How many appearances have the 300 made in court? Unless you know how many adjournments each individual case has been granted you can't reach the conclusion that you have reached. If your thread title read " Why borrowers should not fear their first or second appearance in the repossession courts " , I could understand it. However the notion that a borrower can get away, ad infinitum, with paying a fraction of their mortgage payment, and remain in their home, doesn't stack up. Rather than track 300 people once in court it would make much more sense to track fewer people from their first appearance before the county registrar and see how their case progresses. If they get multiple adjournments, while paying a fraction of their mortgage payments, I will accept your point.
Key Post "Why borrowers should not fear repossession courts"
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
How many appearances have the 300 made in court? Unless you know how many adjournments each individual case has been granted you can't reach the conclusion that you have reached. If your thread title read " Why borrowers should not fear their first or second appearance in the repossession courts " , I could understand it. However the notion that a borrower can get away, ad infinitum, with paying a fraction of their mortgage payment, and remain in their home, doesn't stack up. Rather than track 300 people once in court it would make much more sense to track fewer people from their first appearance before the county registrar and see how their case progresses. If they get multiple adjournments, while paying a fraction of their mortgage payments, I will accept your point.
100% agree with all of this.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,718
I hope to make a submission on this issue to the Courts Service. 44b's measure of 5%of the outstanding balance seems very reasonable to me.
Brendan
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,718
Some good points there. All family home cases are adjourned on the first visit to court - automatically. I will see if I can work out how many of these there were.
We had a good selection of cases. Many first appearances. Many appearing for a second or later time.
However the notion that a borrower can get away, ad infinitum, with paying a fraction of their mortgage payment, and remain in their home, doesn't stack up.
Given the large number of cases we have seen, I would have expected to see many cases where the borrower was doing their best, making regular payments, but the bank was just playing hardball and seeking an order anyway. We simply saw no cases of this, so we can only assume that they were either adjourned or struck out. Given that the Registrar was refusing repossessions for people who had made no repayments since 2009, it would be very difficult to get an order against someone who was paying.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,718
We didn't find this out and most of the borrowers did not show up to explain why. Those who did show up, were not asked.
There was a particularly tragic case of someone with a mortgage of only €26,000. They had made no repayments. They had not shown up on 5 court hearings. I wanted to get the address and find out what the story was here, but it was not read out in court. I really am scratching my head over this one.
Even someone on social welfare must pay something towards their rent. So everyone should be paying something towards their mortgage. Not paying anything is clear evidence of selective default. By the way "selective default" is a much better term than "strategic default".
These people may have stopped when the bank told them they were taking back the home.
Are you saying that not paying is justified in these circumstances?
But this is the lesson from our research!
The general belief is that the banks are repossessing houses left right and centre. They are issuing a lot of letters and a lot of proceedings, but they are getting very few orders.
The absolute wrong thing to do is to stop paying your mortgage, even if the lender has issued proceedings. If you want to keep your house, continue paying what you can. Based on what we saw, it's unlikely that you will lose your home. If you stop paying your mortgage, you will get plenty of opportunity from the Registrar to recommence payments, but you are in danger of losing your home.
Of course, if you are in positive equity, you should be paying your mortgage anyway, as not paying it won't save you anything and risks losing your home.
Brendan
That's interesting 44brendan - I hadn't heard that methodology used before as a way of assessing whether or not a mortgage is sustainable from a bank's perspective.
Is this applied as a hard and fast rule or is allowance made for factors such as age, employment sector, pension entitlements, etc.? I can see how it might be useful as a rule of thumb but it seems like a fairly blunt way to determine the sustainability or otherwise of a mortgage.
I'm at a loss as to why the registrars are concerned with whether or not a borrower is making any payments. Surely the only issue for the registrar to determine is whether or not the lender is contractually entitled to repossess the property in the circumstances. I really don't see what role a registrar has in second guessing whether or not the lender's decision to enforce their security interest is appropriate or fair.
Sophrosyne
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,577
From today’s Irish Times:
“The Government is finalising plans which would see courts given power to overrule banks when they reject proposals from borrowers with arrears.
Ministers are considering proposals to allow the Circuit Court to impose alternative arrangements to those suggested by banks or other lenders.
Currently, banks can veto deals arranged by advisers to struggling borrowers.
The Government is expected to announce its final mortgage arrears package at the end of the month, following the spring economic statement.
In what would amount to a significant weakening of the banks’ veto, the Circuit Court could decide proposals put forward by advisers to people in mortgage distress offered a viable route to “return to solvency”, according to sources.”
“The Government is finalising plans which would see courts given power to overrule banks when they reject proposals from borrowers with arrears.
Ministers are considering proposals to allow the Circuit Court to impose alternative arrangements to those suggested by banks or other lenders.
