Mr. Paul Joyce:

We make the point in the course of our submission that even if the legislation achieves its stated aim to ensure that the CCMA applies to all mortgage providers, whether the original lender or an entity that buys the loan, the code itself is now an inadequate infrastructure for the protection of borrowers in arrears anyway. I agree completely with the Vice Chairman's point that declarations of non-co-operation are made by lenders in relation to borrowers whose standard financial statements seem to never have arrived at the lenders' offices. We have seen it. Declarations are made where bits and pieces of information have gone missing and where there is a couple who have separated and one of the borrowers fills out the standard financial statement but the other borrower does not wish to do so. There is a multifaceted definition of non-co-operation in the code of conduct on mortgage arrears and we do not even have figures from the Central Bank as to how many cases of non-co-operation lenders have declared since the code was amended in July 2013.

Furthermore, there is an expanded suite of so-called "alternative repayment arrangements" set out in the legislation. However, the lender is only obliged to pursue those repayment arrangements which it chooses itself to offer and has no obligation to offer any alternative repayment arrangement. It seems to me that if I was the acquirer of a loan portfolio, I would not be too worried about the code of conduct on mortgage arrears and would be putting in place the processes required to tick the boxes under it knowing that there was no right of appeal. If one looks at the website of the Financial Services Ombudsman, that office has made it abundantly clear that it will only deal with complaints related to abuse of process under the code and will not review the three crucial decisions that can adversely affect borrowers under it. Those are a declaration of non-co-operation, a refusal to offer an alternative repayment arrangement and, therefore, to declare the mortgage unsustainable, or to offer such a restrictive alternative repayment arrangement that the borrower refuses it and is then adjudicated to be outside the process. When one finds oneself in that position, the MARP no longer applies and legal proceedings can be brought against one within three months of the lender informing one that one is outside the code. To put the tin hat on it, there is no legal aid available for defendant borrowers who find themselves on the receiving end of proceedings.

We have set out in the submission the recent comment of the Governor of the Central Bank that he believed - or seemed to suggest - that many defendants in legal proceedings for repossession were non-co-operators. While some are not co-operating, many borrowers who have co-operated right through the process are now in the Circuit Court facing repossession proceedings. It is one thing to put in place the same protections for borrowers of all creditors, but are the protections themselves adequate in the first place? We are at a very critical juncture where we await the Central Bank's quarter 3 figures, but we know that in the first six months of the year there have been over 6,000 repossession applications. The numbers have mushroomed.

Simultaneously, the restructuring arrangements under the mortgage arrears resolution target set out by the Central Bank are quite slow. If one looks at the statistics, progress is quite slow. The number of arrears cases have declined, but we are not even sure whether there is double counting going on. There is a lot of capitalising of arrears going on, which is bizarre as it would appear to involve a higher instalment being paid by a borrower who was already in financial difficulty. While some people's situations have improved, it is not the 25,000 odd who have been offered arrears capitalisation. Whether it is the original lender or the purchaser of debt, consumers are very vulnerable and nothing seems to have changed.