Mr. Seamus Carroll:

I can only speak for what is in the 1881 Act and the 2009 Act. In both of those situations the receiver is appointed by the lender, but is the agent of the borrower. The general duty of the receiver is to secure the property and to act for the lender in terms of servicing the loan. There are certain obligations when it comes to acting fairly in the interests of the borrower. Deputy Doherty mentioned what appeared to be a fire sale, which would appear to be contrary to the law, because the legal obligation set out in the legislation is to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable for the property, in other words, to act fairly in the interests of the borrower, not just of the lender. As I mentioned earlier, that can lead to tension where one has tenants in a situation because if it is residential property, for instance, one will not maximise the sale price of the property unless there is vacant possession. That is where one potentially comes into a conflict between the interests of the borrower on the one hand, as the receiver has duties towards the borrower, and towards the lender on the other hand. A missing part of the jigsaw at the moment is rights towards tenants who may be caught in the crossfire between a mortgagor, the borrower, who wants to maximise the sale price to reduce debt and the obligation on the receiver to service the loan on the other hand.