You are no less likely to loose your house to a repossession order if the loan is owned by a vulture fund than owned by a normal bank.
This has nothing to do with Central Bank regulations. This is purely down to the courts.
As Brendan has pointed out on numerous occasions, the courts will not give an order for repossession if you're making a genuine meaningful effort.
Yeah, we are both right. And you're wrong.
If the CBI could block or adjust interests rates set by the Banks why then were FF proposing a bill in 2016 that would give the CBI the ability to cap SVR rates?
Let me dumb it down, if they had these powers as you stated they wouldn't need to be given them.
Why did Mr Ed Silby (who you've quoted & referenced above) publicly oppose that bill?
Don't take my word or Sarenco's
Take Mr Silby's word himself:
http://www.thejournal.ie/variable-mortgage-rates-bill-central-bank-2-3127851-Dec2016/
So, in summary - you're wrong on absolutely everything you've said.
This is true.I just saw an interview on the news which said that when mortgages are transferred to vulture funds, there will be no regulations and they are beyond the reach of the central bank.
Is this true? What is the implication of this for mortgage holders who are transferred to Vulture funds?
Good question - those statements are completely meaningless.Andy, why pray tell, does the CBI have a requirement that all regulated entities have a "variable interest rate policy statement" on their respective websites as per the CCMA 2017.
No, it's not true that there are no regulations in place, as we have already pointed out to you.This is true.
No, it's not true that there are no regulations in place, as we have already pointed out to you.
The Governor of the Central Bank has confirmed that borrowers whose loans are sold are afforded the same regulatory protection they had prior to the sale.
Nope. In general, the entities that are used to purchase distressed debt portfolios are unregulated but the entities that service those loans are very much regulated.Vulture funds are regulated at the moment.
Good question - those statements are completely meaningless.
Niall Brady (Sunday Times, 15 November 2015) put it very well –
“Transparency can only be a good thing in financial services but what if the information you get is worthless?
The Central Bank’s latest contribution to the mortgage pricing row is a proposal that lenders should have to explain how variable rates are set. This is unlikely to reveal anything new.
In research published last May, the Central Bank told us why Ireland has some of the highest variable rates in the eurozone: bad debts, difficulties repossessing properties when loans go bad, tracker mortgages that are barely profitable, a lack of competition, the high cost of funds.
Lenders would simply recycle this list, probably without referring to the absence of competition, if required to justify the cost of variable mortgages in writing. Knowing why you are paying over the odds does not sweeten the pill — no matter how sound the explanations.”
Already discussed in detail on this thread:-C 143/13 Bogdan Matei v Volksbank S.A. the answer lies there, philistines.
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?