Mr. Patrick Sharkey:

What was of immediate concern was knowing that a relatively small handful of demolitions had proceeded, knowing that there were mortgages on the properties. It appears to me as being an absolute dereliction of duty and a lack of professionalism in regard to the lender not being aware that this clause exists. I also have concerns about a Government designed scheme that could allow a homeowner to go down this route without procuring the written consent of the lender. At the end of the day, it simply says on the terms and conditions that the debt is immediately payable where demolition happens. Aside from that, it was very clear that where there is damage contained within a property, regardless of whether that is the fault of the homeowner, it effectively diminishes or in fact removes any value as collateral. It is a demand event.

The bigger picture here is that in the context of the largest state-funded redress scheme globally, surely to God in relation to value for taxpayers' money – of course we are all taxpayers – at the centre of this scheme should be that any damage or any lingering damage is removed so that these homes are not alone restored for our own purposes in our lifetime, but that we are looking at homes that are the homes of our children. In the natural flow of life, in future people may decide they want to sell their homes. People should know that their homes can be mortgaged for a new family to come along and purchase them. To be honest, our group was absolutely gobsmacked. We were always aware that there was conditionality and responsibilities on homeowners to keep a property in good repair, but we have very serious concerns with the damage clause and where a scheme does not have the elimination of damage at its core.