Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

170. To ask the Minister for Finance if he will provide a schedule of the properties held by NAMA and leased to the OPW which were subsequently disposed of either through selling of loan books or through placing owners in receivership since NAMA was established. [2705/22]

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

171. To ask the Minister for Finance if he will provide a schedule of meetings between NAMA and the OPW in respect of taking on leases and or ownership of properties that were within the control of NAMA since NAMA was established. [2706/22]

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 170 and 171 together.

As the Deputy will be aware, NAMA does not typically own or sell properties, rather NAMA owns loans for which properties act as security. Secured properties remain in the ownership and control of their registered owners, or appointed receivers where applicable. These parties are responsible for all matters relating to the management of secured properties, including engagement with State agencies who may have an interest in the property.

I am advised by NAMA that its debtors and receivers have engaged with the OPW on numerous occasions regarding properties which were secured to NAMA. In some cases, this engagement resulted in secured assets being leased or sold to the OPW by the debtor/receiver however, NAMA, as mortgage holder, was not directly involved in any engagement between the parties. Under sections 99 and 202 of the NAMA Act 2009, NAMA is unable to divulge confidential information regarding NAMA debtors or their assets, or transactions in which they are involved. It is therefore not possible to identify the particular assets which were leased or sold to the OPW as to do so would identify the owners as NAMA debtors. In the event that there was a sale of any loans secured by property leased to the OPW, I am advised that this would not have impacted the ownership or tenancy of the secured property.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, I am advised that NAMA, following reasonable searches of its records, has identified meeting with the OPW on at least two occasions in relation to assets which were secured to the Agency:

- In respect of one of these assets, which was subject to litigation between the debtor and OPW, NAMA met with the OPW and Department of Housing in January 2012 at the request of the Department of Finance to see if the litigation could be resolved. The matter was subsequently resolved between the debtor and the OPW after High Court proceedings.

- In respect of another Dublin city centre property secured to NAMA, NAMA and the appointed receiver met with the OPW in October 2015. At that time, the OPW owned the adjoining property and the engagement related to the submission of concurrent planning applications for the two adjoining properties.