Monica Leech, George Mordaunt etc on Prime Time Tuesday 12 March

Brendan Burgess said:

I haven't heard of Monica Leech's group.

But I completely disagree with you on FLAC.

Click to expand...

Monica Leech was on a very interesting current affairs programme with Pat Kenny (it had a segment about Irish later). I've no idea what Ms. Leech is about but it seemed like nonsense to me.

But there was one exceedingly interesting man in the audience. He was what I call a realist. He had come to an arrangement with his own bank, a very tough deal, I could feel the pain of it (but I'm emotive) and he was a good person I thought too in that he was helping many others to deal with banks. He seemed to know his stuff. A lot of people like David Hall, Maguire, Leech seem to be on a band wagon, but it's rhetoric I think, and they keep going on about debt forgiveness for all without saying that we tax payers are going to pay for it.

This audience member is at the coal face and to his credit he did not complain, just simply told the reality of dealing with cold bankers. His own arrangement is completely confidential, he had to sign a non-disclosure document (I presume the one that SF have been hopping up and down about). From him I've learnt that every penny of what you take in and go out will be scrutinised and they will dictate what you can and cannot purchase (he mentioned as an example Sky). That is the reality of dealing with banks and Ms. Nally Lennon had better take note (more anon).

This man would be very interesting to talk to. Pity he's not on AAM.

As you've said FLAC are a responsible and respectable organisation. And people in debt need people on their side. It's a pity that they are not in the media more often but maybe they are too busy dealing with reality instead of becoming media prima donnas.

Bronte/Brendan

Monica Leech featured on last Monday's Prime Time mortgage debate. She has set up yet another group to help mortgage holders in trouble or who don't fancy negative equity...it's called the Phoenix foundation.

Some of her highlights on the night:
- pleaded for a Niall Mellon philanthropist type to emerge in Ireland and bail people out at home, rather than abroad!!!
- insisted on calling repossessions 'evictions' and played the history card as to why the should be called evictions

The audience member at the 'coal face' as you called it Bronte, who described his situation is George Mordaunt. His big play was on losing Sky Tv!!! but as I understand it he still has kept the family business and did'nt lose his home....perhaps someone on here who is closer to him in Tipp can fill in some details on how his lifestyle has being affected?
I'm not going to hold much sympathy for him just yet...he lived it up in the boom times and seems to have got out the other side of the crash fairly well intact, unless someone can tell me otherwise

Also, check out Geoff Scargill on that Prime Time debate. He's been writing a few letters to the Irish Times lately pleading for sympathy for people in mortgage trouble and in support of children attending private schools.....turns out he has 5 btl's all on interest only and now wants a deal before they come off that, as it's in the banks and the country's interests!!!! Sure did'nt he create jobs during the boom by becoming a landlord! No mention of wanting to give up any of the btl's either

I find the above post to be a little bit tight to the bone.

I seen the programme and heard George say that he was coming to the end of discussions with a bank (AIB?). He said it was not a fun experience. He said they looked for lots of details and could check to see a sky connection had not been reconnected. It was not his main gripe!

If the bank are prepared to do a deal, it has to be in their best interest to do so-repossessing properties may leave them worse off. We don't know. So having Delboy or anyother person comment on how he may have lived it up in the boom is unfair. Not all borrowers whether owner occupier or BTL/commercial investor lived it up - the mistake they made was perhaps not living it up instead of borrowing. Bear in mind, BTL were recommended to many for pension planning etc.

What can we as a society gain from trying to veto who gets a deal or the terms of that deal?

I can't recall the other guys input, but if his kids are going to private schools, the banks are unlikely to allow that to continue as part of any deal. But maybe, if a deal can be struck, him keeping the properties is also better for the bank. I also see no reason why a bank should not have to share some of the downside with a borrower, whether Owner occupier or BTL (they had a large role in events that caused all this).

What's the alternative for them? Reposeessions, no income from the asset? Followed possibly by a bankruptcy where they get less? Again, that's a matter for the parties. There were posts about Ms Lennon personal circumstances deleted before so let's not have this with these two individuals.

For the sake of clarity/balance here, I believe Ms Lennon is not currently a candidate for a deal because she is not behaving responsibly, if what she outlines tallies with her actions.

