My observations regarding the Circuit Court / Registrar

My observations relate to Dublin, where I attended as moral support for an elderly relative.

- The Registrar is very fair. She is marginally on the side of the homeowner, but despises spoof and lies. Borrowers who are playing the system get hammered, but genuine cases get more than a fair crack of the whip.

- It is vital to be there. She gives credit to people who attend. It is also vital to have engaged with the bank.

- Being honest is not enough. You must be perceived as honest. Prepare heavily and listen to other cases to learn about your own.

- The banks and their legal teams can be quite disorganised. Often, they don't have their ducks in a row.

- The Registrar isn't afraid to castigate the banks for unreasonable behaviour. One borrower was being offered a trial period to make repayments whilst the bank still sought repossession. The Registrar said this was ludicrous.

- Conversely, people who act the maggot with technical stuff around summons etc get little sympathy from her.

- MABS are there and they're very helpful. There are also more sinister forces present talking about freeman nonsense etc which is like a red rag to a bull for the Registrar.

I view it as a very fair process where borrowers in difficulty are given every chance.

I am strongly of the view that accountants and financial advisers should be allowed to speak on behalf of borrowers. Yes there's a danger that a menace like the Land League try and hijack proceedings, but it should be possible to mitigate that risk.

My advice to borrowers is attend, be honest, ensure that you appear honest, engage with the bank, ensure that you appear to be engaging with the bank, make sure to be paying something, and take your time in front of the Registrar. She is very reasonable if you are behaving reasonably and doing your best.

Hi Gordon

A very good summary, which is in line with my experience in the Dublin Circuit Court.

Did you see any orders being granted? Can you profile those cases? In your opinion, were they fair or unfair?

Did you see any cases, which, in your view, should not have been there? In other words, where the borrower was genuine and paying something meaningful, but the lender had dragged them into court anyway?

Gordon Gekko said:

- Being honest is not enough. You must be perceived as honest.

Click to expand...

That is a very interesting observation, which had not occurred to me. Some of the borrowers who show up are clearly chancers. Some of them are clearly genuine. It's probably not that easy for the Registrar to differentiate except in clear cut cases.

So she could form an opinion that a genuine person is a chancer. How would you suggest that a genuine person proves it?

Brendan Burgess said:

Hi Gordon

A very good summary, which is in line with my experience in the Dublin Circuit Court.

Did you see any orders being granted? Can you profile those cases? In your opinion, were they fair or unfair?

Did you see any cases, which, in your view, should not have been there? In other words, where the borrower was genuine and paying something meaningful, but the lender had dragged them into court anyway?




That is a very interesting observation, which had not occurred to me. Some of the borrowers who show up are clearly chancers. Some of them are clearly genuine. It's probably not that easy for the Registrar to differentiate except in clear cut cases.

So she could form an opinion that a genuine person is a chancer. How would you suggest that a genuine person proves it?

Click to expand...

Hi Brendan

With the caveat that I wasn't there 100% of the time, I believe that I saw two orders being granted. Both were "slamdunks" for the banks. Borrower not there, nothing being paid, zero communication. They were fair in my view.

I saw a lot of cases which should not have been there, and which are clogging the system. Cases where borrowers are engaged and paying. The banks seems to want to pursue the repossesion process in cases which should on balance be fine as a form of two way option. The irony is that if they focussed on the messers, the courts and the banks would be in far healthier shape. To be fair, the Registrar was especially unimpressed with the banks in circumstances where the borrower is paying a meaningful amount.

Regarding the honesty point, I believe that the spoofers are contaminating the process for genuine cases. A genuine honest person must therefore go out of their way to demonstrate honesty. They must also keep detailed records and prepare extensively for their appearance. My advice would be to put one's self in the Registrar's shoes, start from a position where you have a fear that the person in front of you is milking the system, and structure your arguments accordingly. Once you demonstrate bona fides, the Registrar is on your side. The problem is the messers who are ruining it for everyone else. They should be hammered.

Gordon Gekko said:

The banks seems to want to pursue the repossesion process in cases which should on balance be fine as a form of two way option.

Click to expand...

I have seen only a few of these cases and I don't really understand the banks' approach. It may be that they only began paying something meaningful when the bank initiated proceedings. But in those cases, the lender should be applying for an adjournment, and should not be seeking an order.

Most of the Registrar's allow general adjournments. That is that the case is adjourned and the lender has liberty to re-enter if the borrower does not stick to the agreement. That is only fair. Some borrowers pay enough for the lender to be happy and then they strike out the proceedings. But if the borrower then breaks the agreement, it's back to Square 1 for the bank.

The Dublin Registrar does not allow general adjournments. The bank might be happy to apply for a 6 months adjournment, but she refuses telling them to apply for an order or to apply to strike out the case.

Brendan

The process really needs to be amended to allow accountants and financial advisors to speak in court on behalf of borrowers. This must obviously be done in a way that doesn't allow people like the Land League to derail the process.

I have seen banks completely misrepresent arrears figures, and borrowers struggle to explain the true position.

Gordon Gekko said:

The banks seems to want to pursue the repossesion process in cases which should on balance be fine as a form of two way option

Click to expand...

