# Irish bankruptcy in the UK is just ripping the rest of us off



## DB74

Personally speaking, I find the whole travelling over to the UK to avail of a very simple and quick bankruptcy procedure a quite frankly disgusting abdication of personal responsibility and typical of the change in Irish psyches over the last 15-20 years.

12 months is a ridiculously short time to be allowed to come out of bankruptcy IMO (just as 12 years is far too long). Now while I accept that bankruptcy is the only solution in some instances, there HAS to be some pain involved. I find it absolutely disgraceful that someone can swan off to England for a year, then come back and I have to shoulder the burden of their debt as well as my own.

People in this country made mistakes. Not just big bankers, millionaire developers and politicians (can't think of a suitable printable adjective here!) but ordinary decent working people.

I made mistakes. I took out a mortgage top-up and bought new cars and went on expensive holidays. But I'm paying for it now. I'll admit I'm lucky, I have a full-time job and my wife has a full-time job. However half of our monthly income goes solely on paying the mortgage, servicing stupid loans and paying childcare costs. If we didn't have those loans, my wife wouldn't have to work and she could enjoy our children's formative years.

I would reckon there is not one person in this country who doesn't want to see the likes of David Drumm back in Irish courts having to pay his dues to this State. So what is different about hundreds of little "David Drumms" running off to England to try to do exactly the same thing?

So I would urge our government to pass some form of legislation reducing the bankruptcy discharge period to 5 years while also refusing to accept a discharge from another country where the discharge period is less than this.

If people want to avail of UK bankruptcy then so be it, but lets not make it an easy choice.

Just my 2c anyway

Let the games begin!


----------



## DB74

Mods feel free to move this to LOS (or delete it!)


----------



## oldnick

-they don't even have to go for a year - justa few months will do the trick. 
I agree and said something similar in another thread. Absolutely there's need for reform -and the growing escape to Briatin highlights it.
But it's typical of this country to rid itself of problems by exporting them to UK.


----------



## Steve Thatcher

And while we are at it why don't we flaggelate ourselves as well. 

Why does there have to be pain? I am talking to people everyday who are on the verge of suicide because of debt. I hear their tears and their call to me is the hardest thing that they have ever done. This is not an easy decision. The solution may seem to easy to some of you, but admitting that you can't go on and then deciding to give up your house, move to a new country, leave your friends and family behind is excrutiating for people.

Please don't tell me this is easy.

By all means pay your debts as and when you can. If you can't don't KILL yourself. Further don't foist our moral code on others, whose situation you cannot even begin to understand.

Steve


----------



## Brendan Burgess

> 12 months is a ridiculously short time to be allowed to come out of bankruptcy IMO (just as 12 years is far too long).



I think that is the key. If I was bankrupt, I would certainly go to the UK in preference for waiting for the government to modernise our laws. I would imagine that if I went now, I would be out of bankruptcy before the legislation is passed by the Oireachtas.

But let's be clear, the taxpayer/banks are not losing a lot through this process. These people are bankrupt. The process is just recognising that. 

If someone has a good salary like you have, DB, they will not be able to apply for bankruptcy because they can pay their debts as they fall due.

And anyone going for bankruptcy has felt a lot of pain already.


----------



## ontour

Is it wrong that the impression is created that after 12 months the person is clear of their financial past.  I would have thought that it would be difficult to get a credit card, a mortgage is probably out of the question for a few years.  Is there not another 5 years of pain until the credit history is cleared?


----------



## 44brendan

Current projection is that the Heads of new Insolvency legislation will be made public sometime in March with expectation that legislation will be passed shortly after. Indications currently are that this will be a full insolvency package & not just address bankruptcy law. I note commentary from Michael Noonan that mortgage debt should not be included in future bankruptcy proceedings which gives rise to questions as to how this will be achieved.
In the meantime the UK legislation appears to be readily available to those who wish to avail of it and IMHO I cannot blame anyone who takes that route.