Luternau

I never mentioned George as having BTL's....but seeing as you did, here's some further info for you which to me indicates a certain lifestyle....and 1 which I personally now resent having to bail out

http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/eating-humble-pie-174203.html
Mordaunt bought 11 houses, a retail shop unit, a crèche, a barber shop, a boutique for his wife, and a share in property consortiums in Germany and Washington. He also built a palatial new home, acquired a further two franchises, and opened four new motor dealerships with a 50-strong team of management and staff. As Mordaunt’s business profile grew, so too did his ego — “I believed I was a captain of industry” — and he began dabbling in shares like AIB and Anglo Irish Banks.

“At one stage we were taking a family holiday to Spain and before the flight I bought AIB shares and instructed my broker to sell them if they reached a certain price. By the time I landed in Spain I was €10,000 better off.”

Mordaunt freely admits that he lost the run of himself during the good times. Only the best fixtures and fittings were good enough for his showrooms, his staff was equipped with sports cars, and he himself drove only top of the range luxury models. His sales crew were whisked off to international conferences, and customers were wooed with helicopter rides.

Delboy I don't think any of the above is my or anyone elses business. That a newspaper see it fit to share is a sad reflection on the voyeur culture that has resulted from the mess that is our banks.

If he had the money or had access to it, to do what you say, so be it. Making money or throwing it about or away is not new, unusual or illegal in capitalism.

I felt his contribution on TV should be seen as a wake up call to those that think banks will forgive and forget-he said the opposite. He said it was painful! Ms Lennon could do well to listen to him.

Has anyone read Mr Mordaunt's book?

Luternau said:

Delboy I don't think any of the above is my or anyone elses business. That a newspaper see it fit to share is a sad reflection on the voyeur culture that has resulted from the mess that is our banks.

If he had the money or had access to it, to do what you say, so be it. Making money or throwing it about or away is not new, unusual or illegal in capitalism.

I felt his contribution on TV should be seen as a wake up call to those that think banks will forgive and forget-he said the opposite. He said it was painful! Ms Lennon could do well to listen to him.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that the Examiner got the facts from George's own book where he admitted to the lifestyle he had. Perhaps someone who has read the book can confirm this for me?
So there is no 'to do what I say' in my posts above...this is an article in a reputable national broadsheet paper. You may choose to not want to believe it, but the facts are there in black and white and I have not embellished them in any way.

And of course it's all now our business....this man is seeking a debt deal that the taxpayers of this country are going to have to pay for. I am a taxpayer.

And you mention Capitalism....do you believe there's no downside to the system?

Delboy said:

My understanding is that the Examiner got the facts from George's own book where he admitted to the lifestyle he had. Perhaps someone who has read the book can confirm this for me?
So there is no 'to do what I say' in my posts above...this is an article in a reputable national broadsheet paper. You may choose to not want to believe it, but the facts are there in black and white and I have not embellished them in any way.

And of course it's all now our business....this man is seeking a debt deal that the taxpayers of this country are going to have to pay for. I am a taxpayer.

And you mention Capitalism....do you believe there's no downside to the system?

Click to expand...

Of course I am aware there is a possible downside to capitalism, which are generally losses or inability to pay back loans. Everybody makes mistakes and everybody needs to be helped get up off the floor. Other countries do this-is this another thing that works perfectly well elsewhere but does not work here? Perhaps you think he should be flogged in public for his failure? That would be pay back for living it up? Yep-public floggings and humiliation of failed borrowers would certainly deter future recklessness. Problem solved!

As a tax payer I have no right to be a person of interest in every action or decision that goes on in bailed out banks. Nor have you. Banks could not function with that level of scrutiny.

We have no right to be judge and jury as to what our taxes are spent on either. We all have to hope that they are spent in the best interest of all concerned! If that does not happen there are PAC to investigate this.

I fail to grasp what it is about this man that irks you so much! He does not deserve to have you second guess his actions when he had money or indeed what his circumstances are now. Unless he owes you money, his life and finances are not your concern.

Luternau said:

Of course I am aware there is a possible downside to capitalism, which are generally losses or inability to pay back loans. Perhaps you think he should be flogged in public for his failure?

As a tax payer I have no right to be a person of interest in every action:decision that goes on in bailed out banks. Nor have you.

We have no right to be judge and jury as to what our taxes are spent on either. We all have to hope that they are spent in the best interest of all concerned! If that does not happen there are PAC to investigate this.