Currently, banks can veto deals arranged by advisers to struggling borrowers.
The Government is expected to announce its final mortgage arrears package at the end of the month, following the spring economic statement.
In what would amount to a significant weakening of the banks’ veto, the Circuit Court could decide proposals put forward by advisers to people in mortgage distress offered a viable route to “return to solvency”, according to sources.”
Same old, same old....71 cases, very few turned up and even fewer repossessions took place
And that last sentence sums it all up...officers of the Court blatantly ignoring contract law and letting emotions dictate proceedings
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,718
Wow!
Karl Deeter, Séamus Coffey and I were accused of having drawn unjustified conclusions from a very small sample. I was even accused of drawing conclusions based on my biases.
But now, New Beginning, who presumably, don't have whatever biased I am alleged to have has reached the same conclusions in two other courts.
https://twitter.com/RossMaguireNB/status/590484312895676416
Anyone who had seen the orders I have seen could not possibly argue with them. Many more would have been frustrated at the refusal of orders which seemed wholly justified.
And then you have a guy like Danmo being frightened by his bank and by the hysteria over repossessions when it's totally unwarranted.
BOI have declared my mortgage 'unsustainable' but I am not in arrears
Brendan
Karl Deeter, Séamus Coffey and I were accused of having drawn unjustified conclusions from a very small sample. I was even accused of drawing conclusions based on my biases.
But now, New Beginning, who presumably, don't have whatever biased I am alleged to have has reached the same conclusions in two other courts.
https://twitter.com/RossMaguireNB/status/590484312895676416
Anyone who had seen the orders I have seen could not possibly argue with them. Many more would have been frustrated at the refusal of orders which seemed wholly justified.
And then you have a guy like Danmo being frightened by his bank and by the hysteria over repossessions when it's totally unwarranted.
BOI have declared my mortgage 'unsustainable' but I am not in arrears
Brendan
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,718
Hi Delboy
I have found it difficult to work out what will happen to the 8,000 cases currently before the Circuit Courts.
As I understand it, there are only three ultimate outcomes which removed them from further hearings
1) An order for possession
2) Strike out
3) Adjourned generally with liberty to re-enter
(Some of the Registrars don't like general adjournments, so they adjourn it for 6 months. If the lender strikes it out, and the borrower stops paying, the lender has to start from scratch. I don't think that is fair on the lender as borrowers can take advantage of it.)
The mystery is that only around 10% of current cases fall into these categories. You can usually tell when a case is the first listing or later listing, but you can't tell whether it's the second listing or the 12th listing. If the lender sticks to their guns and insists on an order for repossession can the Registrar keep adjourning it every time? I just don't know.
I have found it difficult to work out what will happen to the 8,000 cases currently before the Circuit Courts.
As I understand it, there are only three ultimate outcomes which removed them from further hearings
1) An order for possession
2) Strike out
3) Adjourned generally with liberty to re-enter
(Some of the Registrars don't like general adjournments, so they adjourn it for 6 months. If the lender strikes it out, and the borrower stops paying, the lender has to start from scratch. I don't think that is fair on the lender as borrowers can take advantage of it.)
The mystery is that only around 10% of current cases fall into these categories. You can usually tell when a case is the first listing or later listing, but you can't tell whether it's the second listing or the 12th listing. If the lender sticks to their guns and insists on an order for repossession can the Registrar keep adjourning it every time? I just don't know.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,718
More data from New Beginning
'Fear factor' driving no-shows at hearings
From last Sunday's Independent
Only a fraction of homeowners were present at more than 700 family home repossessions cases that were heard in courts around the country last week.
"It is difficult to say what will happen into the future - but clearly, where borrowers are trying their best and where they are engaging with the lender, the local County Registrars are just not willing to make orders of repossession of family homes," Mr Downey added.
'Fear factor' driving no-shows at hearings
From last Sunday's Independent
Only a fraction of homeowners were present at more than 700 family home repossessions cases that were heard in courts around the country last week.
"It is difficult to say what will happen into the future - but clearly, where borrowers are trying their best and where they are engaging with the lender, the local County Registrars are just not willing to make orders of repossession of family homes," Mr Downey added.
Well, it seems that this is the case...the Registrar is repeatedly adjourning for 6 months at a time. Is enforcing Contract law now no longer part of the Courts remit !
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,718
I am told David Hall will be on the Pat Kenny Show on Newstalk talking about "4,000 repossessions" if anyone wants to ring in or text the programme to put questions to him. the programme starts at 10, but I don't know what time he will be on at.
epicaricacy
Registered User
- Messages
- 206
Hi Brendan
The following is what I wrote on Friday.
'I'm not disputing the veracity of the contents of the above table. However, I'm disputing the 'conclusions' and inferences that the article writer(s) have made from such a small sample size (68 non adjournments) and from the fact that the 'evidence' was so sketchy.'
