Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator for raising this important issue.

Before giving him a proper answer in respect of the Central Bank and mortgage protection, as a constituency Deputy, I completely understand the scenario he is raising. I will not comment on any individual case but I too have had cases of mortgage holders trying to contact providers and not being able to get through. If it is the other way around, such communication is registered as a "not call back". There is an imbalance in respect of communication and in how people engage. I fully understand that from a constituency Deputy perspective. That is why in the Department of Finance we have raised this with the Central Bank. I know that the senior Minister, Deputy McGrath, in his monthly engagements with the Governor has asked whether the Central Bank believes it needs any more powers, beyond the powers it currently has in respect of non-bank lenders at present.

At present, as the Senator will be aware, the Central Bank has a range of measures to protect consumers who have taken out mortgages. The consumer protection framework seeks to ensure that all Central Bank regulated entities, such as the ones the Senator described, are transparent and fair in all of their dealings with borrowers and that borrowers are protected from the beginning to the end of the mortgage life cycle. For example, through initial marketing and advertising, in assessing affordability and suitability, but also at a time where borrowers may find themselves in financial difficulties. That may or may not be the case in the situation the Senator has mentioned, or in situations where there are non-bank lenders involved where these may well be performing loans. This applies to all scenarios, at all stages of the holding of a mortgage. This consumer protection framework applies to all Central Bank regulated entities that provide mortgage or other credit to consumers.

In addition, following the Consumer Protection (Regulation of Retail Credit and Credit Servicing Firms) Act 2015 and 2018, any entity that services or holds the legal title to the rights of a creditor under such a mortgage or other credit agreement will, unless it already has an appropriate authorisation from the Central Bank, be required to be authorised by the bank as a credit servicing retail credit firm. These entities, which are often referred to as vulture funds, must act in accordance with Irish financial services law, and with the consumer protection regulatory framework that applies to all Central Bank regulated firms. It is currently the case, therefore, that where a loan is sold or assigned to another entity, the consumer protections that were available to borrowers prior to the transaction continue to be in place with the new owner. This ensures the relevant borrowers maintain the same regulatory protections they had when the loan was originally made, including under the various Central Bank statutory codes of conduct such the Consumer Protection Code and the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears, CCMA.In particular, the code of conduct on mortgage arrears provides specific protections for borrowers in arrears facing the prospect of arrears on a loan secured on a primary residence. All relevant regulated entities, such as a bank, a retail credit firm or a credit servicing firm, must proactively encourage borrowers to engage with it about financial difficulties that may prevent them from meeting their mortgage repayments. Moreover, where a borrower is experiencing repayment difficulty, a regulated entity must explore all the options for an alternative repayment arrangement offered by the entity to determine whether a more suitable and sustainable repayment option is available based on the borrower's individual circumstances.

If a borrower is not satisfied with the options proposed, or if the regulated entity declines to offer an ARA, an appeals mechanism is provided for in the CCMA. In addition, a regulated entity must review an ARA at intervals that are appropriate to the type and duration of the arrangement, including at least 30 calendar days.

Nevertheless, in practicality, I understand that the case the Senator described is as much about communication with the entity as anything else. It is about being able to reach somebody at the other end of the phone, and it relates to a much more basic level of communication, in the first instance for example, than what I have described.

I have run out of time but I will give more detail in my follow-up response.