Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am not looking to catch people out in their evidence, but I am astounded. I searched for the answer to check that I was correct. There have been numerous references on the floor of the Dáil to the non-regulation of receivers. Along with other Deputies who had raised the issue, that reply left me with the clear message that this work was ongoing. We can talk about this or that section of the Act, but let us call a spade a spade - receivers are unregulated. In Irish law, they do not have to have any minimum qualification. They are running up large bills. While they are supposed to have a duty of care to the borrowers under Irish law, a borrower seeking to secure that duty is required to go through a legalistic process, which such people are usually not in a position to do because a receiver has been appointed to their premises. This is not about the validity of the appointment of the receiver, but about the receiver's actions. I am not saying that every receiver is involved in actions that are not appropriate.

Of course there should be accountability for whatever receivers have done in the past, but how can our committee move forward? Is there any hope? I believed there was, given the assertion that the matter was being discussed by the CLRG for the past two years. I thought that it might come up with something and that it was just dragging its feet. Will there be any change to the law outside of the report on protecting the rights of tenants where a receiver has been appointed, which we have been waiting on? According to an update in June, it was imminent. Now we have another update claiming it is imminent.

I have raised other issues, those being, fees, the minimum qualifications that a receiver should have and the regulation of those same receivers. Falling back on the claim that they are usually accountants and are regulated by their own body is not good enough. That is like saying that private security firms usually have other roles and are regulated there. That does not work. We have strong legislation on the regulation of security firms. Someone cannot change a lock now without being registered as an appropriate person to undertake the task, although there might be some overreach in that regard. I am not sure that receivers who are walking into properties and changing locks are actually registered with the Private Security Authority, PSA. If someone wanted to change a lock on a front door, that person would have to go through a stringent process in terms of the qualifications he or she would have to meet. The person would have to pay a fee to be registered, meet certain criteria, be Garda vetted and so on. However, were I an institution to whom someone owed a few euro, I could appoint any Tom, Dick or Harry to go in, take over a premises and run it on my behalf and supposedly in the interests of the borrower. The problem is there is no regulation, no minimum standards and, without going to court, no body to complain to for anyone who believes he or she has been wronged where a receiver has been appointed.