Caít Keane (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I want to say a few words on this important issue while the Minister of State is present. Receivership is the most important issue that affects us all, in Government and in Opposition, and anyone we know. Last Saturday, I visited a woman whose bank has refused to co-operate with her personal insolvency practitioner, a scenario which says it all. She had agreed, with the assistance of her PIP, to set up a payment and had taken in a student because she would quality for €12,000 of the money from doing that being free from tax. Unfortunately, Permanent TSB offered her just three options: to get out, give the house to the bank or sell the house. If she agreed to do so, she would be left homeless. Last week her PIP wrote the following to the bank:

I find your approach to the issue astonishing. There is no argument to the fact that the debtor is in arrears but she has seen that your sole objective in this case is to recover your money and take the house.

The fact is the house is in positive equity. It is also located in a poorer area of Dublin which is a good area and has good people living there. One option the bank gave the woman was to trade down. I do not believe one could trade down much further than Jobstown. She owns the house but all the bank has done is offer to take her house. The letter continued:

The fact that the house is in positive equity now seems to strengthen your position, in your view. Your letter lists various options the debtor has but all of them involve the bank realising its money in full. You give no thought to the debtor or to the Irish taxpayer. If the debtor has to sell the property she will be forced to go on the housing list in south Dublin. The Irish taxpayer has bailed you out and you allow for nothing, which serves the stress of this situation on this woman is having to bear.

I wish to appeal this decision and the grounds for appeal are: That she has now been allowed her mortgage interest supplement; she is taking in a student for college; and she will receive the €100 per week for a period of 8 months. This will mean that she can afford the interest repayment of €407 per month, as outlined in our telephone conversation.

This appeal was refused last week. What is the bank trying to do? Is it trying to recover a property that is in positive equity? Does it wish to sell it on? Does it want to put the woman out of her home and leave her homeless? This is only one case I know of. I wanted to mention the case while the Minister of State was present because something needs to be done quickly to resolve the matter.

I noted that the Minister of State said "the Government has already made it clear [which I am aware of and he has done so himself] that it will shortly be announcing a package of measures to support the existing framework and improve the uptake of personal insolvency solutions". The person I mentioned availed of the personal insolvency solution but got short shift. Therefore, we need an independent analysis of receivership. The banks should not have the right to say to a personal insolvency agency: "Sorry, we are not listening to you." We must veto the banks saying such things.

The Minister of State continued: "The overall aim of the Government's approach to this issue remains the same as it has always been, which is to ensure that a full range of options is available". In reality, the options that are being offered at the moment are poor. In this case, the bank suggested the woman trade down even though she had offered to pay the money. Granted, she is in arrears and there is no denying that fact. She had a business but fell on hard times through suffering a separation. The Minister of State also stated that the Government's aim is "to keep as many people in their homes as possible". I will forward this letter by a PIP agent to the Minister of State because it will prove worthwhile in terms of research.