Aideen Hayden (Labour) | Oireachtas source

Very well. It is very important to have information on all the proposed solutions as to how they break down between mortgages that are in negative equity and those that are in positive equity. It also is important to state that unfortunately, the figures do not look as rosy as they might appear. I am aware that Deputy Pearse Doherty has alluded to this point but for the sake of argument, I did a tot on the buy-to-let market. I noticed that when one takes into account the assisted voluntary sales, again I am deeply suspicious in that regard, there actually are 3,000 cases in which legal proceedings are being initiated and 1,400 in which there are sustainable solutions. As 20% of the people of Ireland live in rented accommodation, that is not a particularly good outcome for many of those who rent their homes.

I must echo the comments made by Deputy Kevin Humphreys on the current position regarding separated couples. There is a very serious problem in respect of such couples. I have encountered two cases in which court orders have been made ordering the transfer of the family home from one spouse to the other and ordering the mortgage to be placed in the sole name of one of the couple. The lending institutions concerned, one of which is AIB, have given effect to neither of those orders. Given the proportion of people in Ireland who are separated, divorced or in partnerships but not married, it certainly appears to me that a real solution to this problem will not be found unless some change can be made to the code of conduct on mortgage arrears, CCMA. Incidentally, under chapter 1 of the aforementioned code of conduct as it applies to joint borrowers who notify their lender in writing that they have separated or divorced, the code provides that the lenders should treat each borrower as a single borrower. However, that is not happening and something must change to permit it to happen. Again, while I do not wish to be prescriptive in this regard, I have encountered cases in which borrowers have come after one of the signatories on the mortgage deed because that person was a good mark. I cannot understand how, when the situation is reversed and one party is willing to pay the mortgage and to go forward, that for whatever reason, a legal outcome cannot be found to permit them to so do.

I also wish to ascertain how AIB is treating a certain category of people. I refer to those who have bought properties they now are forced to rent because the properties in question no longer are suited to their needs. They are in a category that I would call rent to rent, whereby they are renting out their own property in one location and are renting another property somewhere else because they clearly are stuck. First, has AIB encountered this situation, which certainly exists in reality? Second, how is AIB treating these people? Does the bank regard them as being in breach of their mortgage deed if, for the sake of argument, they bought a principal private residence on a tracker? Does AIB consider that mortgage as having been breached? Would the bank revoke a tracker mortgage in that situation? How is AIB dealing with this category of borrower?