Have to agree with Mr A. In addition many of these individuals did not have their houses up as collateral against the loans - the rich have ways to do this that lesser mortals do not. This is the thing we need to end - since the early 1980s the economic model that we have followed in the west has encouraged the privatisation of profits and the socialisation of losses - this is only to the benefit of the rich - the losses of the poor are still penalised - it leads to the concentration of wealth. The only way we can change this is to educate people to vote for politicians who do not believe in this model, and to educate the politicians who say they don’t believe in it on how to change it (Eoin Ó Broin - are you listening? - in your review on a book on the housing crisis you talk about the ‘thorny’ problem of property taxes - it ain’t thorny son - it is the only wealth tax that we have in this country and it’s a great place to start taxing wealth - that’s why the books authors mention it - you might have to eat a bit of humble pie and call it something else - but it is a neccessity, it’s on the statute books and could be easily tweaked to satisfy most people on the left - everybody is scared to touch it because they know there’s a bunch of people out there who want to portray it as the new water charges - all you are doing is keeping a bunch of very wealthy people very happy)
I think if we want to increase protection of PPRs we have to ban banks from using PPRs as collateral for loans taken out for business and investment purposes. Similarly for agricultural loans the loan will have to use land rather than PPRs as collateral. This would prove difficult for the banks as they seem to have great difficulty lending to a business based on the likelihood of the success of the business as this would require them to do some due diligence on the business plan rather than taking the lazy route of mortgaging the PPR - I refused a business loan when I was told the only way I could get it was to put up my PPR - I was already putting up 60% of the capital myself. Another beneficial side effect of this would be an end to borrow-to-let which has been this country’s financial cancer.
In general what I hear from people working in the banks is that early engagement with the banks allowed many people to stay in their homes on plans that were ultimately beneficial to both parties. However I think it likely that some people engaged too early and did not benefit from the bounce - it’s also possible they got bigger write-offs so maybe it balances out. People who didn’t engage had their loans sold off to the debt collection agencies - this is standard practice in all lending - for most debts it goes 30, 60, 90 days - Debt Collection. For a PPR it will go longer as the bank often has other relationships with the customer. However if you mess with them they know they don’t have the patience and/or the ability to deal with these kind of situations , they also don’t want the kind of ugly publicity that these customers can raise. KBC knew that the Roscommon customer was going to be awkward - it seems strange (arrogant?) that they could believe that they could handle this themselves.