# 1,471 court repossessions in context



## Brendan Burgess (11 Nov 2015)

Here are the up to date figures for actual repossessions and arrears.



Since the crisis began, Irish lenders have actually repossessed only 1,471 family homes. 

If you went into arrears, you have had only a 1% chance of having your home repossessed.

In practice, it has been a lot less. Many of the homes which have been repossessed by court order have been abandoned. Many more which were once family homes, have since been let out.

In over 2,000 cases attended by Karl Deeter, Séamus Coffey and me, we have seen no orders for possession granted by the court where the borrower has been paying something meaningful regularly.

There have been around 17,000 repossession proceedings started by the banks, but most of these have been started to satisfy the Central Bank's requirements. The lenders know that they have not a hope in hell of being granted an order for possession.

The 1,471 figure relates to homes actually repossessed by court order. There have been more court orders granted, but many of them do not end up in a repossession. The borrower sometimes begins to engage and start payments only after the order has been granted.

As well as the 1,471 homes repossessed by court order, maybe 3,000 more have been voluntarily surrendered.   And of course, in more cases, borrowers have been pressurised by their lenders to sell  their homes when their mortgages became unsustainable.

*The key message is:  If you are in mortgage difficulty and you make any effort to keep your home, the lender will not succeed in repossessing it, if you don't want it repossessed. *


----------



## Matthew Moore (11 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> In over 2,000 cases attended by Karl Deeter, Séamus Coffey and me, we have seen no orders for possession granted by the court where the borrower has been paying something meaningful regularly.



Hi Brendan,

The group within the 2000 that are making meaningful payments but nevertheless, still in the courts process; what do you envisage will ultimately happen to them?
I'm asking this because although they are making meaningful payments, I presume it is not full capital, interest and arrears. Therefore, at some stage their situation will have to be dealt with by either strike out, continuous adjournments or repossession.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Nov 2015)

pat2 said:


> The group within the 2000 that are making meaningful payments but nevertheless, still in the courts process; what do you envisage will ultimately happen to them?



It's a very good question and I don't know the answer. 

In any normal environment,  continuous adjournment would not be seen as a solution. But in Ireland, it seems to be acceptable. 

This is what should happen and might actually happen. 

1) The Central Bank gets rid of the Targets Regime which forces banks to take legal actions which they know have no chance of succeeding and which cause huge stress. 
2) The Central Bank publishes a definition of what a sustainable mortgage is. 
3) The lenders strike out those cases where the borrowers are making sustainable payments - roughly speaking, meeting the full interest on their mortgage. 
4) The law is changed to allow the speedier repossession of those who are paying nothing meaningful - either because their mortgage is too big or because they are deliberate defaulters. 

At the moment when I see a case in the Circuit Court being adjourned I have no idea if it's a deliberate defaulter who should be repossessed immediately or if they are making meaningful payments and are only there to meet the Central Bank targets.


----------



## Bronte (12 Nov 2015)

An article by Kitty Holland in the Irish Times today on this:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/soci...nearly-4-500-homes-new-figures-show-1.2426190

- 7,100 cases  lodged up to this year, this year another 4,400 lodged = 11,500
- Of the 4,400 lodged this year, 82% are homes, 2% buy to let, and 16% (that buy to let rate is very low?)
-  Of orders granted -70% for homes, 12% for  buy to let, and 20% for other
- This year 758 family homes had repossession orders granted and 131 buy to lets. = circa 1000
- 889 cases were refused (she doesn't say how many of those were family homes)
- no idea how many cases were withdrawn or settled
-  Seems about 1000 cases are actually dealt with in court but that's not the end of the matter
-  A respossession order does not mean *actual* repossession, the bank has to '*execute*' the order - not sure what this mean?
- However the majority of repossesions do not need a court order if there is a certain clause in the mortgage contract


----------



## Sarenco (12 Nov 2015)

It's interesting that the number of repossession proceedings initiated during the first 9 months of this year is down materially on the number of proceedings initiated during the same period of 2014.

