Residential Mortgage Arrears, Restructures and Repossessions


The Central Bank’s Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears only applies to borrowers’ “primary residence”. That is defined by either the property ordinarily occupied by the borrower or the only property owned by the borrower within the state. Hence, if a borrower is residing elsewhere, and owns the property elsewhere, the Lender involved does not even have to apply the CCMA to that the property under that mortgage account and can take possession of it much more easily. Properties and borrowers concerned involving that bracket of properties are afforded much less protection as a result!

So I wouldn’t really say that leaving those properties vacant is in anyone’s best interest at all to be honest.


Ken Smollen is a former garda and poverty activist (homelessness, housing, food) in Offaly. He goes OTT a bit in his description of banks though.


Boo Hoo - let’s vote back in FF, jack property prices to the moon, get the credit flowing and condemn another generation to negative equity.

Houses - they don’t make 'em any more…


some seriously emotive shite there - him and Kitty Holland should team up


Agreed - by letting the issue linger on as long as they have they have actually exacerbated the human tragedy. Had there been a speedier default process in this country a lot of people would have been getting on with their lives and we’d probably have a better functioning housing market.


You have to love the Central Bank: … -1.2986440

What “sharp moderation”?

Actions such as this will have lots of secondary consequences.

Meanwhile, they do nothing about supply such as increasing the speed of repossessions.

Completely disjointed, disconnected and misaligned housing policies. What is Simpleton Simon doing?

#3747 … 19018.html

9 years ago. Good grief :unamused:


And after 9 years the judge “an order for possession with a six months stay on execution of the court’s order”



As he’s back living at home, I wonder has the house being rented?


Yes, it’s in the text. 6 months good news for the tenants then.


The tenants who no doubt aren’t in arrears wouldn’t have been afforded the same six months leniency.


+1 on that, but it’s the sad reality everybody accepts & why most people strive for ownership here.


What makes you think that?

My understanding it takes 12-24 months to evict a non-paying tenant.


It must be a very blunt axe being used on the door so.


Will a sharpen axe cut through the layers of red tape needed? :slight_smile:


7 days in this case


Plus the six months it took to get to court.


That’s not relevant. My point was how long is afforded after the court appearance.

But if you want to discuss the 9 years it took the original case even get to repossession stage for the “homeowner” to the 6 months for eviction of the tenants it hardly paints a much better picture does it?


I thought we were discussing the 12-24 months it takes to evict a non-paying tenant :blush:

I see you only want to discuss the notice given after the landlord spends 12-24 months pursuing the non-paying tenant through the RTB and the courts (ignoring any legal costs involved) to get a judgement in his favour.

You are right - 7 days hardly seems fair :wink:


I specifically said, Not in arrears on rent. Glad we agree. :slight_smile: