Pepper forced by court to offer 0.5% mortgage fixed for 17 years

Brendan Burgess said:
that is absolutely disgraceful.

It is not the banks' role to house people, effectively free of charge.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that Pepper Finance would agree with you there, Brendan!

The issue here is that an anonymous member of the judiciary appears to believe that it is.
 
DannyBoyD said:
Bet Pepper are still making money on it ;)
Click to expand...

That is completely irrelevant.

Ulster Bank gave her a mortgage. They presumably had to give Pepper a big discount because of the difficulty Pepper would face repossessing the house.

We need to have an adult conversation.

Banks should not rip off people.
But by the same token, courts should not rip off banks.

Both are wrong.


Brendan
 
Nothing anonymous about the legal people involved all named in the case.

The barrister Keith Farry is a specialist in this area.

Its a Circuit Court case so can be appealed but remember the Insolvency process is not straight forward.

Don't know if legal aid applied was availed of here. Of course from a taxpayer pov avoiding the cost of rehousing would not be inconsiderable if we had houses in the first place.
 
WizardDr said:
Nothing anonymous about the legal people involved all named in the case.
Click to expand...

In that case perhaps you'd be good enough to name the "legal person" - alias the judge - who forced Pepper into that arrangement.

Because he (or she) isn't mentioned in the report.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
That is completely irrelevant.

Ulster Bank gave her a mortgage. They presumably had to give Pepper a big discount because of the difficulty Pepper would face repossessing the house.

We need to have an adult conversation.

Banks should not rip off people.
But by the same token, courts should not rip off banks.

Both are wrong.


Brendan
Click to expand...
Brendan as a PIP Its not irrelevant,its the exact reason why it can be done. The Court views Pepper as an investor. Investments can go up and down. Theres no cost of funds here as its an Investment Fund. A lower rate simply reduces the profit

And its not me saying that Judge Marie Baker now in Supreme Court determined this many years ago

The Purpose of the Act is

AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW RELATING TO INSOLVENCY, TO AMEND THE BANKRUPTCY ACT 1988, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF A BODY TO BE KNOWN AS SEIRBHÍS DÓCMHAINNEACHTA NA hÉIREANN OR, IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, THE INSOLVENCY SERVICE OF IRELAND, AND, IN PARTICULAR, IN THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMON GOOD (INCLUDING THE STABILITY OF THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM IN THE STATE)AND HAVING REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIVES—

(a)THE NEED TO AMELIORATE THE DIFFICULTIES EXPERIENCED BY DEBTORS IN DISCHARGING THEIR INDEBTEDNESS DUE TO INSOLVENCY AND THEREBY LESSEN THE ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES FOR ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN THE STATE,

(b)THE NEED TO ENABLE CREDITORS TO RECOVER DEBTS DUE TO THEM BY INSOLVENT DEBTORS TO THE EXTENT THAT THE MEANS OF THOSE DEBTORS REASONABLY PERMITS, IN AN ORDERLY AND RATIONAL MANNER, AND

(c)THE NEED TO ENABLE INSOLVENT DEBTORS TO RESOLVE THEIR INDEBTEDNESS (INCLUDING BY DETERMINING THAT DEBTS STAND DISCHARGED IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES) IN AN ORDERLY AND RATIONAL MANNER WITHOUT RECOURSE TO BANKRUPTCY, AND TO THEREBY FACILITATE THE ACTIVE PARTICIPATION OF SUCH PERSONS IN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN THE STATE
 
Just because it can be done does not mean it should be done. Everything is on the individuals circumstances and they should pay the level of debt they can afford
 
Hi Bull

It is wrong whether a High Court judge said it or not.

If the legislation provides for that, the legislation is wrong.

Of course, PIPS love it. They can get fees through grateful clients but the rest of us end up paying for it as we have a dysfunctional mortgage system.
 
@Marsupial Some circuit court cases are sent to journalists before they are available elsewhere.

I think - subject to confirmation - that it was Judge O'Connor. (This isn't ever a secret).

The arrangement was devised by personal insolvency practitioner Ronan Duffy of McCambridge Duffy and was presented to the court by barrister Keith Farry, instructed by Anthony Joyce & Co Solicitors.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Hi Bull

It is wrong whether a High Court judge said it or not.

If the legislation provides for that, the legislation is wrong.

Of course, PIPS love it. They can get fees through grateful clients but the rest of us end up paying for it as we have a dysfunctional mortgage system.
Click to expand...
PIPs are not well paid. Start of 2019 was about 114 about 62 now. Blame the Banks for selling the loans rather than trying to work their loan books.
 
Raging Bull said:
Blame the Banks for selling the loans rather than trying to work their loan books.
Click to expand...

Hi RB

I have lobbied for the protection of borrowers in arrears.
I have lobbied for the state to provide the equivalent of the HAP for mortgage holders.

But I have also lobbied for the faster repossession of houses in long term arrears where no effort is being made to pay it.

The woman in the article has a completely unsustainable mortgage. Either the state should provide her with HAP or she should sell the house.

A court should not be able to tell a bank: "You must house this person free of charge for the next 17 years."
 
They deem it preferable this can be done versus the alternative that the state picks up social housing bill

Its just a Policy thing. A PIP cant do this easily against original lender, court would find it unfair
 
DannyBoyD said:
Bet Pepper are still making money on it ;)
Click to expand...
You’ll bet they are! Actually I understand Pepper were only asset servicers for the true owner of the loan? In that case should they be repossessing in the courts??? Baffles me!!! Glad for the woman in question! Surely she’s been through enough! And Pepper would have put her through the ringer! And let’s not forget the discount Pepper would have bought these loans for!!!
 
Would Pepper have been better off if the house had been repossessed, sold and the shortfall dealt with by the woman through bankruptcy?
 
Hi demoivre

That should be for the lender to decide. The courts should not decide what is best for the lender in cases like this.

It would be different if there were various creditors, most of whom agreed to the deal. The court should be allowed to impose the deal on all in that situation.

Brendan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top