At some point you would expect the backlog of cases to clear through the system but it's certainly going to take a very, very long time at this rate.


----------



## Matthew Moore (12 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> 3) The lenders strike out those cases where the borrowers are making sustainable payments - roughly speaking, meeting the full interest on their mortgage.



In my own case, full payment plus arrears was the only option on the table if I wanted to avoid court. No.3 seems reasonable and something we could manage but they had no interest.

It will change the landscape completely if 1 year bankruptcy comes in and is taken up in any great numbers. I feel that the bank/courts can kicking will come to an end one way or another in the next couple of years.


----------



## Matthew Moore (12 Nov 2015)

Bronte said:


> -  A respossession order does not mean *actual* repossession, the bank has to '*execute*' the order - not sure what this mean?



If you fail to leave voluntarily they can then seek an execution order. I believe in Dublin and Cork this involves getting the Sheriff and Bailiffs, not sure outside of these areas how it works.


----------



## Delboy (12 Nov 2015)

It would have been helpful and reassuring for those in arrears if Kitty had thrown in actual repossession stats at the end of the article. I wasn't expecting her to and she didn't dissapoint


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Nov 2015)

I found the information confusing. We need something like the following: 



I will ask the Courts Service for it.


----------



## Bronte (12 Nov 2015)

Sarenco said:


> It's interesting that the number of repossession proceedings initiated during the first 9 months of this year is down materially on the number of proceedings initiated during the same period of 2014.
> 
> At some point you would expect the backlog of cases to clear through the system but it's certainly going to take a very, very long time at this rate.



Holland has a second article on this and does point out that indeed the number of cases being brought is decreasing and she has suggested that there was probably a flurry of activity in Dublin initially and now this is easing off.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/soci...-fewer-repossession-cases-initiated-1.2426228

_"Banks are continuing to obtain home repossession orders in increasing numbers. 

However, the rate at which they are initiating the arduous legal process to obtain such orders appears to be levelling off, the latest figures from the Courts Service indicate"_


----------



## Bronte (12 Nov 2015)

Delboy said:


> It would have been helpful and reassuring for those in arrears if Kitty had thrown in actual repossession stats at the end of the article. I wasn't expecting her to and she didn't dissapoint



But would she know?  Is there a list of *'excecution orders'* and after that is there a list of *'execution orders carried out'*.  Only the sherriff's would know that.  Holland points out in one of her articles that only the Banks know the amount of 'foreclosure's.'

I was listening to a Joe Duffy podcase with landlords and one them 'claimed' there were thousands of repossesions of family homes but it's not true and Joe never challenged the assertion.

Of the family homes repossessed, we don't know how many were single dwellers or emigrants.  I don't know anybody who actually lost their home, except for the Killiney two with multiple properties and O'Donnell solicitor.

Nor do we know who was paying zero.


----------



## Bronte (12 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I found the information confusing. We need something like the following:
> 
> View attachment 979
> 
> I will ask the Courts Service for it.



Yes I too found it confusing, tabulor format and add in the different categories, family homes, BTL etc.  Kitty Holland got the date from the Court service.  Maybe the Sherriff's keep data, even if you just did say Dublin and Cork (which seems to be gung ho) that would bring a clearer picture of what is going on)


----------



## Sarenco (12 Nov 2015)

Bronte said:


> Holland has a second article on this and does point out that indeed the number of cases being brought is decreasing and she has suggested that there was probably a flurry of activity in Dublin initially and now this is easing off.
> 
> http://www.irishtimes.com/news/soci...-fewer-repossession-cases-initiated-1.2426228
> 
> ...



Thanks for that.  

It seems bizarre to me that the number of repossession orders being made in Dublin is actually falling.  I personally don't find the possible explanations in the article for this trend very plausible.


