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

Lets face it -- the statement made will be considered completely outrageous by any fair-minded individual. Nor is it good enough to say that there wasn't time to go into the details. There is no level of nuance or clarification that I can think of that would turn the statement into anything other than: "the average Joe won't be getting the same sort of deal as his betters". To be honest, it makes me feel quite ill to think we live in a society where a solicitor must be seen as the sort of person who can afford a big house .... even if he can't !
 
futures said:
obviously you are not as good an accountant as Jim. Otherwise you'd be loaded up with a mortgage on a red brick pile in Dublin 6 ;)
Click to expand...

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

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

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8x3sr4cCXE
 
as a PIP, I would be making a very strong case, for example, that a solicitor should have a bigger house that accords with his professional status in society so that his neighbours and clients can see that, yes, this person is a good solicitor who's is living in a good house etc. etc.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with Jim's interpretation of this at all.

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

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

I challenged George Mordaunt on this on the Saturday Show

He said that banks are insisting that people live in appropriate accommodation and said that they expected "a family of two adults and two(?) children to live in a 3 bed semi-d" . I was taken aback by this as I see nothing wrong with requiring people who are insolvent to live in a 3 bed semi-d. (Actually I see nothing wrong with solvent people living in 3 bed semi-ds) I said that while I was happy enough to pay more taxes to pay for MIS or Rental Supplement for people living in modest houses, I was not happy to be paying for his losses while he lived in a trophy home. He was furious, saying that he could not believe that I raised his personal circumstances on "national radio" and that he was not living in a trophy home.

I then asked if he was living in a modest 3 bed semi-d but he would not discuss his own circumstances. But he was happy enough to tell us that he was required to get rid of Sky Sports.

I asked if he agreed that people in living in homes worth more than €500k should be required to sell them and he said that he did not agree. People should not be required to take the posters off their childrens' walls and move them, apparently, irrespective of how much these borrowers have cost the taxpayer and irresespective of how much their homes are worth.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

In summary, I understand where Jim Stafford is coming from, although I disagree with him.
 
I would like to acknowledge and sincerely apologise for the hurt and distress that my comments to RTE have undoubtedly caused.

Simply it was not my intention to offend.

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

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

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

I fully and unreservedly apologise for my comments.

Jim Stafford
 
Jim,

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

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

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

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


The ISI insisted that the “professional standing of a borrower is not expected to be a factor in this assessment”.
Click to expand...
 
Jim

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

Bemused might be more accurate.

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

Can a professional not also be a PAYE employee?

I'm a PAYE employee.

Many consultants working with the HSE are PAYE.

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

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

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

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

I did find your comments sad misguided and sickening.
 
Jim Stafford said:
I would like to acknowledge and sincerely apologise for the hurt and distress that my comments to RTE have undoubtedly caused.

Simply it was not my intention to offend.

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

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

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

I fully and unreservedly apologise for my comments.

Jim Stafford
Click to expand...

I'd prefer if you explained to all of us what you meant, rather than make apologies that sidestep the issue. We'd like to understand what we're up against when debt forgiveness is being doled out to the "professional classes". After all, we're paying for it.
 
Jim Stafford said:
As it is impossible to talk about all of the complexities of personal bankruptcy in a 10 minute radio interview it is inevitable that misunderstandings can arise, and that statements can be taken out of context.
Click to expand...

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

Your own [broken link removed] tells us that you "drafted the complete syllabus for the Diploma in Insolvency course run by Chartered Accountants Ireland". I'd like to know if the outrageous class-ridden views you expressed on Drivetime have been imparted to other insolvency practitioners.
 
Yes, I also would like to know what he meant by his comments and why he said them.

Apologies for hurt caused is not enough.
 
It begs the question, if this is whats being said, my god, what are they thinking.
 
Probably how some classes of people will be able to keep their kids in private schools as well as part of the process.
 
One thing that certainly jumps out at me is if there is equity in the property then it has to be sold ( if it is above the reasonable size etc) to pay creditors no matter what you are or who you are. Or is this personal insolvency set up just another facet of the currupt and poorly regulated system that has got us in this mess in the first place.
 
This was always going to fade away. There's an opinion piece in the Indo today (by Martina Devlin I think), having a lash at him and the 2 tier citizenship in this country.

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

The last thing they want is their names published. PIA is for the small man/woman....if they can afford the fees that is!
 
Luternau said:
Jim got it wrong live on national radio. He is not the first to do so and wont be the last. Subsequently he has issued an apology. While many may be enraged by what he said, there is no evidence that what he said was the norm.

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

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

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

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

Hate to break it to you Jim, but we're all professionals we're not working for free!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top