TSB repossession over 18k - Any idea why this made todays paper?

Z

zxcvbnm

Registered User
Messages
380
zxcvbnm said:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...ing-home-over-18000-in-arrears-30668304.html]


I read the above in todays indo.

I was surprised that TSB took someone to court over €18k arrears?

Has this surprised anyone else as to how the banks are operating?
It just seems surprising that it ended up in a court and that it could not be resolved between the 2 parties outside of court.

Is there some general lesson to be taken from this article?
Click to expand...
Looks like she was ignoring correspondence from the bank and pocketing the rent rather than using it to pay her mortgage.

Why it made the papers? Attractive woman arrives in court carrying her heels :)
 
zxcvbnm said:
I was surprised that TSB took someone to court over €18k arrears?
Click to expand...

The article gives the impression that she started going into arrears last April.

€18,000 represents the equivalent of one year of making no payments.

It takes about two years of arrears to get to court. So ptsb has presumably been trying to engage with her for a long time.

It's astonishing that she has paid nothing since April when she knew this court case was coming up.

It's possible that she chose to let them try to repossess the house and keep the rent in the meantime. But now with property prices recovering, she has thought it worth keeping.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
The article gives the impression that she started going into arrears last April.

€18,000 represents the equivalent of one year of making no payments.
Click to expand...

It's actually worse than that. She got a county register's order for possession. A stay was put on that. She didn't pay her bank, not sure from when, but April is mentioned, maybe it's April, 2013 as she now owes 18K. She has received rent of 800, from April that's €4800.

Her arrears of 18 / by the mortgage payment of €1400 is nearly 13 months.

But she was at some stage subsidising the rent of 800 by 600.

Presumably she pocketed the rent, and school must be back on in Spain, so she flew over to Ireland for the court case. And still the bank are not getting the property, because she is 'now willing' to 'talk' to her bank. What's to talk about, she clearly cannot afford it. Not on a teachers Spanish salary. Why would she fight this.

This is pure madness.
 
This is pure madness.
Click to expand...
I can't disagree with that opinion Bronte. Without using this specific case on a stand alone basis I have come across many similar cases where clients have failed to engage (won't pay) and yet the Courts have continued to give them additional time to engage, even when they are not living in the property. Yet there are no such restrictions on re-posession of commercial properties or BTL's which are outside of the MARP process. In my opinion judges are afraid to grant reposession order on "homes" which in non hardship cases can frustrate a bank who has a genuine entitlement to re-posess.
Taken that type of approach a step further perhaps it somewhat reflects the high interest rates currently being charged on mortgage lending. i.e. if you are unable to reposess and sell your security in a loan default posession your mortgage risk is high and as a bank you need to price to reflect this risk.
 
There was one for 13K arrears in Portlaoise CR court last month. The CR was not one bit amused with the solicitor acting for the bank and adjourned the case for a several months.
 
Delboy said:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...sing-home-over-18000-in-arrears-30668304.html
Click to expand...
Turns out she is mixed up with the freeman movement.
This was posted on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/irishselfhelpzone/posts/373216509501803
The Bank did get an Order against Ms Spearing; however they got it by devious means, Audrey was never served any papers: she is working in Spain, so Lay Litigation Ireland step in to lend a hand and got a stay on the Order.
Ms Spearing was late for court because they had send her to the wrong court, luckily enough Audrey kept the email as proof that the banks solicitors had sent her to the wrong court.
Judge Linnane actually lifted the Court Order at one point but the barrister had a hickey fit and started throwing his toys out of the pram, so Linnane changed her mind to a stay on the order.
It is reported that Ms Spearing is now willing to meet the banks, it is so the other way around, the banks agreed to talk with Audrey, they hadn’t up till then.

Ms Linnane refused Audrey’s motion to allow Audrey to give power of attorney to LLI to act for her whilst she was in Spain!

The reason Audrey is in Spain in the first place: no bloody work in Ireland and she was forced to move. Audrey is Irish through & through and desperation made her move. The wording in the paper is so loaded and weighted it makes you laugh, especially when you have firsthand knowledge of the real facts.
Click to expand...
 
Time said:
There was one for 13K arrears in Portlaoise CR court last month. The CR was not one bit amused with the solicitor acting for the bank and adjourned the case for a several months.
Click to expand...

I presume you mean Country Registar. What did the solicitor do that upset him/her?
 
44brendan said:
Without using this specific case on a stand alone basis I have come across many similar cases where clients have failed to engage (won't pay) and yet the Courts have continued to give them additional time to engage,.
Click to expand...

The case we are talking about is a BTL. Maybe it was not originally, would that be why it's being treated more like a home repossession case do you think?

I had a sibling in court in the last 2 weeks, about 110 cases on the list that the judge went through fairly rapidly. Sibling still did not have to hand up property, can't believe the carry on.
 
Bronte said:
I presume you mean Country Registar. What did the solicitor do that upset him/her?
Click to expand...

He was not happy that the bank had done enough before bringing the case. He described the amount as not even being a decent car loan. He urged both parties to have it settled before the next court date.
 
The case we are talking about is a BTL. Maybe it was not originally, would that be why it's being treated more like a home repossession case do you think?
Click to expand...
Because this property is the only owned property of the mortgagor in the |State, it is treated as her PDH and the same procedures would apply under CCMA as to any other HL client!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top