The 'conclusions' and 'inferences' refer to your comments re. the number of strategic defaulters amongst those not paying their mortgage. I read yesterday that you believed that there are 20,000 strategic defaulters in Ireland. What empirical evidence have you to support this hypothesis?
In addition, I'm suggesting that The Einstellung Effect is at play here - whereby your prior expressed beliefs / opinions regarding the behaviours of a certain percentage of defaulters compromised your ability to see any other possibilty in your 'findings'. In other words, the integrity of the research was doomed by an initial bias.
[/QUOTE]
The above is a common failing with research and explains, for example, what happened to the research that 'established' a casual relationship between the MMR vaccine and Autism a number of years ago. The simple reality is that youself and Karl Deeter have been suggesting for years that at least 20% of defaulters are strategic. I can't see from your 'empirical research' how you can come to this conclusion. Are you prepared to elucidate on the methodology of your research and the exact 'findings' that have proven your hypothesis regarding the 20,000 strategic defaulters?
Ross Maguire's 'findings' seem to be comparable to yours. As I wrote on Friday, 'I'm not disputing the veracity of the contents of the above table'.
Crucially, Ross Maguire is not drawing the same 'conclusions' as you, Karl and Seamus regarding the percentage of strategic defaulters.
In fact, he's supporting David Hall's assertion that the non appearance in court is related to fear / inability to pay as opposed to the conclusion that you, Karl and Seamus seemed to arrive at - namely, that non payment and non appearance proved that the defaulter was strategic.
The following is what I wrote on Friday.
'I'm not disputing the veracity of the contents of the above table. However, I'm disputing the 'conclusions' and inferences that the article writer(s) have made from such a small sample size (68 non adjournments) and from the fact that the 'evidence' was so sketchy.'
The 'conclusions' and 'inferences' refer to your comments re. the number of strategic defaulters amongst those not paying their mortgage. I read yesterday that you believed that there are 20,000 strategic defaulters in Ireland. What empirical evidence have you to support this hypothesis?
In addition, I'm suggesting that The Einstellung Effect is at play here - whereby your prior expressed beliefs / opinions regarding the behaviours of a certain percentage of defaulters compromised your ability to see any other possibilty in your 'findings'. In other words, the integrity of the research was doomed by an initial bias.
[/QUOTE]
The above is a common failing with research and explains, for example, what happened to the research that 'established' a casual relationship between the MMR vaccine and Autism a number of years ago. The simple reality is that youself and Karl Deeter have been suggesting for years that at least 20% of defaulters are strategic. I can't see from your 'empirical research' how you can come to this conclusion. Are you prepared to elucidate on the methodology of your research and the exact 'findings' that have proven your hypothesis regarding the 20,000 strategic defaulters?
Ross Maguire's 'findings' seem to be comparable to yours. As I wrote on Friday, 'I'm not disputing the veracity of the contents of the above table'.
Crucially, Ross Maguire is not drawing the same 'conclusions' as you, Karl and Seamus regarding the percentage of strategic defaulters.
In fact, he's supporting David Hall's assertion that the non appearance in court is related to fear / inability to pay as opposed to the conclusion that you, Karl and Seamus seemed to arrive at - namely, that non payment and non appearance proved that the defaulter was strategic.
Last edited:
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,718
Hi epi
Every time I estimate that there are around 20,000 people who are deliberate defaulters, I get told that I have no evidence.
Given that we have around 600,000 people with home loans, I reckon an estimate of 3% is probably on the low side.
Now we have evidence of people paying nothing and not showing up in court. What is that evidence of? People trying hard? People doing their best? These people are choosing not to pay their mortgage. I suspect that there is a variety of reasons - but the main one is just pure irresponsibility. They have believed up to now that there is little sanction for not paying. They don't mind imposing the cost on other mortgage payers.
As I have said repeatedly, I will pay higher taxes to help people on social welfare who are struggling with their mortgage or their rent. But I don't want to pay for deals for the deliberate defaulters.
Brendan
Every time I estimate that there are around 20,000 people who are deliberate defaulters, I get told that I have no evidence.
Given that we have around 600,000 people with home loans, I reckon an estimate of 3% is probably on the low side.
Now we have evidence of people paying nothing and not showing up in court. What is that evidence of? People trying hard? People doing their best? These people are choosing not to pay their mortgage. I suspect that there is a variety of reasons - but the main one is just pure irresponsibility. They have believed up to now that there is little sanction for not paying. They don't mind imposing the cost on other mortgage payers.
As I have said repeatedly, I will pay higher taxes to help people on social welfare who are struggling with their mortgage or their rent. But I don't want to pay for deals for the deliberate defaulters.
Brendan