Court imposes 2.5% fixed for 25 years on Pepper as part of a PIA

[RedOnion]

A case in court to getting to this stage takes 2 years.

I think this is a another key point here. The rate would not have been completely unreasonable at the time the process started for this case.

 

[Raging Bull]

Also a PIA would not likely be approved by a court if a PIP did this with original lender as they can prove it's unfair

 

[Raging Bull]

Pepper are not appealing the decision. SO its stands but as mentioned the High Court has already agreed its permissible. The key thing here is Pepper didnt prove it was unfair they could have possibly done so by demonstrating how much they paid for the loan and/or proving cost of funds they chose not to.

While they are wishy washy in teh article for the reasons the key point which is absolutely correct is everything is dependent on your circumstances. Fixing rate like this is really something that can be done if only absolutely necessary. Typically Arrears Capitalistaion, Term Exension, Variable Rate Reduction, Interest only for a period, Write off Unsecured are all done before anyone would consider this.

I did a 10 year Fix at 2.6% with a Bank thats looking good now. They actually argued that me reducing the rate for 18 months was unfair and wanted that instead. Well its looking pretty sweet for that Debtor now.

Insolvency service site visits double as rate increases bite

Pepper will not appeal Tullamore court ruling on fixed 2.5% rate for insolvent couple as it is ‘unique case’

www.irishtimes.com

 

[Luternau]

No appeal is good news for the debtor after what must have been a long and difficult road.

The real story must be in the amount paid for the loan and the cost of funds.

 

[Tomandgerry]

I agreed a fixed rate of 3% with Start for a temporary period of 24 months. I wonder would there be any merit in approaching them now to ask would they consider fixing it for the duration of the term?

 

[Raging Bull]

I agreed a fixed rate of 3% with Start for a temporary period of 24 months. I wonder would there be any merit in approaching them now to ask would they consider fixing it for the duration of the term?

No because they won't do it voluntarily, the PIP imposed this via the Courts against their will

 

[Jim Stafford]

Pepper have publicly announced that they are not going to appeal the decision to the High Court.

The decision does not create a legally binding precedent on other cases, as Circuit Court decisions do not create binding precedents.

Having listened to legal experts on the case, it appears that Pepper's affidavits were not as strong as they could have been, and that they did not provide key evidence. When you are appealing a decision to the High Court you may not introduce "new evidence" that was available at the original hearing.

Pepper will not make the same mistake twice.

Jim Stafford

 

[ClubMan]

When you are appealing a decision to the High Court you may not introduce "new evidence" that was available at the original hearing.

Did you mean "that was not available at the original hearing"?

 

[Jim Stafford]

Did you mean "that was not available at the original hearing"?

I did mean to say " may not introduce "new evidence" that was available at the original hearing."

The expert legal opinion is that Pepper could have, inter alia, retained an expert banking economist to prove that their own costs of funds was in excess of, say, 3%. Such evidence could have been available at the time but Pepper did not introduce it, which means that they may not introduce it in a High Court Appeal.

Jim Stafford

 

[ClubMan]

I did mean to say " may not introduce "new evidence" that was available at the original hearing."

By definition how could it be new evidence if it was previously available at the original hearing? Sorry, but I still don't understand the point that you're trying to make.

 

[Raging Bull]

By definition how could it be new evidence if it was previously available at the original hearing? Sorry, but I still don't understand the point that you're trying to make.

A participant in a legal hearing is obligated to bring their full case and evidence to the hearing in simplest terms.

They said it was unfair but offered no tangible proof to show it

You don't get two bites at cherry if you chose to not fully bite the first time

 

[Jim Stafford]

By definition how could it be new evidence if it was previously available at the original hearing?

Pepper had the ability to instruct, say, a banking economist, for the Circuit Hearing to provide evidence as to what its cost of funds were, but chose not to do so. So the evidence could have been made available, but it was not put before the Court. If you do not put your evidence before the court it will not be considered.

Jim Stafford

 

[ClubMan]

Another case being reported just now but I can't find any details just yet:

Court gives another homeowner cheap fixed rate on a vulture-fund mortgage

A circuit court has approved another long-term, cheap fixed rate for a stricken borrower whose mortgage is owned by a vulture fund.

m.independent.ie

Edit: this may provide more info...

MSN

Trim Circuit Court in Co Meath approved a personal insolvency arrangement yesterday that gives a Co Kildare woman a 2.5pc rate, fixed for 30 years.

An interest rate as low as that is not available from any lender in this market.

The mortgage is owned by an unnamed vulture fund or funds, and is serviced by Pepper. In what may be a change of tack, Pepper agreed to this latest arrangement.