----------



## Wipetheslate

DB74 said:


> Personally speaking, I find the whole travelling over to the UK to avail of a very simple and quick bankruptcy procedure a quite frankly disgusting abdication of personal responsibility and typical of the change in Irish psyches over the last 15-20 years.
> 
> 12 months is a ridiculously short time to be allowed to come out of bankruptcy IMO (just as 12 years is far too long). Now while I accept that bankruptcy is the only solution in some instances, there HAS to be some pain involved. I find it absolutely disgraceful that someone can swan off to England for a year, then come back and I have to shoulder the burden of their debt as well as my own.
> 
> People in this country made mistakes. Not just big bankers, millionaire developers and politicians (can't think of a suitable printable adjective here!) but ordinary decent working people.
> 
> I made mistakes. I took out a mortgage top-up and bought new cars and went on expensive holidays. But I'm paying for it now. I'll admit I'm lucky, I have a full-time job and my wife has a full-time job. However half of our monthly income goes solely on paying the mortgage, servicing stupid loans and paying childcare costs. If we didn't have those loans, my wife wouldn't have to work and she could enjoy our children's formative years.
> 
> I would reckon there is not one person in this country who doesn't want to see the likes of David Drumm back in Irish courts having to pay his dues to this State. So what is different about hundreds of little "David Drumms" running off to England to try to do exactly the same thing?
> 
> So I would urge our government to pass some form of legislation reducing the bankruptcy discharge period to 5 years while also refusing to accept a discharge from another country where the discharge period is less than this.
> 
> If people want to avail of UK bankruptcy then so be it, but lets not make it an easy choice.
> 
> Just my 2c anyway
> 
> Let the games begin!



I think you should direct your ire to the imbeciles who guaranteed the private debts of banks thus insulating the ECB ,German ,French banks from taking the hit and foisting it on the Irish citizen, Imagine guaranteeing all bank debts without carrying out due diligence. The same imbeciles are making you and I pay them circa 130k per year in pension drawings and half them in their 50s , just because the stupid Irish government of the day decided to carry these losses . Why ? It's the Government who impose this austerity on you not people like myself who have lost everything I worked for .  Two kids under 7 and facing into bankruptcy is not a nice place to be at 42 believe you me .


----------



## T McGibney

Steve Thatcher said:


> And while we are at it why don't we flaggelate ourselves as well.
> 
> Why does there have to be pain?



Because we're Irish, and we feel a need for suffering and self-flagellation to compensate for our own mistakes and shortcomings. As a nation, we pretend that we have rejected the authoritarianism of the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church yet we still cling to some of its most unattractive aspects.


----------



## FioBi

Wipetheslate said:


> I think you should direct your ire to the imbeciles who guaranteed the private debts of banks thus insulating the ECB ,German ,French banks from taking the hit and foisting it on the Irish citizen, Imagine guaranteeing all bank debts without carrying out due diligence. The same imbeciles are making you and I pay them circa 130k per year in pension drawings and half them in their 50s , just because the stupid Irish government of the day decided to carry these losses . Why ? It's the Government who impose this austerity on you not people like myself who have lost everything I worked for . Two kids under 7 and facing into bankruptcy is not a nice place to be at 42 believe you me .


 
I agree 100% with the above. I hope you have the courage to go ahead and get your bankruptcy sorted by the fastest possible route. The same way they saddled the country with their bank guarantee by the fastest possible route i.e. imtroducing overnight leglisation.

Why cant they be so efficient about introducing bankruptcy leglisation??  There is no one in the government with any sense of urgency to deal with personal insolvency, we are waiting more than 3 years!!!


----------



## mercman

DB74 said:


> I made mistakes. I took out a mortgage top-up and bought new cars and went on expensive holidays. But I'm paying for it now. I'll admit I'm lucky, I have a full-time job and my wife has a full-time job. However half of our monthly income goes solely on paying the mortgage, servicing stupid loans and paying childcare costs. If we didn't have those loans, my wife wouldn't have to work and she could enjoy our children's formative years.




So you want to blame all and sundry for your mistakes. Your post is contradictory. You borrowed the money, you bought the cars, bought the house, did the holiday thing. So all this is the fault of those that are trying to better themselves. Blame the Bankers who public ally told lies; earned bonuses for handing out loans and kept them;  but please stop blaming others that are in a far worse position than you.


----------



## Artemis

So much condemnation of the ordinary people in debt, yet not a whisper about bailing out failed banks, developers and foreign bond holders. Different rules for those who are powerful and well connected. 

Billions are being transfered every few months from Anglo (tax payers money)to foreigh bond holders and yet the focus is on ensuring distressed borrowers sufferi even more.

