John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

My next question relates to receivers. I am always intrigued by the appointment of receivers. Like Deputy Troy, I have experience of a case where receivers were appointed. From the description I received from customers, not only to do with AIB but also other banks and other properties, they tend to run roughshod over the rights of people. There might be a question over the collection of rent from the property or sweating the asset to get the best possible amount of money out of it while they are waiting for sale or for the legal conclusion to something. We have tried to get receivers in here. If anyone is listening to this from a receivers group and they want to come before us to explain their role when appointed by the banks and courts, they might come forward and give their side of the story. They are more than welcome to do so. With cases where they go to court and there are receivers involved and the customer still feels aggrieved by the way they have been treated, is there a section in the bank that will look at that above and beyond the normal? In other words, these are not normal cases; receivers are involved and obviously there has been a difficulty between the bank and the customer. Because a receiver has been appointed it has ended up in court and got very messy and maybe the easiest thing to do is to sell it on to a vulture fund. Would the debt resolution financial solutions group look at a case further, despite all the efforts that have been made? If there is an aggrieved family, individual or company and they cannot believe what is happening to them, they feel it is a terrible injustice and they want to have some form of independent hearing apart from going down a legal route, will the bank accommodate that?