Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 21 Jun 2023

Investment Funds (Resumed): Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation

Apologies have been received from Senator Higgins. The minutes of our meeting of 14 June 2023 were agreed earlier in private session. Today the committee will meet representatives of the Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation, IMHO. Everyone will be very familiar with Mr. David Hall.

We are discussing investment funds or vulture funds and their activity in the Irish property market. On behalf of the committee, I welcome Mr. David Hall, Ms Grainne Irwin and Mr. James Byrne.

I draw the witnesses' attention to the position regarding privilege. Witnesses physically present will be given full parliamentary privilege. Those who are outside the precincts, which refers particularly to Ms Irwin, may be entitled to limited privilege. Those who make their contribution here are entitled to full privilege. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of any person. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be asked to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such action. Again, witnesses giving evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence on site.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to they effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in a such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I remind members attending remotely of the constitutional requirements that members must be physically present within the confines of place that parliament has chosen sit, namely, Leinster House, in order to participate in the meetings.

I revert to Mr. Hall, who will give his opening statement first and will be followed by Mr. Byrne.

Mr. David Hall

I thank the committee for the invitation. I do not intend going over what I presented recently when I appeared before the committee because l am aware of members' knowledge of the issue at hand.

I am honoured to be joined by Ms Grainne Irwin and Mr. James Byrne, who will tell their own stories and the horrific impact high mortgage rates being charged by a vulture fund - now Pepper, where they were formerly with Permanent TSB - has had on them and their families. Today is about the stories of Grainne and James, which reflect the experience of tens of thousands of ordinary mortgage holders. They are brave in coming forward and telling their story. It is not easy to do, as many of the committee will understand, be aware of and are sensitive to.

Each time I appear before the committee or on any platform, I remind everyone that this is about real people who have been impacted as humans and fellow citizens and have done nothing wrong. Tens of thousands of people have been sold to vultures without their consent and, in many cases, do not even know who owns their mortgage. These customers have exhausted their own financial reserves, having been gouged by high interest rates, more so recently. The Central Bank, as I have repeated on many occasions, is fast asleep at the wheel and is horrifically conflicted. The Central Bank's definition of "non-preforming loans", NPLs, and its capital policy has caused much of the pain of mortgage holders because it has insisted upon lenders selling their loans to vultures. It remains silent on any help that can be given to those affected and, as I have repeated previously, is not fit for purpose to protect consumers, yet it has a statutory obligation to do so. It must be questioned on the decisions it made and what its plan is for the next customers who fall victim of falling into arrears. Will they then be required to be sold on to vultures again or can we stop what has happened previously?

Ms Irwin and Mr. Byrne embody what is right about mortgage holders who got into difficulty. They did the right thing. They engaged and faced up to the financial challenge. They agreed a restructure at the time with Permanent TSB and made the agreed payments. They were then sold by a State-owned bank, Permanent TSB, to the vulture fund Pepper. Ms Irwin and Mr. Byrne represent thousands of mortgage holders who did the right thing, sacrificed much to pay their mortgage and are now being crippled by high interest rates being charged by Pepper. They and all those who have been gouged by vulture funds deserve help. I would be interested to have the committee analyse at a future date any extra profits that banks and vultures are making from the current interest rates. We have been reassured on multiple occasions but I do not believe for one minute that they are not making additional profits. Respectfully, it is incumbent upon the committee to have a look at that. I have no confidence that the Central Bank can tell us categorically that Pepper requires these rates. I do not know. We are being told it does. Remarkably, the latest interest rate rise was skipped. If it is able to do that, does it actually require those rates to be increased?

I am here with Mr. Byrne and Ms Irwin. This is about their stories, which are far more important than anything I have to repeat. I am here to assist the committee as always.

Mr. Byrne may make his opening statement and he can take his time.

Mr. James Byrne

My name is Jimmy and I am married with two kids. Here is the background to my story. I have been employed since I left school and with the same company for 20 years, serving the public as a bus driver. I bought my house in 2006, with a remortgage in 2007 for €350,000. I believed all I had to do was work hard and pay off the mortgage. When the crash happened in 2008, we got into trouble, with my wife losing hours and pay and eventually losing her job. At that time, we kept engaging with Permanent TSB and broke free from a fixed rate to a variable rate with its blessing. Eventually, through working side by side with Permanent TSB, we got a split mortgage and the arrears were capped at a large interest rate. We were just happy to keep a roof over our head and agreed with Permanent TSB, as we naively believed they were working in our best interest, despite the numerous phone calls threatening us with repossession.

While in one of the meetings with a Permanent TSB manager, we were told that our tracker rate of 3.25% was not a tracker rate and it was too high. We challenged it with its independent complaints team, who are Permanent TSB employees, and they admitted that they guessed the rate but it was the rate none the less. That is the baseline for our current situation with Pepper Finance. Our rate on a split mortgage now is 7.25%.

