The McNamara/Lowe case shows that the courts are imposing too lenient PIAs on lenders

I suppose GNF the rules are a bit flexible to suit a particular set of circumstances. The judge (or PIP) said the extra clothing was due to their professions.
 
Bronte said:
I suppose GNF the rules are a bit flexible to suit a particular set of circumstances. The judge (or PIP) said the extra clothing was due to their professions.
Click to expand...
Flexibility is fine and makes sense in a large number of scenarios. However, there does need to be consistency in rules applied.
But the real question is whether they did in fact get a sweetheart deal due to their 'fame', or whether they were treated the same as everyone else in a similar situation.
https://www.businesspost.ie/news/star-appeal-sweetheart-deal-450824

I guess only those who know the ins and outs of the PIP process, and have experience in a reasonable number of rulings, can really comment on that ! I genuinely hope they did not get a sweetheart deal, but I have a niggling feeling they may have !
 
Just putting this out there.
Instead of saying they did or didn't get a sweetheart deal, would it not be 100% true in saying they got a deal in accordance with the law as is laid down and that the same law is available to everyone in the country? In what way outside of the law as laid down could the Judge have taken it upon himself to do his own thing with the couples case and if so could someone challenge it?
 
Hi np

Of course the judge acted within the law.

But the whole point is that the law is too biased and is costing borrowers the highest mortgage rates in the eurozone.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Hi np

Of course the judge acted within the law.

But the whole point is that the law is too biased and is costing borrowers the highest mortgage rates in the eurozone.

Brendan
Click to expand...
Yes it is but no good people blaming or saying the McNamara's got lucky with a sweetheart deal when the same bad or loose law allows everyone the same "privilege" and yes, high interest rates are the price everyone else has to pay for this debacle. We may hear an awful lot more of these more well known couples, but probably not so much about ordinary people. In any case, someone is going to become a sort of winner in all of this, be that the occupant/s of the house, the people who gave them the loan, or the people who bought out the loan. In the middle of it all is the piggy, ie, the Judge. Maybe that's why we have the appropriately named, "Piggy Bank".?
 
I agree with everything said about this agreement. Apologies if this was covered but how did they end up with a debt of 2.7m secured on a property that is only now worth 550k?? And I find it hard to feel any sort of sympathy for Tanager who bought the loan on those terms presuming they could take the asset.
 
It looks like they had to sell other properties and the NE from those ended up on the home. The one item they don't want to sell is their home.
 
I splashed out a fiver and downloaded the Folio from the Land Registry. I can't attach it but will send it to anyone interested.

It seems they bought this house in 1989 - when they were in their mid- to late-twenties. RTÉ salaries clearly went a long way back then.

I find these Land Registry documents a bit difficult to interpret but there was a mortgage of £150,000 taken out from Anglo in 1998 which seems to have been repaid in 2008. No original mortgage from 1989 shown either. Does this mean there was none, or just that it was fully repaid?

Since 2005 there are various judgements registered by Bank of Ireland, a car loan company and IL&P. Some of these subsequently transferred to Tanager. No amounts given.

PS: this is more than any Irish journalist has bothered to find out!
 
Well done, but I would imagine they used that house as collateral for other investments that probably went belly up. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry thought they were property developers a few years ago.
 
We regularly see complaints about the level of mortgage interest rates in Ireland. After yesterday's decision in the McNamara/Lowe case perhaps we can see why. A borrower makes no repayments for years, gets a PIA, has €3m written off AND keeps their big 5 bed detached house. Why can they not sell the house, downsize to a 2 bed semi and repay more of their debts? Clearly the concept of loan repayments is alien to some (including Judges).
 

For a PIA to be put through the PIP has to show that the creditors would be worse off if the debtors went bankrupt.

I find the notion that our altruistic banks will lower their SVRs to be in line with other EU countries if all debts owed to them are repaid a bizarre one, and a deluded one.
 
Last edited:
What would tanger have paid for loan ?The bank had already written off loan out of books but I didn't see them reduce mortgage rates.
 
seamus m said:
What would tanger have paid for loan ?The bank had already written off loan out of books but I didn't see them reduce mortgage rates.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Bank would have written down the loan and taken the resulting loss . But it is the writing down of all those losses (and being forced to sell on a book of impaired loans to “vulture funds”) that contributes to trying to recover some of that loss through charging higher interest rates than otherwise are justified. The fact is that with all the impaired loans we have seen in Ireland it is virtually impossible to force defaulting borrowers to sell the mortgaged property, even if as part of a downsizing exercise. The McNamara/ Lowe case demonstrates this (and accepting that this is merely a celebrity version of what is happening in many other cases). But if Banks know that it is virtually impossible to recover property from defaulting borrowers in Ireland, this must factor into the pricing of mortgage rates.
 
demoivre said:
I find the notion that our altruistic banks will lower their SVRs to be in line with other EU countries if all debts owed to them are repaid a bizarre one, and a deluded one.
Click to expand...

No one thinks this. I am surprised that you think some people think this.

What people do think is that if banks could realise their security effectively, both the existing banks and potential new entrants to the market would have a greater appetite for new business.

Business would be more profitable because they would not have to price in as many defaults. They would see that greater overall profits could be made by lending more money, and the way to attract more business would be to charge lower rates.

Banks would make more profits on a bigger loan book. More people would be able to buy homes. More homes would be built because more money would be available to pay for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register