Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:"Amendment of section 108 of Land And Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009

2. Section 108 of the Land And Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 is amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1):

"(1A) (a) In the case of a housing loan mortgage, notwithstanding the terms of the mortgage agreement or anything to the contrary set out in subsection (1), a mortgagee may not appoint a receiver without the permission of the Circuit Court.

(b) An application to appoint a receiver pursuant to paragraph (a) shall be made to the Circuit Court on notice to the mortgagor. In considering an application for an Order to appoint a receiver the Court may make such enquiries as it considers necessary to determine whether the appointment of a receiver is necessary for the purpose of receiving any income or other property as set out in subsection (1)(c) deriving from the property. Having made such enquiry, and heard the parties to the proceedings, the Court may refuse the Order sought or may grant an Order on such terms as it considers appropriate in the circumstances.".".

We discussed these issues on Committee Stage but I wish to raise them again because they are important. They pertain to individuals who would not enjoy the protections of this legislation or any other Act concerning repossession because they would fall within the ambit of receivership. Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, has experience of the problem, which has the potential to escalate. It relates to those who bought a property with a mortgage with a view to its being the family home but who, for whatever reason, had to leave it and let it out with a view to using the rent to make mortgage repayments, with every intention of returning to the home in the medium to longer term. Very often, these individuals are trying their very best to keep up to date with their repayments. We are trying, through our amendment, to rectify the problem so they will be in a position to benefit from the system. They have very little protection and are not covered because, since they are not in the property, a receiver can move in. The proposition is very reasonable. I realise the Minister has made statements about delays but I do not believe that is the way this process should work. I understand this is useful legislation and we support it. It offers vital protection to those it covers. If the amendment is not accepted, there may not be another appropriate opportunity soon to deal with this issue. It is important that it has been tabled. I will be pressing it.

See this speech in context