Leighlinboy
Registered User
- Messages
- 139
I imagine that the bank may not be obliged to provide relevant data as the review is ongoing.
You specifically referenced a borrower that is making no repayments at all and suggested that no repossession order would be made in those circumstances simply because the mortgage was included in a tracker review. Frankly, I think you are fooling yourself and I am absolutely positive that a Court would not defer the making of a repossession order solely on that basis.
.
I don't see why the feelings or motives of a borrower should have any bearing on this matter.
A lender can form its own view whether or not to proceed. The Courts should not be seeking to protect a lender from subsequent litigation - that's not their role.
.
Are you actually suggesting a court makes an order, without the correct figures, because this person is under review, the correct figures, could be either correct or incorrect, and if they are incorrect, and it means the borrower could now engage, having given up becuase at 4% it was unsustainable, that the court should order reposition, get evicted and then the bank says, sorry, here's 50 k for our eviction based on wrong figures.
And you think it's ok to now take away a home, something that people will commit suicide over, and the break up of families, and that if it was all a 'mistake' by the bank, sure the borrower can go back to court for redress by more litigation. Is that what you are suggesting?
ignoring mortgage interest relief, the monthly payment on a €400k mortgage @1% over 30 years is €1,288, as against €2,005 at a rate of 4.5% - a difference of €719pm. If a borrower could meet the contracted repayments at the tracker rate, then he could certainly meet the interest payments @4.5%.
Again, every case should be decided on its own merits - there is no need to introduce a further automatic adjournment.
The Courts have demonstrated that they will give defaulting borrowers every opportunity to remediate their position if there is any realistic possibility that their mortgage can be put back on a sustainable footing.
The Indo ran a story today about a possession order being granted against a borrower that first defaulted 9 years ago - following 13 adjournments! The idea that a further automatic adjournment could take effect in these circumstances makes no sense.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...ow-as-judge-orders-repossession-35519018.html
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?