----------



## demoivre (17 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> This is what should happen and might actually happen.
> 
> 1) The Central Bank gets rid of the Targets Regime which forces banks to take legal actions which they know have no chance of succeeding and which cause huge stress.
> 2) The Central Bank publishes a definition of what a sustainable mortgage is.
> ...



We should be making more use of the ISI which could make many a mortgage in arrears sustainable.


----------



## Sarenco (30 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> *The key message is:  If you are in mortgage difficulty and you make any effort to keep your home, the lender will not succeed in repossessing it, if you don't want it repossessed. *



Hi Brendan

While this is admittedly a rather extreme case, it does indicate that there are at least some limits to the patience of the Courts.  Making last minute payments to a lender or pleas to a Court will not necessarily save a defaulting borrower from repossession in all circumstances.

Mind you, it took a very long time to get to this point...

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crim...-for-second-time-over-mortgage-debt-1.2448867


----------



## Andy836 (30 Nov 2015)

Sarenco said:


> Hi Brendan
> 
> While this is admittedly a rather extreme case, it does indicate that there are at least some limits to the patience of the Courts.  Making last minute payments to a lender or pleas to a Court will not necessarily save a defaulting borrower from repossession in all circumstances.
> 
> ...



I think the article is misleading. 

The article title is "Woman put out of home for second time over mortgage debt" - this is incorrect.

She wasn't ordered out of the house the 2nd time for "mortgage debt". 

She was put out for essentially trespassing. She had been removed previously on foot of the mortgage but had reoccupied the property without permission.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (30 Nov 2015)

Hi Sarenco

"The first default occurred in May 2007 and the last payment towards the mortgage, apart from one this month of €900, had been made in April 2013."

She had not engaged with the lender. 

They got an order for possession.

She appealed it and lost.



Brendan


----------



## Sarenco (30 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Sarenco
> 
> We don't know anything about the original order, but she was probably paying nothing at all and probably not engaging.
> 
> Brendan



Hi Brendan

I think it's pretty clear from the media reports (link to the Indo's report on the same story below) that the borrower did not engage until after the possession order was granted, at which point it was really too late to save her situation.  

If she had turned up and made the same plea to the Court, or made any meaningful repayment to her lender, before the possession order was granted, well who knows...

But I strongly suspect she could have at least delayed the possession order for a further period.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...-home-in-weeks-before-christmas-34246124.html


----------



## Sarenco (30 Nov 2015)

Andy836 said:


> I think the article is misleading.
> 
> The article title is "Woman put out of home for second time over mortgage debt" - this is incorrect.
> 
> ...



You're right of course Andy but I guess my point in posting a link to this story was to make the point that a borrower can't expect to receive leniency from the Courts indefinitely if they choose to simply ignore their debts.  

It seems pretty clear at this stage that the Courts will go out of their way to give borrowers every possible opportunity to resolve their issues with their lenders.

But there are limits.


----------



## Purple (1 Dec 2015)

Bronte said:


> Of the family homes repossessed, we don't know how many were single dwellers or emigrants. I don't know anybody who actually lost their home, except for the Killiney two with multiple properties and O'Donnell solicitor.


It should be remembered that many people do not own their family home, they rent it. The fact that they rent it doesn't make it any less of a home for them. When rental properties are re-possessed the tenant has lost their family home. 
I do not understand why the courts give any weight to whether the property is owned by the family who lives in it or rented by the family who lives in it.


----------



## demoivre (1 Dec 2015)

Sarenco said:


> It seems pretty clear at this stage that the Courts will go out of their way to give borrowers every possible opportunity to resolve their issues with their lenders.



And rightly so as evidenced by the fact that very few repossessions actually take place. Most  cases are ultimately resolved between borrower and lender.


----------



## Sarenco (1 Dec 2015)

demoivre said:


> Most  cases are ultimately resolved between borrower and lender.



Well, there are certainly an awful lot of cases that remain unresolved.