Remember anybody who took out a mortgage, was a tax payer, a contributing member of society, paying PAYE, PRSI, VAT, STAMP DUTY, contributing to employment.


----------



## seantheman

Steve Thatcher said:


> Why does there have to be pain? I am talking to people everyday who are on the verge of suicide because of debt. I hear their tears and their call to me is the hardest thing that they have ever done. This is not an easy decision. The solution may seem to easy to some of you, but admitting that you can't go on and then deciding to give up your house, move to a new country, leave your friends and family behind is excrutiating for people.
> 
> Please don't tell me this is easy.
> 
> 
> 
> Steve


 
It must be a great source of relief for these people that are suffering and seeking UK bankrupcy that caring guys like you Steve give up your free time and do this pro bono work.


----------



## Chris

ontour said:


> Is it wrong that the impression is created that after 12 months the person is clear of their financial past.  I would have thought that it would be difficult to get a credit card, a mortgage is probably out of the question for a few years.  Is there not another 5 years of pain until the credit history is cleared?


I would have thought this too. For failed business owners it is also extremely difficult to get new funding for a new venture, whether it be private direct investment or a loan from a bank. 



Wipetheslate said:


> I think you should direct your ire to the imbeciles who guaranteed the private debts of banks thus insulating the ECB ,German ,French banks from taking the hit and foisting it on the Irish citizen, Imagine guaranteeing all bank debts without carrying out due diligence.



I agree. DB74, you should be directing your frustration/anger not at people seeking for a speedy bankruptcy, but at the people that ensured that bankruptcies end up costing the taxpayer and not a private investor.


----------



## mcloving

T McGibney said:


> Because we're Irish, and we feel a need for suffering and self-flagellation to compensate for our own mistakes and shortcomings. As a nation, we pretend that we have rejected the authoritarianism of the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church yet we still cling to some of its most unattractive aspects.


 

Not all irish living here though, plenty of foreigners here paying there way, not trying to look at the mud.


----------



## T McGibney

mcloving said:


> Not all irish living here though, plenty of foreigners here paying there way, not trying to look at the mud.



True, but I'm not sure how many of them have been involved in devising current and recent government policy on bankruptcy, so I don't really see your point.


----------



## mcloving

T McGibney said:


> True, but I'm not sure how many of them have been involved in devising current and recent government policy on bankruptcy.


 
Thats very true, maybe they should be involved, to help speed things up a bit. There is definately a case for suffering as you mentioned in the irish psyche


----------



## DB74

mercman said:


> So you want to blame all and sundry for your mistakes.



I don't blame anyone for my mistakes, other than myself

I don't see where I have ever said otherwise


----------



## DB74

Artemis said:


> So much condemnation of the ordinary people in debt, yet not a whisper about bailing out failed banks, developers and foreign bond holders. Different rules for those who are powerful and well connected.



There has been plenty of whisper and more about the bailing out of the banks et al

We shouldn't have to have a caveat about bailed-out banks etc in every economic discussion from here until the end of time. I think we're all aware of the folly of those actions at this stage.


----------



## Gervan

But to get back to the title of the thread: 

Any business persons taking the UK bankruptcy way out and just throwing back the strain onto their suppliers. 

It is going to lead to a domino effect. 

I deal with small traders and see how each is waiting for payment from a customer in order to pay creditors. If the customer does not pay, the small trader cannot pay his debts, and eventually will have to cease trading, putting employees out of work, leaving debts unpaid etc.

This is a downward spiral.


----------



## ajapale

To get back to the substantive issue.

Who looses if significant numbers of people avail of the UK bankrupcy route?

DB74 proposes that "_*the rest of us*_" loose but I wonder can we be more explicit as to the loosers in this scenario.

Gervan suggests that small suppliers / traders will loose in a domino effect debt spiral.


----------



## callybags

ajapale said:


> To get back to the substantive issue.
> 
> Who looses if significant numbers of people avail of the UK bankrupcy route?
> 
> DB74 proposes that "the rest of us" loose but I wonder can we be more explicit as to the loosers in this scenario.


 
I would have thought it would depend on who the creditors of the bankrupt were...

Banks- we all pay
Revenue- we all pay
Suppliers of a sole trader- they will pay initially but as Gervan said there will be a knock on effect if people are let go as a result.

Seems in all cases it comes back on the taxpayers.

The results are the same if the person goes bankrupt here.


