Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

259. To ask the Minister for Finance in relation to mortgage holders, the number of individual mortgage holders, with all banks, that are now involved in legal proceedings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31455/14]

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Central Bank's Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears (CCMA) places an onus on the banks, in respect of a co-operating borrower, to explore all the options for an alternative repayment arrangement offered by the lender to address a primary dwelling mortgage difficulty before any legal action is considered. 

The CCMA provides that lenders may only commence legal proceedings for repossession where they have already made every reasonable effort to agree an alternative arrangement with a cooperating borrower and the Central Bank has informed me that it does not expect that repossession will be the lender's preferred solution to mortgage difficulties and in most cases engagement by the borrower will make the legal course unnecessary.

As the Deputy is aware, any bank proceeding to legal recourse with co-operating borrowers, in circumstances where an alternative sustainable arrangement is feasible and can be agreed, is not acting in a manner consistent with the Mortgage Arrears Resolution Process (MARP) process, or with the CCMA.  Of course, the CCMA and MARP can only achieve positive results in circumstances where the borrower cooperates with the lender and engages with the process.  Where this does not happen, the lender may have no other option but to go down the legal route to deal with an arrears case.  However, if that course of action leads the borrower to commence a constructive engagement, this can lead to a more favourable conclusion for the respective parties. It should also be noted however, that even if the MARP process has concluded and where legal proceedings have commenced, the CCMA requires that a lender must continue to maintain contact with the borrower (and/or his nominated representative) periodically to see if an alternative repayment arrangement can be agreed even at that late stage.

The latest Central Bank statistics for the quarter ending March 2014 () showed during that quarter, legal proceedings were issued to enforce the debt-security on a principal dwelling house in 3,093 cases. 

It is important to point out that even if a repossession case has commenced in the legal system, the Land and Conveyancing (Law Reform) Act 2013 now provides a power to the Court to adjourn a repossession proceeding in relation to a principal private residence to enable the borrower to consult a personal insolvency practitioner (PIP) and, where appropriate, to instruct the PIP to make a Personal Insolvency Arrangement (PIA) proposal.  In formulating a proposal for a PIA, the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 places an onus on a PIP to do so on terms that shall not insofar as reasonably practicable, require the borrower to dispose of an interest or cease to occupy a principal private residence.

The strong view of the Government is that, in respect of co-operating borrowers under the Mortgage Arrears Resolution Process, repossession of a person's primary home should only be considered as a last resort. Every effort should be made to agree an acceptable arrangement as an alternative to repossession. Regretfully, however, it must also be accepted that due to the individual circumstances, not all mortgages can be made sustainable and that in these limited circumstances, it will be in the best interests of both parties to resolve the situation in a fair manner.