At end-June 2015, 13% of all PDH loan accounts were in arrears and 9.3% were in arrears of more than 90 days.  23% of BTL loan accounts were in arrears and 19% were in arrears of more than 90 days.

Progress to date on restructuring has been painfully slow and ultimately we will have to face the fact that a very significant proportion of these accounts can never be restructured on any kind of sustainable basis.

At this stage, delaying the repossession process is, in most cases, simply delaying the inevitable.

Defaulting borrowers have ample opportunity to reach an accommodation with their lenders throughout the MARP process - by the time it gets to Court, arrears are invariably too large to restructure the loan on a sustainable basis.


----------



## Andy836 (1 Dec 2015)

Sarenco said:


> You're right of course Andy but I guess my point in posting a link to this story was to make the point that a borrower can't expect to receive leniency from the Courts indefinitely if they choose to simply ignore their debts.
> 
> It seems pretty clear at this stage that the Courts will go out of their way to give borrowers every possible opportunity to resolve their issues with their lenders.
> 
> But there are limits.



You are correct. This judge saw through this lady's payment. 

I wonder if that would hold through for all judges nationwide?


----------



## HelpingHand (1 Dec 2015)

Andy836 said:


> You are correct. This judge saw through this lady's payment.
> 
> I wonder if that would hold through for all judges nationwide?



The banks in this Country chose to ignore their debt obligations also, and eventually went cap in hand to the Government for a bail out, when their creditors came a knocking on the door. They are certainly somewhat culpable in this whole sorry affair, as indeed are the Irish State. Where was the CBI to enforce the said regulations below on the banks.

European Communities (Licensing and Supervision of Credit Institutions) Regulations 1992 (S.I. No. 395 of 1992) (as amended) which placed an obligation on a bank to manage its businesses_ “in accordance with sound administrative and accounting principles."

Out on the golf courses with them of course._


----------



## demoivre (2 Dec 2015)

Sarenco said:


> Well, there are certainly an awful lot of cases that remain unresolved.
> 
> At end-June 2015, 13% of all PDH loan accounts were in arrears and 9.3% were in arrears of more than 90 days. 23% of BTL loan accounts were in arrears and 19% were in arrears of more than 90 days.



The evidence supports the view that, in time, most of theses cases will be resolved. The number of repossessions in the last six years supports that view, the Trim County Registrar's experience supports that view, the research of Brendan, Seamus  and Karl supports that view and my experience in Wexford supports that view..



Sarenco said:


> Progress to date on restructuring has been painfully slow and ultimately we will have to face the fact that a very significant proportion of these accounts can never be restructured on any kind of sustainable basis.
> 
> At this stage, delaying the repossession process is, in most cases, simply delaying the inevitable.
> 
> Defaulting borrowers have ample opportunity to reach an accommodation with their lenders throughout the MARP process - by the time it gets to Court, arrears are invariably too large to restructure the loan on a sustainable basis.



..........and not a PIA in sight. What we eventually faced up to was that creating an Insolvency service where banks had a veto under the 60% rule was not fit for purpose. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas. Since last week the courts will now ultimately decide if a PIA goes through. Debt write down under a PIA would make many mortgages sustainable.


----------



## Sarenco (2 Dec 2015)

Hi demoivre

I'm not sure I understand your argument.  How does the extraordinarily low level of repossessions support the view that, in time, most of these cases will be resolved?  Perhaps you might elaborate.

I certainly agree that the original Personal Insolvency Act 2012 was not fit for purpose.  However, I don't see any evidence that the majority the remaining cases that have yet to be restructured can in fact be restructured on a sustainable basis.  Of course any debt can be made sustainable from a borrower's perspective if it is substantially written off but I don't see that happening, at least without a voluntary surrender of the mortgaged property.


----------



## HelpingHand (2 Dec 2015)

The courts and not the banks will decide whether the debt write down will happen with or without the voluntary surrender of the mortgaged property.