On the split, our full mortgage was €350,000 and our agreement-spilt was to warehouse €197,000. Through working hard in 2019, we moved more than €89,000 and, in 2021, moved an additional €37,000 from the warehouse account. That total today is €66,000 and we make full payments on the remaining €273,000 at 7.25%. This was done while we were with Permanent TSB.

We were working with the banks when someone in Permanent TSB judged us as a non-preforming loan, even though we had an appeal in with the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, FPSO. Who makes these decisions? I do not know but there was no way to appeal it or stop it from going to Pepper. By the time we received the notification, it was already a done deal.

At first, I did not really mind my loan transferring to Pepper because we were told that all rights and entitlements would go with it. I know I have a loan to pay and did not really care who I had to pay it to. That was until the rates started shooting up. We tried to get a fixed rate but Pepper cannot do that. I asked them how much they paid for my mortgage but they will not tell me. I asked them who owns my mortgage but, again, they cannot tell me. They said it was because they were sold as a portfolio and not individually priced. I can go into a shop and look at all the tins of baked beans. They are all the same but they are all individually priced.

So how has this affected me? First, financially, which is obvious enough. However, more than that, it has impacted on our marriage because most arguments are about money. We are raising our kids to do the right thing in life but they are at an age where they can see for themselves the strain this is putting us under. Health-wise, let us just say I am on medication for life over this due to stress - high blood pressure.

Now the standard financial statements keep coming - we were dealt with by Permanent TSB as well - asking what I see as personal questions on what I spend on shopping, and I should not be doing this or that. I have four mouths to feed, yet they sit in judgment over things like this. In addition, there are other things, like surrendering my pension documents to them as proof that I can pay off the warehouse loan. If I was on a normal rate, I would not have a split mortgage today. However, that goes back to somebody deciding I was have an NPL. The other option they give is to default on other loans. I have worked hard to try pull my credit rating from the gutter but they want to ensure that is where it goes again.

To remain proactive on the loan with Pepper and get off its rollercoaster, I tried everything to get a switcher mortgage and most of the time failed. However, one bank, namely, Bank of Ireland, agreed in principle to loan us €305,000. That would have been a €35,000 shortfall for Pepper. Everybody here knows Pepper probably would have made a massive profit on that, possibly doubling its money. Only Pepper knows because only it knows what it paid for it. Even the person in Money Advice & Budgeting Service, MABS, I dealt with said it would be mad not to accept. Anyway, Pepper rejected it, and now I am really stuck. My mortgage has gone up more than €700 a month in eight months and there is no end in sight.

I am out of options, except one, which is default or some form of insolvency, and I do not want to do that.

There is no discretionary spending in my household. There have been no family holidays since before the pandemic and there are none on the horizon. Every penny is counted and at this stage, it is being questioned. For the record, people like me have no faith in the political system, as I believe it sees us just as banks and vulture funds do - numbers on a spreadsheet - and it does not seem to have the ability to hold them to account. That was until a brave judge in Tullamore delivered, in my opinion, some form of justice and called out the vulture funds on their tactics and held them to account. That decision gives people like me a sign of hope for the future. We are not running away from our responsibilities. We are not looking for special treatment. We do not want to default on any loans we have. We are just looking for fairness and what everyone else who has a mortgage has - the right to a fixed rate at a reasonable rate.

I thank Mr. Byrne. We will go to Ms Irwin, if she is available online.

Ms Grainne Irwin

First, I echo everything Mr. Byrne said. It all sounds familiar to me. I have a similar story. Obviously, it is slightly different because everyone is different. The story goes the same way.

Our mortgage was sold without our consent. By the time we found out about it, I would imagine it was too late. Nonetheless, we wrote to it. We objected. We asked it not to do it. We had, obviously, an idea of how we wanted to sort this out and it was much like Mr. Byrne said.

We had entered into a split-mortgage arrangement with the same bank and we were, since the day we made the arrangement, paying every single penny it asked us for. To this day, we have never been a day late, even during the pandemic. We have never asked for a break. We have never asked for anything. We just picked up, as Mr. Byrne said, where we left off with the bank when the vulture fund took over.

As for how we got here, I was probably the main earner and I lost my job. That, obviously, affected our ability to pay and resulted in arrears which, through dealing with our bank, we sorted out. It came to us and offered us the split mortgage. It was not our idea. It came to us through the Money Advice & Budgeting Service, MABS. We had been dealing with MABS, and that is how we got the split mortgage. We were always prepared to pay it. There was never to be a day where we were to say that we will park that, that is grand and we do not need to bother. We want to own our home. We took out a mortgage because we wanted to own our home. That is not unreasonable. It is very reasonable.

It has taken its toll on us as a family. Similar to Mr. Byrne, I have never taken my children on a holiday. My eldest boy is ten and we have never been able to take him on a holiday because we prioritised paying our mortgage and keeping a roof over their heads. Frankly, that is more important.