I would think this applies to some rather than all banks. In my view the majority of the main banks are generally professional in their approach to clients and re-possession is only used as a final option when all else has failed. However there are others who tend to largely ignore client attempts to reach an agreement and use litigation as a first rather than last step. I acknowledge that the Registers tend to lean towards the client in cases where they are shown to be co-operative however there appears to be no real downside for the banks who use the Court system unnecessarily where a reasonable agreement would have avoided Court proceedings.
Outside of my main occupation I have assisted a couple of relations who are in financial difficulty. In one case I have been astounded at the level of incompetence shown by the bank and the actual blatant lies stated in response to me on why correspondence has been ignored.

Gordon Gekko said:

The process really needs to be amended to allow accountants and financial advisors to speak in court on behalf of borrowers.

Click to expand...

That would be chaotic.

If we allowed an unrestricted right of audience, as suggested, our courts would rapidly become clogged up with all manner of self-appointed "advisers".

It's bad enough as it is!

Hi Sarenco

It would not be appropriate to allow the Freemen and the Hub to speak. But it would make things a lot easier if MABS advisors, authorised debt advisors and the like were allowed to speak subject to certain conditions.

Likewise, it would be much better if the person handling the file in the bank appeared in court instead of a solicitor. They would be up to date and would be accountable for their actions. In many cases, the solicitor says "Sorry, I have no instructions in that matter." and so a case gets ajdourned.

Brendan

44brendan said:

In my view the majority of the main banks are generally professional in their approach to clients and re-possession is only used as a final option when all else has failed.

Click to expand...

Hi 44b

I agree with you about the way arrears are generally handled. Most cases get restructured.

But there is chaos in the courts. The banks often take cases which seem completely unnecessary. The solicitors seem to be just reading the file for the first time. In some cases, the Registrar is willing to grant an order, but the solicitor for the bank is missing some important stuff.

Maybe the banks are professional, but the solicitors are terrible.

Brendan

Sarenco said:

That would be chaotic.

If we allowed an unrestricted right of audience, as suggested, our courts would rapidly become clogged up with all manner of self-appointed "advisers".

It's bad enough as it is!

Click to expand...

I wouldn't advocate unrestricted right of audience. Perhaps chartered accountants and PIPs?

There have to be safeguards to stop the process being hijacked by the proponents of Freeman, the Land League, etc.

Gordon Gekko said:

I wouldn't advocate unrestricted right of audience. Perhaps chartered accountants and PIPs?

Click to expand...

I certainly understand the point but where do you draw the line? If chartered accountants alone were granted a right of audience, I could think of at least four other professional bodies that would (quite legitimately) be up in arms!

Aside from the point that extending rights of audience risks clogging up the court process (even more than is already the case), it is also important to understand that barristers and solicitors are officers of the Court and can be severely sanctioned if they mislead the Court in any way. You can't hold a junior bank official to that standard.

Perhaps the right approach is to expand the role of the examiner's office in some way?

I suppose one of my observations is that some of the financial aspects of cases are really poorly explained by borrowers and sometimes misrepresented by the banks. I hear your concerns about where to draw the line, but my sense is that the professionals who are best placed to advocate on behalf of borrowers aren't allowed to.

Gordon Gekko, I wonder did you get a feel for what proportion of cases are spoofers of various hues? -- chancers, Freemen, etc.

Hard to tell due to the number of no-shows. Much lower than one would think though. I only heard 2/3 that I thought were spoofers out of circa 10/12 that appeared.

The Registrar is also very good at dealing with people's obvious frustrations around not being able to reach contacts within the bank.

She is not above ordering legal representatives to take a borrower's phone number and ensure that it is given to a real person.

I am aware of numerous cases where the banks act the maggot with communications. For example, replying to a letter with a phone call. Calling a borrower once from a private number and then claiming that the borrower was not reachable. And leveraging the fact that they record their calls, whereas the borrower typically does not.

If I was a borrower in this process, I would insist that everything is done in writing.

Gordon Gekko said:

I am aware of numerous cases where the banks act the maggot with communications. For example, replying to a letter with a phone call. Calling a borrower once from a private number and then claiming that the borrower was not reachable. And leveraging the fact that they record their calls, whereas the borrower typically does not.

If I was a borrower in this process, I would insist that everything is done in writing.

Click to expand...

I'd agree with this 100%, and also with the comment above "I have been astounded at the level of incompetence shown by the bank and the actual blatant lies stated in response to me on why correspondence has been ignored". Unless you've experienced it directly, it is very hard to believe that (at least some) banks behave the way they do. It's encouraging to hear that people are given a fair hearing, but without adequate preparation, at least in terms of having a good record of all communications, it could well prove difficult to present the true picture.

Gordon Gekko said:

If I was a borrower in this process, I would insist that everything is done in writing.

Click to expand...

I think that this is a mistake. Don't forget that where people engage, they nearly always get a successful restructuring.

It's easier to deal with people on the phone when you can get them. It's easier for the bank to be tough by letter than to phone a person and be tough.

So after every conversation with the bank, send them a letter or email confirming what was discussed. That way you have a written record.

And if you don't get through, send them a letter saying this. "Dear bank. I have called your arrears team on 16 July, 25 July and 30 August but on each occasion I was told that no one was available to speak to me. Please call me at 11 am on the 1 September so we can discuss this case."

Brendan

Yes, that makes absolute sense.