----------



## 44brendan (2 Dec 2015)

HelpingHand said:


> The courts and not the banks will decide whether the debt write down will happen with or without the voluntary surrender of the mortgaged property.


I'm not sure that I understand this comment. What role have the Court in writing down debt? Their role is to rule on specific proceedings for repossession or judgment but have no part in ruling that loans should be written down or written off.


----------



## HelpingHand (2 Dec 2015)

44brendan said:


> I'm not sure that I understand this comment. What role have the Court in writing down debt? Their role is to rule on specific proceedings for repossession or judgment but have no part in ruling that loans should be written down or written off.


If the PIA is not acceptable to the bank and the PIP thinks the offer is genuinely reasonable, they can apply to the court for the Court to order that the PIA be accepted by the banks. ( usual checks and balances apply after independent court review of the full circumstances of each case ). In other words no more de facto veto of the PIA by the banks.


----------



## Sarenco (2 Dec 2015)

44brendan said:


> I'm not sure that I understand this comment. What role have the Court in writing down debt? Their role is to rule on specific proceedings for repossession or judgment but have no part in ruling that loans should be written down or written off.



Hi b44

The amendments to the personal insolvency legislation introduced earlier this year, and recently commenced, allow a debtor to appeal a rejected PIA to the courts.  The courts are empowered to determine the reasonableness of the rejected PIA having regard for various maters but this has no impact on a lender's security interests.


----------



## HelpingHand (3 Dec 2015)

Brendan44,

If the court rules that the PIA is reasonable, ( having reviewed the individual circumstances of the case ), then it stands.


----------



## demoivre (3 Dec 2015)

Sarenco said:


> Hi demoivre
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your argument. How does the extraordinarily low level of repossessions support the view that, in time, most of these cases will be resolved? Perhaps you might elaborate.



A protracted legal process does not change the fact that there are ultimately only two outcomes after the borrower first appears before the county registrar - case struck out or possession order granted. Since the evidence shows that we have very few repossessions clearly most cases are resolved.


----------



## Delboy (3 Dec 2015)

demoivre said:


> Since the evidence shows that we have very few repossessions clearly most cases are resolved.


Thats a very simplistic and dare I say childish view of things. 

Long term arrears #'s continue to increase. So most cases are not resolved, they are just adjourned by the looks of it.
It's called 'Can kicking' and we are the Olympic Champions at it


----------



## 44brendan (3 Dec 2015)

+1 on that.


demoivre said:


> case struck out or possession order granted.


What about the continued stay's on granting possession and the kicking on of cases rather than making a decision. While these are not "outcomes" they are prolonging the legal process unnecessarily. If a similar process was applied to other legal actions we would end up with all cases clogging up the system for years.
This also begs the question as to why there are similar outcomes in differing Courts for all PDH possession proceedings. I.e. Are judges bowing to political pressure in kicking on these cases?


----------



## HelpingHand (3 Dec 2015)

Delboy said:


> Thats a very simplistic and dare I say childish view of things.
> 
> Long term arrears #'s continue to increase. So most cases are not resolved, they are just adjourned by the looks of it.
> It's called 'Can kicking' and we are the Olympic Champions at it




Delboy, you are right of course in relation to the can kicking, the Irish State should have let the bank's go to the wall, the totally insolvent ones anyway. In relation to repossession orders down the Courts, if the Government legislated to allowed for an easier process, the Irish State would have a constitutional duty to house these individuals, so would be in the same position as the Banks were, insolvent!


