lacuna arising from the famous Dunne judgment was only closed on 31 July 2013.

It normally takes around a year to complete MARP before proceedings can be initiated.  Then there are adjournments...


----------



## demoivre (17 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Most cases were adjourned or struck out. In four other cases the lender tried to get an order for possession but the Registrar refused. One guy was in the court for the 5th time. Although he has a solicitor and a financial advisor, neither was available to attend court. He has a mortgage of €448,000 with €98,000 arrears and is paying €500 a month. In my opinion, this mortgage is clearly unsustainable. If he can afford only €6,000 a year, he can’t afford to live in a house with a mortgage of €448,000. But he has got yet another adjournment.



He should take the advice of the county registrar and talk to the ISI. A PIA could make this mortgage sustainable and , depending on the value of the house, result in a smaller loss to the bank than if they repossessed and sold the property, and the borrower went bankrupt to deal with the shortfall.


----------



## visigoth (17 Nov 2015)

This is fascinating and hard to believe. And if they do not streamline the repossession the arrears may become self-enforcing so that people who are borderline will join the train because if others can why can’t they?


----------



## visigoth (17 Nov 2015)

I have a theory that it may have something with people’s perception of their house as an asset and not only with people’s ability to repay. Presumably, the courts system had the same lenient and convoluted process before the crash. But the rate of arrears was lower not only because of a lower unemployment but because of different incentives borrowers had then also, don’t you think?

Before the crash, with people seeing more equity in their houses as prices kept rising they were more inclined to toughen up and keep paying even if it was difficult. Unlike now. Second, many borrowers following the crash may also see banks as discredited and incompetent and the same logic may be in place, if the banks got away with it, why can’t they? Third, I wonder if the size of the down payment decreases the probability of arrears not because such borrowers are likely to have smaller loans but because psychologically they have a stake in their house, so they keep paying hoping for the prices to rise. If you had a 100% mortgage, you never had any real stake in the house, you walk away. Brendan only referred to the size of their outstanding loans but it is unclear about the amounts people lost personally.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (17 Nov 2015)

visigoth said:


> And if they do not streamline the repossession the arrears may become self-enforcing so that people who are borderline will join the train because if others can why can’t they?



Hi visigoth 

I have argued in the past that streamlining the repossession process would reduce the arrears figures dramatically. 

A lot of people get into trouble because they see no penalty for not paying their mortgage and they just stop. After a few years, they may be gone beyond recovery. Had they addressed the problem early on, they would not be in such deep arrears.

Brendan


----------



## Sarenco (17 Nov 2015)

visigoth said:


> This is fascinating and hard to believe. And if they do not streamline the repossession the arrears may become self-enforcing so that people who are borderline will join the train because if others can why can’t they?



Absolutely.

But it has an even bigger impact because the banking system cannot replace non-performing loans with performing loans secured on the same properties.

The result?  

Higher interest rates for those that are meeting their obligations.


----------



## visigoth (18 Nov 2015)

Could not agree more, and not entirely clear what drives it, it is not like the govt can just tell the courts to get tough and speed it up, can it? Bad for competition if it deters the new entrants, bad for the banks, horrible for SVR customers, and perhaps bad for  people in arrears themselves as they can't move on and have the perverse incentives not to pay instead. But it can't go on forever surely, something has to give.  

But like I said, I am curious if all things being equal, if borrowers with equal loan amounts but with a higher stake in their houses - higher LTV originally - are less likely to default than those who acquired with 100% finance. My gut feeling it is the case, and borrowers in other jurisdictions, e.g., Italy, are less likely to default not only because of speedier repossession but also because they invest much more up front in their houses.


----------



## Sarenco (19 Nov 2015)

There is a considerable body of evidence that shows a strong correlation between high LTVs and defaults. 

Here's a Central Bank paper on the subject:

[broken link removed]


----------



## AlAndalus (19 Nov 2015)

I'd be curious as to what the process is like in the UK/NI. I just can't imagine similar delays/outcomes in any other country. A lot of this is policitically/media driven. I know we have a particular hang up about the family home but ultimately, as per previous posts, this is actually having a very detrimental effect on the banks/mortgage customers and society as a whole. The courts need to get real and distinguish genuine family home cases and the rest.


