Prime Time will be covering the vulture fund interest rate story tonight


I'm not a David Attenborough (INADA?) but might I suggest when it comes to our fund friends and the evil(s) they unleash upon us that there is a difference between the 'cuckoo' and 'vulture'?
 
The Government could also consider non recourse residential mortgage lending. I know the ECB and European Commission are looking into this so as to have more uniformity in mortgage lending and security realisation in the event of default across all its Member States.
 
Skrooge

How would you propose to help these people, you have given load of arguments in defence of interfering with how the funds currently operate in Ireland?

Awaiting a comprehensive reply, or was that just lip service for these unfortunate trapped customers?
 
Last edited:

I've already said the funds are a symptom a wider problem. An inefficient legal system where repossessions are too costly and take too long to be meaningful. Fix that and the longer term cost of tinkering with the funds are reduced.
 
skrooge said:
I think it's a blunt approach which could impact the whole mortgage system to benefit a small handful.
Click to expand...

Hi skrooge

How do you mean "benefit" ?

Stopping someone being overcharged is protecting them. Not benefiting them.

We could have decided to let the banks take everyone's tracker from them so as not to benefit a small handful. But we actually protected the rights of those borrowers.

It's the same with the customers of vulture funds. All I am doing is that the contracts and CCMA be adhered to.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
View attachment 7226
Click to expand...

Brendan,

IANAL, but the Central Bank of Ireland’s CCMA is so out of date that the above diktat you posted in its CCMA is now unlawful. (Where is its compliance officer?).

Surcharge interest cannot be imposed on borrowers (in any circumstance), even on those that are not cooperating. The enforceability of penalty clauses was dealt with comprehensively in the litigation cases in Irish Court of Appeal cases of Flynn v Breccia and Sheehan v Breccia, where the court relied on the traditional test that surcharge interest was not a genuine pre-estimation of loss and consequently the surcharge was a penalty and unenforceable.

I am afraid, this is the law as it currently stands in Ireland; tut tut Central Bank
 
Last edited:
CarrotStick said:
Surcharge interest cannot be imposed on borrowers (in any circumstance), even on those that are not cooperating.
Click to expand...
That is not correct.

A clause that allows for the imposition of surcharge interest on arrears is not necessarily a penalty clause.
 
Sarenco said:
That is not correct.

A clause that allows for the imposition of surcharge interest on arrears is not necessarily a penalty clause.
Click to expand...
Can you reference me an Irish legal case that postdates Breccia (like I did), where such a determination was made by a judge in the High Court, Court of Appeal or Supreme Court, otherwise I don’t believe you.
 
Last edited:
The cases that you posted yourself (which simply restate the existing legal position) do not say that surcharge interest cannot be charged in any circumstances.

You have misrepresented (or possibly misunderstood) the legal position and hence the correction.
 
IANAL, but obviously neither are you. The Breccia case challenged the existing legal position regarding surcharge interest rates being a penalty clause, hence it was heard at length in the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal maintained the legal position that the application of such surcharge interest rates to mortgage interest payments were a penalty clause and therefore unenforceable and maintained the stated legal position as set out by the High Court. Breccia was not appealed to the Supreme Court. This is the law as it currently stands in Ireland.

However, if you can find me any Irish legal case were the judge determined otherwise, and elaborated on such circumstances were such surcharge interest rates could be applied to mortgage interest payments, I will stand corrected, but I won’t be holding my breathe.
 
Last edited:
In the circumstances of that particular case, yes, the clause was found to be a penalty clause.

But the Court did not hold that a clause that allows for surcharge interest is necessarily a penalty clause in all circumstances.

Your previous post to that effect was wrong.
 
Like I said, show me any Irish legal case, where a surcharge interest rate clause has not been found to be a penalty clause; even just one such Irish legal case that puts meat on your specious semantic legal argument.

You can’t, because there isn’t any. No legal team would even consider running such a risky case, because there would not a snowball’s chance in hell of winning such an argument in a residential mortgage case in any Irish Court. (By the way, this thread is about, the exorbitant interest rates that vulture funds apply to their trapped mortgage customers).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register