----------



## HelpingHand (3 Dec 2015)

44brendan said:


> +1 on that.
> 
> What about the continued stay's on granting possession and the kicking on of cases rather than making a decision. While these are not "outcomes" they are prolonging the legal process unnecessarily. If a similar process was applied to other legal actions we would end up with all cases clogging up the system for years.
> This also begs the question as to why there are similar outcomes in differing Courts for all PDH possession proceedings. I.e. Are judges bowing to political pressure in kicking on these cases?[/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## Delboy (3 Dec 2015)

HelpingHand said:


> Delboy, you are right of course in relation to the can kicking, the Irish State should have let the bank's go to the wall, the totally insolvent ones anyway. In relation to repossession orders down the Courts, if the Government legislated to allowed for an easier process, the Irish State would have a constitutional duty to house these individuals, so would be in the same position as the Banks were, insolvent!


As is so often the case, some folk continue to deliberately tie in the Bank bailout to the current Mortgage arrears disaster in an attempt to justify major debt write-down for mortgage holders (whilst holding on to the House(s) of course). It suits their personal agenda...the Freemen and some other Fringe groups of that ilk are always banging that drum.
The Bank bailout is done, over, finito. I didn't like it, didn't get a chance to vote on it etc. But it's done.

Mortgage arrears is a live issue. A separate issue and should be debated as such.

Also, are you sure there is a Constitutional duty on the Govt to house people? I don't think there is.
And to explode another myth for you- not everyone in Mortgage arrears would require a free house if a repossession took place. Most are in work and could afford to rent off of their own bat. Maybe not in as nice an area or not in as nice a house, but so be it. Thats life


----------



## HelpingHand (3 Dec 2015)

You are right there is no de facto right to housing under the Irish constitution and I apologise for this error, there is however a guarantee to right of housing with state support, either way, both would bankrupt the State.


----------



## Sarenco (3 Dec 2015)

There is no constitutional or legally enshrined right to housing in Ireland, implicit or otherwise. 

However, I would suggest that the current delays in executing repossessions are adding significantly to the current housing crisis as a considerable number of the properties involved are actually vacant.  Once repossessed, these properties could be released back on to the market to provide additional housing.

Provided lenders don't dynamite houses once repossessed, there is no reason to believe that increased repossessions would result in increased homelessness or increased reliance on State supports.


----------



## Delboy (3 Dec 2015)

HelpingHand said:


> You are right there is no de facto right to housing under the Irish constitution and I apologise for this error, there is however a guarantee to right of housing with state support, either way, both would bankrupt the State.


How would it bankrupt the State??? Thats just hyperbole.
I repeat, in case you missed it the first time, most people in mortgage arrears are in paid employment. Most could afford to rent elsewhere. The vacant houses would then pass to someone else in 1 manner or another


----------



## HelpingHand (3 Dec 2015)

Delboy said:


> How would it bankrupt the State??? Thats just hyperbole.
> I repeat, in case you missed it the first time, most people in mortgage arrears are in paid employment. Most could afford to rent elsewhere. The vacant houses would then pass to someone else in 1 manner or another



Despite you contention, the reasons why the majority of people end up in mortgage arrears, is due to a change in circumstances, like illness or unemployment ( mostly unemployment ). It is not as though they have decided to keep their champagne lifestyle and to hell with the banks ( although there is a small cohort of these types ). The vast majority in mortgage arrears are actually unemployed or employed at a low wage, to such an extent, that the State would have to provide them with some form of housing supports.


----------



## 44brendan (3 Dec 2015)

HelpingHand said:


> The vast majority in mortgage arrears are actually unemployed or employed at a low wage, to such an extent, that the State would have to provide them with some form of housing supports.


May well be true, but why should this have any impact on re-possessions. Should the Court System be used as a quasi SW housing scheme? I.e. Those in mortgage arrears should not be subject to re-possession as the State would have to re-house them!
Why should the banks be expected to pick up the tab for a housing problem? The banking bail-out should have no relevance to this issue. Foreign owned banks such as Danske/Ulster/KBC etc are subject to the same procrastinations by the Courts and have received no State funds!!