I fail to grasp what it is about this one man irks you so much! He does not deserve to have you second guess his actions when he had money or indeed what his circumstances are now. Unless he owes you money, his life and finances are not your concern.

Click to expand...

I have no real interest in this person at all and he has come across my radar a few times over the past 2 years...but he puts himself in the media in front of everyone, he writes a book outlining his story, he sets up a group to 'advise' people on mortgage debt.
So he's out there in the public. It's you who seems intent on defending him no matter what detail is provided on here or in the public domain. But thats your right.

I find your arguments a bit emotive and nonsensical to be honest. I'm 2nd guessing nothing....I base my point of view on facts while you seem to be going on generalities about everyone doing their own thing and worrying about no one else, etc.

Never the twain shall meet so I'll leave it there on this one with you

Tha's fine Delboy. I was not going to add anymore.

Up to last week, I had never heard of this guy. Not being emotive- I am just tired of the pettiness about debts that seems to be so prevalent now. Debts have to be forgiven if we are to move on as a society/economy. In the process, some people who dont deserve forgiveness will get it, but that's life.

Quote from Luternau. "In the process, some people who dont deserve forgiveness will get it, but that's life."

That is one of my concerns and I would love to see a provision inserted in the insolvency legislation to revisit the original write down where it is subsequently found that people who have availed of write downs "magically" have recovered in subsequent years. There should be specific and significant penalties inserted in this legislation where it is found that there was not full disclosure at the outset.

As far as I can recall there is a provision for the banks to apply for extension on period of PIA or Bankrupcy etc if the means of those improves dramatically or they have hidden money/assets.
Added: Private deals with banks are not subject to the new insolvency schemes.

The bankruptcy period of 3 years can be extended, to 8 I think, if the bankrupt was found to have not disclosed assets.

If a bankrupt's earnings improve during bankruptcy, the bankruptcy period is not changed, but the Trustee (?) can apply for a bankruptcy payment order which could commit the bankrupt to make payments to his creditors for a further 5 years.

But just to be clear, none of the people mentioned in this thread have been declared bankrupt.

Yes, the new regime does not apply to the likes of those named here ad they have done or hoping to do deals with the bank. Such deals do not mean they are insolvent or bankrupt.

My post was in relation to people who got write offs and "magically" reinvented themselves. Everyone has a fair idea of what I am talking about.
BTW is it going to be the case that where some one avails of a write off legitimately and their circumstances improve like employment situation, promotion, partner starts work, etc etc, that there is no comeback for the financial institution.

George Mordaunt and I appeared on Saturday with Claire Byrne today. You can listen to the podcast here

It begins at 5.20

He said that people who had never missed a repayment on their home loan faced losing their homes. I said that if people were making their repayments, they were not in arrears and not subject to the new Mortgage Arrears Plan. But apparently he was talking about people with large personal debts for buy to lets and businesses. I thought it perfectly reasonable that if they lived in trophy homes, they should lose them as part of the settlement.

Because he was signing a non-disclosure agreement with his lender, he didn't want to talk about his own case.

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.

Brendan, I have read your last post and for what it is worth the views you have expressed would totally coincide with my own views.

Dermot said:

for what it is worth the views you have expressed would totally coincide with my own views.

Click to expand...

The rest of the panel today did not seem to think that people living in big homes should sell them, so I was beginning to wonder whether I was totally out of step.

People seem to think in the abstract that bust developers should no longer live in their trophy homes, but they have difficulty saying it to someone's face like George Mordaunt who comes across as a plausible, nice guy who is being bullied by the banks.

So actually, it is nice to hear that at least one other person agrees with me.

Brendan

Regular reader though I'm not a big poster and I agree fully. I'm keeping the roof of a three bed semi over my head and I do not wish to pay for the debts of those who owe without expecting them to experience some reasonable changes in lifestyle.

Listened to the programme.

Have to agree with Brendan on all counts. Personally I think it's disingenuous of mr mordant to hide behind a confidentially agreement (although I understand the need for one). He is there talking about all the people coming into him but can't tell us about his own situation.

While he may argue differently its the average borrower, taxpayer and citizen who will pay to cover the losses.

In a normal economy his losses would not bother me but as the margin on my loan, the 52% tax and cuts in public services is paying for his losses, I am interested.