1,471 court repossessions in context


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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 


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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
Click to expand...

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. .
 
demoivre said:
You know better than the Trim County Registrar who has stated that most cases are resolved?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
 
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
demoivre said:
So what do you think she meant by saying that most cases are resolved?
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register