----------



## HelpingHand (3 Dec 2015)

44brendan said:


> May well be true, but why should this have any impact on re-possessions. Should the Court System be used as a quasi SW housing scheme? I.e. Those in mortgage arrears should not be subject to re-possession as the State would have to re-house them!
> Why should the banks be expected to pick up the tab for a housing problem? The banking bail-out should have no relevance to this issue. Foreign owned banks such as Danske/Ulster/KBC etc are subject to the same procrastinations by the Courts and have received no State funds!!



I suppose because the shoe was on the other foot not so long ago and at that time, the State picked up the tab for the banks, by guaranteeing same. This is what I deemed to be the case. I am not saying that it is the right thing to do. In relation to the foreign banks, all were bailed out by their own member state, in fact Danske bank was bailed out by the Danish Government no more than three times. Presently, they all rely on cheap loans from the ESM, 3 year LTRO ECB loans and ECB quantative easing programme for a large part of their funding.


----------



## Delboy (3 Dec 2015)

HelpingHand said:


> Despite you contention, the reasons why the majority of people end up in mortgage arrears, is due to a change in circumstances, like illness or unemployment ( mostly unemployment ). It is not as though they have decided to keep their champagne lifestyle and to hell with the banks ( although there is a small cohort of these types ). The vast majority in mortgage arrears are actually unemployed or employed at a low wage, to such an extent, that the State would have to provide them with some form of housing supports.


The stats show that the majority of people in arrears are in employment. Fact. There was a thread on here about that in the past year.

You are just guessing about 'the vast majority...are actually unemployed or employed at a low wage'. However if you have a link to back it up, please feel fee to post it


----------



## HelpingHand (3 Dec 2015)

Delboy said:


> The stats show that the majority of people in arrears are in employment. Fact. There was a thread on here about that in the past year.
> 
> You are just guessing about 'the vast majority...are actually unemployed or employed at a low wage'. However if you have a link to back it up, please feel fee to post it



If all these debtors were employed and on good wages, why would they be in arrears in the first place ? Secondly, why, when receiving their respective completed SFS forms would the bank's deem their situations to be unsustainable. I think you got your answer, their wages are non existent or too low.


----------



## seamus m (3 Dec 2015)

Helping hand you are quiet right and also not to forget that a mortgage is also a home and we need to help people keep their homes even if it does come at a cost to ourselves


----------



## HelpingHand (3 Dec 2015)

44brendan said:


> I'm not sure that I understand this comment. What role have the Court in writing down debt? Their role is to rule on specific proceedings for repossession or judgment but have no part in ruling that loans should be written down or written off.



Look at the thread " summary of new process for appealing PIAs which have been vetoed " and you will see there has been major developments in this area.


----------



## Waver (3 Dec 2015)

HelpingHand said:


> If all these debtors were employed and on good wages, why would they be in arrears in the first place ? Secondly, why, when receiving their respective completed SFS forms would the bank's deem their situations to be unsustainable. I think you got your answer, their wages are non existent or too low.




Not everyone who is in court for a repossession has had their mortgage deemed unsustainable. Many are non cooperating and not communicating with the bank. For others the mortgage is too high for their income, that doesn't mean that they couldn't afford to rent. For other they are prioritising other debts/expenses.

Yes some will need state support for future housing but that is no reason to leave them in housing free of charge with no regard to suitability or means


----------



## HelpingHand (4 Dec 2015)

Waver said:


> Not everyone who is in court for a repossession has had their mortgage deemed unsustainable. Many are non cooperating and not communicating with the bank. For others the mortgage is too high for their income, that doesn't mean that they couldn't afford to rent. For other they are prioritising other debts/expenses.
> 
> Yes some will need state support for future housing but that is no reason to leave them in housing free of charge with no regard to suitability or means



Waver I agree with you in this regard, some debtors do stick their heads in the sand and do not enter into dialogue with their lenders and so the lenders have no recourse but to take legal proceeding to repossess so as to open dialogue. I wonder is there any statistics available to see what percentage of defendants are before the court for this reason ? I remember Joan Burton making a comment on same in the Dail.