----------



## Delboy (19 Nov 2015)

AlAndalus said:


> The courts need to get real and distinguish genuine family home cases and the rest.


They need to get real, full stop. It's not for them to decide whether people deserve to stay in a house just because it's a family home unless there is some distinction made in the Constitution between Renters and Home Owners that I'm not aware of.

If the mortgage has not being paid, and no deal has being made outside of the Court process, then the Courts should apply the rule of law...not the rules of can kicking


----------



## visigoth (19 Nov 2015)

<<There is a considerable body of evidence that shows a strong correlation between high LTVs and defaults.

Then the current policy of 80% LTV makes sense despite the anguish of people who are unable to save to want to have their own house here and now. There could be many ways to skin a cat here - one is to streamline repossessions, second - make sure people have more skin in the game. 

Pity the CBI did not think about it before 2008.


----------



## Michael Bolger (20 Nov 2015)

It seems that many people are unaware that the banks place a tangible cash value on a voluntary surrender of a property Brendan. Your article clearly demonstrates why this is - they know the cost and time involved in legal proceedings is very high. A voluntary surrender can be used as part of an Accelerated PIA to clear down all your debts inside 6 months. Surely this is the fastest and cleanest route out of insolvency? From our experience in negotiations with banks to date the average value to the mortgage lender of a voluntary property surrender is around €30,000. People are often being badly advised because hanging on for dear life is not always the only option.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (24 Nov 2015)

I was in Trim Court again yesterday - report to follow.  Ben Gilroy was on the list.

Brian O'Connell will be reporting on it on Sean O'Rourke on Wednesday.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Nov 2015)

The report has been deferred and is now scheduled to be broadcast at around 10.15 this morning.

Update: Rescheduled to 10.45


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Nov 2015)

Here is my report from Trim Court on 23 November 



Again, the Registrar introduced proceedings with the same words as she did the last time. 

“If this is your first time in court, you may or may not know how to proceed. Even at this late stage, most cases are resolved. There are two authorised organisations outside – MABS and the Insolvency Service. Ask for an adjournment to consult them.

Repossessions are very rare. There has been only a handful of actual repossessions in Meath and Louth in recent years, despite what you read in the papers. Most are for vacant and abandoned properties. Take advice from the authorised groups. I will give you whatever time it takes”
*
Interesting cases *

A) Arrears of €60k on a mortgage of €165k. One payment of €50 made in the last 5 years. The borrower had contacted MABS recently and has made an appointment to meet them on 11 January. Adjourned to 24 February. The Registrar said "They may be able to work something out, although it doesn't sound hopeful."

B) The lender was unable to serve proceedings on the owners as the house is rented. The tenants wouldn't say to whom they are paying rent but confirmed that the owners have not lived there for some time. As the lender could not serve the proceedings in person on the mortgage holder, the court granted them permission to serve notice by registered mail.  The case was adjourned to the 9th May.

C) The property is abandoned and vacant. But as it's a family home, Circuit Court procedures says that there has to be an adjournment on the first appearance in court. Adjourned initially to 23 May, but the Registrar changed it to 11 January under the circumstances. 

D) Solicitor for EBS could not proceed as they had not yet received a Certificate of Rateable Valuation from the Valuation Office. (This is needed to show that the house is not a mansion and so should be in the High Court) The sole borrower said she had no objection to an order being granted. She is no longer living there and she is talking to Grant Thornton about a PIA.  The solicitor for the EBS felt that the borrower should not give consent without professional advice. Adjourned to 25 January.

E) The borrower had agreed to voluntary surrender but would not consent to an order for possession as "we would still be liable for the shortfall." The lender's offer of voluntary surrender had expired. Case adjourned to January. 

F) Start Mortgages vs. Ben Gilroy.  It was quick and hard to follow. He was present in court but did not speak. The Civil Bill had expired so the lender has to apply to the judge to renew it or extend it. Adjourned to 13th June. 

G) Property has been vacant for 4 years. The bank has been unable to locate the mortgage holder. The bank applied for permission to serve notice by registered post. Adjourned to 24 February. 