----------



## DB74

callybags said:


> The results are the same if the person goes bankrupt here.



My main issue is the 12 months as opposed to the actual bankruptcy.

I just feel that 12 months is too short and therefore too much of an easy option for people, in some circumstances.

I would prefer to see a 4-5 year discharge period.


----------



## ajapale

callybags said:


> The results are the same if the person goes bankrupt here.



If the results are the same whether here or the UK then why have discussion?

The pupose of this thread is to explore who looses out if significant numbers choose the UK bankrupcy route over the ROI bankrupcy route.


----------



## Sunny

DB74 said:


> My main issue is the 12 months as opposed to the actual bankruptcy.
> 
> I just feel that 12 months is too short and therefore too much of an easy option for people, in some circumstances.
> 
> I would prefer to see a 4-5 year discharge period.


 
Why? If people are seriously bankrupt, making them live in misery for 4-5 years before giving them the chance to start again instead of 12 months just seems vindictive to me. People who commit serious crimes are forgiven quicker. 

There is very little if any evidence to show that having a longer bankruptcy period increases recovery value for creditors. There is also little evidence that having shorter bankruptcy periods encourages people to run up huge debts and then just declare themselves bankrupt. The UK saw an increase when they changed the law initially but there was no tsunami of people running to court. Indeed, under UK law a person can be held responsible for up to 15 years if they are deemed culpable for their own insolvency. Also peoples credit record remains damaged for 6 years (?).

So why do you want to make people wait 4-5 years? What do you think it achieves?


----------



## DB74

Sunny said:


> There is very little if any evidence to show that having a longer bankruptcy period increases recovery value for creditors. There is also little evidence that having shorter bankruptcy periods encourages people to run up huge debts and then just declare themselves bankrupt. Indeed, under UK law a person can be held responsible for up to 15 years if they are deemed culpable for their own insolvency. Also peoples credit record remains damaged for 6 years (?).
> 
> So why do you want to make people wait 4-5 years? What do you think it achieves?



Why bother with a bankruptcy period at all then? Why not 6 months, or 3 months, or 1 month. Why not just declare yourself bankrupt on a Friday and start applying for credit again on the Monday.



Sunny said:


> People who commit serious crimes are forgiven quicker.



I am well on record as despairing over this issue


----------



## Sunny

DB74 said:


> Why bother with a bankruptcy period at all then? Why not 6 months, or 3 months, or 1 month. Why not just declare yourself bankrupt on a Friday and start applying for credit again on the Monday.


 
Because it takes time to get peoples affairs in order and for the Court to ensure that people are paying the maximum that they can afford.


----------



## ajapale

Ill ask the question again. Who looses out if many people take the UK bankrupcy route as against going through the Irish route?

Irish based solicitors and accountants?
Irish base insolvency practioners?


----------



## DB74

Sunny said:


> Because it takes time to get peoples affairs in order and for the Court to ensure that people are paying the maximum that they can afford.



Debts are written off in a bankruptcy - there is no anything to pay, let alone establishing a maximum

[broken link removed]


----------



## Sunny

DB74 said:


> Debts are written off in a bankruptcy - there is no anything to pay, let alone establishing a maximum
> 
> [broken link removed]


 
Debts are only written off AFTER the bankruptcy process.


----------



## Sunny

ajapale said:


> Ill ask the question again. Who looses out if many people take the UK bankrupcy route as against going through the Irish route?
> 
> Irish based solicitors and accountants?
> Irish base insolvency practioners?


 
Well I am sure they would love the business but because personal bankruptcy is so rare in Ireland, these guys probably don't care as it wouldn't be a major business for them.


----------



## DB74

ajapale said:


> Ill ask the question again. Who looses out if many people take the UK bankrupcy route as against going through the Irish route?
> 
> Irish based solicitors and accountants?
> Irish base insolvency practioners?



The Irish taxpayer is losing out


----------



## Time

They would lose either way.

Also you won't get credit for a long time after a bankruptcy ends.


----------



## orka

ajapale said:


> Ill ask the question again. Who looses out if many people take the UK bankrupcy route as against going through the Irish route?
> 
> Irish based solicitors and accountants?
> Irish base insolvency practioners?