----------



## Bronte (4 Dec 2015)

More delays on cases due to problems in court judgements

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...ings-delay-cases-to-repossess-homes-1.2453767


----------



## demoivre (7 Dec 2015)

Delboy said:


> Thats a very simplistic and dare I say childish view of things.
> 
> Long term arrears #'s continue to increase. *So most cases are not resolved,* they are just adjourned by the looks of it.
> It's called 'Can kicking' and we are the Olympic Champions at it



You know better than the Trim County Registrar who has stated that most cases are resolved? How many repossession cases which were started in 2008,2009,2010, 2011 and 2012 are still ongoing? As I said the legal process is protracted but cases do not continue ad infinitum - most are resolved in time and without the need for a possession order. .


----------



## Sarenco (7 Dec 2015)

demoivre said:


> You know better than the Trim County Registrar who has stated that most cases are resolved?



She did?

I didn't see that reported anywhere and I haven't seen any evidence that the majority (or even a significant minority) of cases that reach that stage are subsequently restructured on a sustainable basis.

Brendan and others have already reported on any number of cases that are on-going where the first default happened many years ago.


----------



## demoivre (8 Dec 2015)

Sarenco said:


> She did?
> 
> I didn't see that reported anywhere and I haven't seen any evidence that the majority (or even a significant minority) of cases that reach that stage are subsequently restructured on a sustainable basis.
> 
> Brendan and others have already reported on any number of cases that are on-going where the first default happened many years ago.



I quote from Brendan's thread about his visit to Trim County Registrar's court, some text highlighted by me :

"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”

You might do well to take a look at several different county registrar's lists which will contain the  year of the issuance of legal proceedings for each case. The majority of the cases will have started in the last two years, not five, six, seven, eight, nine or ten years ago. And the reason for that? Most cases are resolved with few repossessions necessary.


----------



## Sarenco (8 Dec 2015)

Fair enough but I don't think the Registrar was suggesting that most cases that reached her were subsequently restructured on a sustainable basis.  I certainly haven't seen any evidence that that is the case - have you?

Repossessions are certainly very rare - no argument there!

A very significant number of repossession proceedings could not be initiated between 2009 and 2013 because of the lacuna in the law that came to light as a result of the infamous Dunne judgment.  Then there's MARP...


----------



## demoivre (15 Dec 2015)

Sarenco said:


> Fair enough but I don't think the Registrar was suggesting that most cases that reached her were subsequently restructured on a sustainable basis. I certainly haven't seen any evidence that that is the case - have you?



So what do you think she meant by saying that most cases are resolved? An adjournment isn't a resolution. We have few repossessions so what do you think happens the rest of the cases?


----------



## Sarenco (15 Dec 2015)

demoivre said:


> So what do you think she meant by saying that most cases are resolved?



I've no idea.

Since mid-2013 (when the problem with the Land & Conveyancing Act 2009 was corrected) there have been approximately 22,000 court proceedings initiated. Since the start of 2014, approximately 5,000 cases have been concluded (as per the recent Central Bank figures).

So, the first point to make is that the large majority of cases have not been resolved one way or another - they are still in the system.

Of the 5,000 cases that have been concluded, 2,300 were resolved by way of a court order.  So, it is certainly clear that a large number of cases have been struck out without a possession order being granted.

However, it is a large jump to assume that a majority, or even a significant minority, of these cases have resulted in a sustainably restructured mortgage.  A significant number would have resulted in a voluntary sale by a borrower and a significant number would have been struck out for a variety of technical reasons.  For example, we have seen cases reported here where a judge struck out cases because he did not recognise a lender's name or took issue with the quality of photocopied documents.  Many of these cases will presumably be re-entered in due course.

Again, I have not seen any evidence that any significant numbers of cases that reach this stage are subsequently resolved by way of a sustainably restructured mortgage.  Have you?


----------