H) Lender applied for adjournment. Borrower asked to address the court. He has been paying €700 per month for some time. The interest is €400.  He wants a long term deal. The bank wants a new SFS. Nothing has changed since the last SFS. The Registrar told him to submit a new one saying that nothing has changed. Adjourned to 23 May.

I) It was the first time in court, so although the borrower now lives in Australia, it was adjourned to 23 May, as it was the first time in court. 

J) A financial advisor addressed the Registrar on behalf of the borrower.  Usually only solicitors are allowed to address the court, so it's good to see the Registrar not enforcing this strictly. 

K) An apartment. Lots of post and junk mail lying around so it appears to be vacant. Order for substitute service by registered mail granted. Adjourned to 23 May. 

L) The insurance company has told the borrower to vacate the building as it's a fire hazard. There is nothing to be gained by granting an order for possession. Borrower talking to MABS.

M)  BoI wanted to proceed with an order. Solicitor for defendant said that there was equity in the property and that the borrower proposed to sell it. Bank said that they had got an adjournment on that basis the last time. Nothing paid since 9/2013.  Registrar granted a peremptory adjournment against the borrower to 24 February . This means that if it's not sold, the court will grant an order on that date.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Nov 2015)

Brian O'Connell has just reported on this on Today with Sean O'Rourke.

[broken link removed]

26 November Repossession Courts

He got some additional information from the borrowers.

This is one of the first reports I have heard which showed how difficult it is for the banks to repossess homes, even if they are vacant or abandoned and even if the borrower wanted to surrender them.

A)  A woman originally from Nigeria lost her job in 2010. The repayment should be €900 a month. She has had health problems - depression. She wakes up thinking she will lose her home. So she rang the bank and told them to take it. She has one child.

F) Ben Gilroy
. He had a deposit of €150k and borrowed €300k. He doesn't know his arrears, but reckons it's about €100k.  The payment should be €2,800 a month but "how can I afford that, I am just an ordinary electrician/operator. It was adjourned because I haven't been served with notice yet.  I have a young girl at home with cancer. The wrong people are before the courts. The banks are using bailed out money to pay solicitors and barristers to destroy the people who have bailed them out."

1) A businessman who remortgaged his home to finance his business is paying nothing on his mortgage. Got an adjournment.

*Brian's comments *
The bar is set incredibly high for the bank to actually get an order for repossession.  He gave the example of E) above.


----------



## Delboy (26 Nov 2015)

The legal system is broken, no doubt about it. And people on Standard Variable Rate mortgages are paying for it


----------



## willsonjosep (27 Nov 2015)

Excellent BB to find out what is going on. Why are there so many adjournments do you know. Can you describe the courtroom, the set up the people there. Is it intimidating. Are people upset. Do people go out to Mabs/Insolvency experts - that's really good news they are finally there. What happens those people's cases, does Mabs come back in with them. Are the Mabs/Insolvency people lawyers?


----------



## Sarenco (27 Nov 2015)

http://www.irishexaminer.com/irelan...as-hotels-to-close-over-christmas-365119.html

I wonder how families facing the prospect of Christmas on the streets feel when they hear about a non-national who has paid a grand total of €50 towards her mortgage over the past 5 years getting a further adjournment until the end of February?

If only there were vacant properties available that could house these poor families...

It's a cruel joke at this stage. 

The mystery to me is that more people are not at least starting to question the fairness of this ongoing farce.


----------



## Bronte (28 Nov 2015)

willsonjosep said:


> Excellent BB to find out what is going on. Why are there so many adjournments do you know. Can you describe the courtroom, the set up the people there. Is it intimidating. Are people upset. Do people go out to Mabs/Insolvency experts - that's really good news they are finally there. What happens those people's cases, does Mabs come back in with them. Are the Mabs/Insolvency people lawyers?


He did describe it on another thread, recently, you'll have to try and find it.


----------



## Sarenco (28 Nov 2015)

Bronte said:


> He did describe it on another thread, recently, you'll have to try and find it.



It's actually post #12 on this thread.

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/thread...possessions-were-granted.196579/#post-1452024


----------