I think this is the main issue for this thread and I think the answer is that on an individual basis, one person going bankrupt here vs going bankrupt in the UK has no impact on anyone (except as pointed out, bankruptcy service providers etc.) - creditors lose out to the same extent either way.
However, I think the big issue is will there be more bankruptcies if it is made relatively easier. There was another thread where the guy said he could afford to pay his bills but had no quality of life - does that deserve bankruptcy? Who defines quality of life? Does it include holidays, sky tv, newish cars etc? 
I can understand the real attraction of going to the UK, ditching the negative equity and the loans and starting fresh on a cash basis (better to live day to day with all your income even if you can't get credit for a long time - than eking out an existence on what is left from your income after paying bills) - but is it becoming too attractive an option? I know the loudest view on here seems to be that bankruptcy is a last resort and will save people from utter despair - and that's probably true - but if it becomes too easy and loses its stigma (I can see it almost being a badge of honour - I did what those nasty banks did - shafted the lot of them haha) then I think there will be undeserved bankruptcies where the person could probably manage to honour the debts they signed up to but would rather not.


----------



## Sunny

orka said:


> However, I think the big issue is will there be more bankruptcies if it is made relatively easier. There was another thread where the guy said he could afford to pay his bills but had no quality of life - does that deserve bankruptcy? Who defines quality of life? Does it include holidays, sky tv, newish cars etc?
> .


 
That's not an argument because he would not be allowed become bankrupt here or in the UK if he was able to pay his bills.


----------



## DB74

Sunny said:


> Debts are only written off AFTER the bankruptcy process.





Time said:


> They would lose either way.
> 
> Also you won't get credit for a long time after a bankruptcy ends.



OK I'm confused here then

Either a bankrupt pays a portion of debt after the court hearing or they don't. Either the creditors receive an extra 11 years payment under the Irish syatem or they don't

Which is it?


----------



## DB74

Sunny said:


> That's not an argument because he would not be allowed become bankrupt here or in the UK if he was able to pay his bills.



The bottom line is that if you make something easier then more people will avail of it. I don't think you can argue with that (or maybe you can!).

If you have 10 people and 1 goes bankrupt then 9 people have to take up that slack. Make the process easier and 3 people avail of the process. Now you have 7 people taking up the slack.


----------



## Sunny

DB74 said:


> The bottom line is that if you make something easier then more people will avail of it. I don't think you can argue with that (or maybe you can!).
> 
> If you have 10 people and 1 goes bankrupt then 9 people have to take up that slack. Make the process easier and 3 people avail of the process. Now you have 7 people taking up the slack.


 
What slack?

Read up on bankruptcy here and in the UK and come back to show me where I can become bankrupt if I simply decide I can't be bothered paying my bills anymore.


----------



## DB74

Sunny said:


> What slack?
> 
> Read up on bankruptcy here and in the UK and come back to show me where I can become bankrupt if I simply decide I can't be bothered paying my bills anymore.



Read my posts and come back and show me where I said any such thing, or even implied it


----------



## Sunny

DB74 said:


> Read my posts and come back and show me where I said any such thing, or even implied it


 
You are talking about if you make bankruptcy easier, more people will avail of it like it is a lifestyle choice. It's not. You are either bankrupt or you are not. The question is how long to we punish people for it and how hard do we make it for them to start over again.


----------



## Time

DB74 said:


> OK I'm confused here then
> 
> Either a bankrupt pays a portion of debt after the court hearing or they don't. Either the creditors receive an extra 11 years payment under the Irish syatem or they don't
> 
> Which is it?



Under the Irish system the creditors get almost nothing. The banks only bankrupt the rich. Remember they the creditor must pay all the expenses of bankruptcy.
The average Joe won't be able to bankrupt himself due to the vast expense involved. It is only a rich man's game in Ireland.


----------



## ajapale

Time said:


> Under the Irish system the creditors get almost nothing.


 Do creditors get any more in the UK system?


----------



## Bronte

seantheman said:


> It must be a great source of relief for these people that are suffering and seeking UK bankrupcy that caring guys like you Steve give up your free time and do this pro bono work.


 
My understanding is that Steve is in the bankruptcy business so presumable he makes a living from it.  And nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Bronte

DB74 said:


> My main issue is the 12 months as opposed to the actual bankruptcy.
> 
> I just feel that 12 months is too short and therefore too much of an easy option for people, in some circumstances.
> 
> I would prefer to see a 4-5 year discharge period.


