Ms Derville Rowland:

The first thing I wish to say that no vulture fund should be dealing directly with a consumer at all. That is prohibited. If the case involves a buy-to-let property, the person should not be dealing with the woman directly. The funds can only operate in the legislative framework through the regulated entity. They cannot operate directly. If that is happening, it should not be happening.

Senator Conway-Walsh asked about the protections. Let us suppose the case involves a buy-to-let property where the person owns more than one property. The protections of the consumer protection code would not permit harassing behaviours or threatening or menacing behaviours. That would not be permitted as a way of engaging with the consumer.

This is the approach even in respect of a buy-to-let property if it is in addition to the family home. The aim of the engagement as envisaged by the code is constructive. The idea is to assist and to come to resolution. There may be cases involving an unsustainable situation, unfortunately. None of the behaviour, however, should be threatening, menacing or harassing, as described by Senator Conway-Walsh.