Evidence from the courts fails to support popular 'facts' behind repossessions

[SeamusCoffey]

All cases are adjourned on first appearance so I don't see anything enlightening about this court visit or indeed the 1947 cases covered over a five or six month period by yourself, Deeter and Coffey. Many of the 1947cases may well have been first time appearances so automatic adjournment takes place. The Central Bank figures confirm low repossession rates in Ireland so I'm struggling to fathom why three guys need to go to such lengths to prove the repossession process in Ireland is a lengthy one as virtually no repossession orders will be granted in the first six months after proceedings have been issued, and rightly so imo. !

Here are the outcomes Cork in October. More cases were cased by the lenders than were adjourned per the practice direction. Many of those not served are essentially the same as being adjourned by the lender as, in some cases, the lenders have chosen not the formally serve the proceedings on the borrower even though they have been issued. The lender seeks a new return date.



Yes, the Central Bank statistics show very low repossessions. But they also show that there has been a huge number of proceedings issued in the past 18 months since the legal lacuna of the 'Dunne' judgement was repaired.

 

[Delboy]

Banks don't want to repossess, the home owner doesn't want to be homeless and mass repossessions have social housing implications for the government.

As a future house buyer, it's in my interest that repossessions do happen so that a floor can be achieved in the market. Rather than this phoney war of the past 7 years that continues to support high house prices.