 
Where is the evidence of this being an easy option? If you and your wife lost your jobs would you think differently about UK bankruptcy, maybe you'd be very grateful to England for having a more humane way of dealing with people who cannot pay their creditors while our government can overnnight guarantee bankers but cannot in 3 years change the Irish bankruptcy laws. 

It is not an easy thing to leave lock stock and barrel and set up a new life in the UK, might be easy for a young single person but I can't imagine it's easy for married people, especially those with kids. I imagine most people for the past couple of years have been living quietly in despair, living with shame and embarrasment, not able to pay their mortgages, getting hounded by credit card companies (and we heard some of those nightmare scenarios on here), sinking into more and more debt as nastier and nastier letters arrive, wives with kids having ex criminals knocking on their doors demanding repayment etc. And no leadership from the governement on changing the laws. 

There will also of course be people who have money/assets squirrelled away from their creditors (holiday home in Spain/Bulgaria/Dubai and cash in a credit union not linked to any system etc), and will avail of the UK bankruptcy regime. Not sure what can be done about that.


----------



## Time

ajapale said:


> Do creditors get any more in the UK system?


Nope.


----------



## corkgirl1

I think the point OP is trying to make is that a lot of us are probably technically bankrupt having lost jobs or had pay reduced and trying to service huge mortgages. We could move to the UK, declare bankruptcy and never repay what we borrowed.

In my case, for example, I am treading water after several years of grossly reduced income and paying interest only and trying to make ends meet. (Not looking for sympathy, there are many worse off than me).

I would meet the bankruptcy criteria in UK if I was to move there but I haven't (yet) because I keep hoping things will pick up. In my case the creditors are getting the interest on the mortgage at present and eventually they will get back all the money they loaned.

If I was to go bankrupt in UK they would get a house worth less than the mortgage and I would be debt-free. In my case the creditors will get more than they would if I were to go bankrupt in UK.

I don't think I am in a particularly unusual financial situation.


----------



## Chris

Sunny said:


> You are talking about if you make bankruptcy easier, more people will avail of it like it is a lifestyle choice. It's not. You are either bankrupt or you are not. The question is how long to we punish people for it and how hard do we make it for them to start over again.


I think is the best argument so far, bankruptcy is not a life stele choice. Either you are or you aren't able to pay your bills. Whether the period is 1 year or 12 years has no baring on that fact.



DB74 said:


> The bottom line is that if you make something easier then more people will avail of it. I don't think you can argue with that (or maybe you can!).
> 
> If you have 10 people and 1 goes bankrupt then 9 people have to take up that slack. Make the process easier and 3 people avail of the process. Now you have 7 people taking up the slack.



I think it is completely wrong to say that people simply decide to go bankrupt. Either you can pay your bills or you can't. During bankruptcy it is mainly the creditor that loses out, which is mainly the banks. In Ireland's case it means that the tax payer is liable for quite a bit of written off debt. But it is not the fault of the bankrupt that the government decided to guarantee bank liabilities, they should not be punched additionally for the mistakes of others.
The way the system should work is that if 1 out of 10 people declares bankruptcy then only those of the other 9 that made loans to that person should lose out. It certainly does not mean theta there is suddenly a flood of bankruptcies. But maybe you can back up that claim with data from the UK after they changed their laws.


----------



## DB74

Chris said:


> But maybe you can back up that claim with data from the UK after they changed their laws.



Well in 2001 there were 6,295 Individual Voluntary Redundancies in the UK (as opposed to creditors petitions etc). In 2002 the figure was 6,295. In 2003 the figure was 7,583.

The law then changed in 2004 and the figures since then are

2004 - 10,752
2005 - 20,293
2006 - 44,332
2007 - 42,165
2008 - 39,116
2009 - 47,641
2010 - 50,716
2011 - 36,009 (1st 3 qtrs only but on course for ~ 50,000)

Obviously the worldwide recession will have increased the numbers anyway so it's hard to know what impact the law change would have made in a less trying economy.

However a four-fold increase in the 2 years after the law change (2004-2006) is a startling statistic

[broken link removed]


----------



## Sunny

It's not startling at all considering people had probably lived in misery for years before the law change so you were always going to see a jump at the start. What you are not seeing is evidence of people choosing bankruptcy to escape debts after irresponsible living.


----------



## DB74

Sunny said:


> It's not startling at all considering people had probably lived in misery for years before the law change so you were always going to see a jump at the start.



