Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Would it be fair to say that in some cases the customer who was originally the holder of the mortgage has been disadvantaged in the sense that their loan has been sold on and it has been administered in some way, shape or form that they do not know about? They only know that the mortgage has gone from them and the property is gone in many cases as well. The property is already repossessed by one method or another. This has been revealed again and again as likely to happen to people who have been in difficulty with mortgages. We know all that.

What I am worried about is that there seems to be an urgency now about receivership. These financial services companies seem to be hell-bent on getting into receivership in order to get hold of the possibility of getting the tenant or borrower out and disposing of the property in some way that is suitable and acceptable, or handing it back to the original borrower now that it has been thrashed out in a different arena. What is happening in relation to that? For example, there are cases where a main breadwinner in a household will have gotten a severe heart attack or some other health issue and it was a life-altering situation. They may not be able to pay anything in that situation. How do the different banks view their situation? The financial servicing companies are not very sympathetic.