Mr. David Hall:

I will say a little on this. We will deal with that in due course and short course as an organisation on behalf of three people. It needs to be tried and tested. The exposure needs to be underwritten. There is much support required for anyone who takes on a case such as that and there needs to be correct standing associated with it. To Mr. Kissane’s point, I would 100% agree with him on that interpretation. I believe the only place for that properly to be tested rather than guessing about it is in court. I think we will see some movement on that in due course.

The Central Bank just wants to sit around with a guitar and sing songs for customers. Customers are humans. There cannot be a building full of people whose sole purpose is to regulate that does not want to help consumers or intervene. Why not give members the problem of trying to find legislation to help them protect customers? That is what they should be doing. Instead, it is a hands-off approach to say “No”. The code of conduct of mortgage arrears is a code. The High Court and Supreme Court have deemed it not legally binding. This keeps getting bandied around as if this is the gospel or a bible. It is not. It is an aspirational code. I am not convinced the Central Bank actually knows what is going on within credit firms or vulture funds on a day-to-day basis.