Which is just another way of saying that if the process is made easier, then more people will take that option!


----------



## ajapale

Is it true that in the UK bankruptcy process pensions are safe but in Ireland they are not?

If so creditiors would lose out where there was a substantial private pension.


----------



## seantheman

Bronte said:


> My understanding is that Steve is in the bankruptcy business so presumable he makes a living from it. And nothing wrong with that.


 Jeez,I got the wrong end of the stick here completely,I thought he was a kina English version of New beginnings,a type of a Robin Hood
    I was under the impression that there was no advertising allowed on AAM,so when i saw all the threads that Steve had either started or contributed to, I figured he must be offering a free service.Sorry about the misunderstanding


----------



## Bronte

Sunny said:


> It's not startling at all considering people had probably lived in misery for years before the law change so you were always going to see a jump at the start. What you are not seeing is evidence of people choosing bankruptcy to escape debts after irresponsible living.


 
That's interesting, there are a lot of people who were irresponsible during the boom, so naturally some of them/a lot of them are really bankrupt, that is to say cannot afford their debts.  The question is what do we do about it.  

The only real difference with the UK system is that it is shorter, ordinary people can afford it (only rich Irish people can go bankrupt here) they can get on with their lives more quickly, it stops social problems, depression, suicide, family breakups, unbearable stress and sleepless nights.  Certainly I've noticed on AAM that some of the people posting seem to be in desparate circumstances, have others not noticed this? 

What I do not know is if a lot of people who lived the high life, hid some cash/assets and go UK bankrupt and get back on their feel, will they have learned anything.  And then go mad financially and bankrupt again.

As for the moral agruements on debt, I have always been of the view that one should pay one's debt, but that moral compass has been sorely tested by the actions of the Irish government, the creation of Nama, the treatment of banks and the fact that no one has been charged with any crime while retiring on massive pensions, the fact that the figures on austerity do not add up, the government lies, and the invisible bondhholders and no meaninful reform of anything in the system.


----------



## Bronte

ajapale said:


> Is it true that in the UK bankruptcy process pensions are safe but in Ireland they are not?
> 
> If so creditiors would lose out where there was a substantial private pension.


 
But how many people would have a substantial private pension?  And how many of those are going down the bankruptcy route?


----------



## Chris

Thanks for digging out those numbers DB74.
Despite the numbers I still fail to see how this is a bad thing, i.e. having more people recover from insolvency in a quicker period of time. If the Irish taxpayer was not on the hook for the debt write offs, but rather the bank's bond holders and other investors, then I don't think there would be much discussion about it. The problem is not the amount of bankruptcies or an increase in them, but rather the fact that successive governments have guaranteed bank debts.


----------



## Wipetheslate

Chris said:


> Thanks for digging out those numbers DB74.
> Despite the numbers I still fail to see how this is a bad thing, i.e. having more people recover from insolvency in a quicker period of time. If the Irish taxpayer was not on the hook for the debt write offs, but rather the bank's bond holders and other investors, then I don't think there would be much discussion about it. The problem is not the amount of bankruptcies or an increase in them, but rather the fact that successive governments have guaranteed bank debts.



+1

Also the UK is the destination of choice for a lot of Europeans facing bankruptcy ,Germans,French, etc. So those figures include those people too.Not sure if there are stats for nationality of bankrupts ?


----------



## FioBi

I think we have no choice but to have the same time period as the UK because otherwise people will continue to go to the UK to be made bankrupt.

I think it will mainly be people that have no hope of recovering that will take the bankruptcy option and they are not currently paying their debts in Ireland anyway so what is the difference whether they are bankrupt or not.

That is unless you just want people to be miserable. If banks wont negotiate on reasonable settlements what choice do these people have?  I think if banks were more reasonable and accepted that they are partly to blame (not fully but partly) for people taking out excess credit and writing off some of the debt people may be able to cope but all they are doing is saying "give me the money back" and "I dont care how you get it just get it".  There is no acceptance of wrong doing on their part at all. Despite the fact that the money that the country saved ie the pension fund was given to the banks to allow them to write down debt and start lending, they are doing neither.


----------



## Bronte

FioBi said:


> There is no acceptance of wrong doing on their part at all.


 
The banks will never do this.  They are cold mean organisations.  So people need to understand that and seek their own solutions.


----------