We were assured when the mortgage was sold on that every condition we had arranged with our bank would continue because we had just signed up to another arrangement that would have seen us out to the point where I could have gone back to work which was the whole idea and then we would go back to the full payments. As I said, we had a plan.

Within, I would say, a month of it being transferred, we were getting letters stating that it needed us to fill out the standard financial statements. We had done that for the bank but these were different. These were not the same. The people might have been lovely to talk to on the phone but there was always an element of "We are watching you". I used to get the bank statements that we would send to them, get a Sharpie and block out anything that I thought it might take issue with. For example, if I took my children to a drive-through, I would feel like I could not let them see that. That is wrong. I cannot begin to explain what that feels like.

As I said, we have never defaulted since the day we got our arrangement with the bank and we have not defaulted since we have been moved to the vulture fund. I would just love to know what was the criteria. My question always is, who decided my loan that I was meeting the terms and conditions of and the arrangement that it proposed to us and came to us about was suddenly not good enough? It was the one who said that it would agree this amount, that we could pay that and that would cover us until we could go back to full payments, which, as I said, was always our aim. Who decided that was not acceptable? Where was the Central Bank when all of this was happening?

I am so glad that this is being talked about now because, believe me, the last place I want to be is sitting here talking about something that is very personal and very private. However, I feel that the only way we will ever move forward with this is if people, such as me, speak up and say, "Yes, I am that person." I sat in a room this morning with my four-year-old who was having his graduation from preschool. I looked around the room and I said to myself that there is a good chance at least one other person in the room is in the same circumstances as me but they are ashamed. They are ashamed and they have no need to be because they have done nothing wrong.

Since the day we signed up to a split mortgage and our payments, we have done nothing out of place. We have met every interest rate. As Mr. Byrne said, it has now shot up to 7.25%. I wrote to them because we want to draw down more of the warehouse account. We did last year and our plan was to do more again this year. As I said, it was always the track for us.

It will not fix a rate. It will not look at anything like that for us because I now believe it is trying to prevent us from drawing down any more of the warehouse account. I do not know why. I genuinely do not know. All I know is that my interest rates have gone to the point where, if you include the additional ESB costs, cost of living costs and the additional mortgage costs, we are definitely down anywhere between €800 and €900 per month with three children, the eldest of whom is ten.

I work part time because we do not have family local to us. I do not have a grandmother, or an auntie or a sister, or a cousin living down the road where I can say, "Mind my children", "Can you collect them?" or "Can you go and get them?" I cannot do that. I do not have that option and I must do it myself.

My husband leaves the house at 5.25 a.m. to go to work. That is a crazy hour to be leaving the house. His alarm goes off at 4.50 a.m. and he is out the door at 5.25 a.m. to make sure we can pay our bills and keep the roof over our heads, and we intend to do that.

I spoke to a mortgage consultant who I had dealings with previously and he calculated for me that if we continue paying the interest rate that we are currently paying versus a normal rate, we were looking at a difference of €48,000. That is how much extra the interest will cost us with a vulture fund versus the standard retail banks. That is a significant amount of money. That would pay half of my warehouse account - give or take. It is just an inconceivable amount of money.

As I said, in relation to the impact on the family, we cannot go the places we want to go. My children now want to go to rugby camp in a couple of weeks and I do not know if I can send them. I have a young fellow who thinks he is the next Peter O'Mahony. Quite frankly, he has the attitude, and he could be, but yet again I have to say to him that he cannot go to something or do something because I am watching every single penny that goes in and out of this house. As I said, we had hoped to take them on a holiday this year but, with the interest rates the way they are, that is just not going to happen.

To wrap up what I have to say, we did not deserve to be sold down the river the way we were by our bank. Let us call a spade a spade. That is what it was. We do not deserve to be ripped off by a vulture fund, which is what is happening. We can do nothing about it.

We are totally trapped with it.

It will not let us draw down any more of the warehouse account unless the interest rate drops. What is to say it will even drop the interest rates when the Central Bank starts to drop them? It will eventually because these things are all cyclical. They go up and then they come back down again. I understand that. Will the funds pass that on? That is the question and what I do not understand. As I said, I have tried to ask the fund to reduce its interest rates and it has outright refused to discuss it. It will tell me nothing about the mortgage I am paying. It is our money and the fund will not tell me where it is going. I cannot go down the route of insolvency because we are not in arrears. That is only of use to somebody who is in arrears and I will not go into arrears just so I can access that. That is just not a viable option and I am not prepared to do it.

We are consistently punished because we did the right thing. We fill out the forms, go to the meetings, take the phone calls, and do the stupid statements that are one of the most invasive and intrusive things I have ever come across. That is a fact. To think that I should not spend a fiver on a coffee in case the fund says I did not need that and could have had it at home. One cannot help but feel that is how the fund is thinking when looking at these. That is pretty much it for me. If members have any questions afterwards, I will be happy to answer them as best I can. It is a very similar story to Jimmy's, which the committee just heard. We are stuck just as he was. I thank the committee.

I thank Ms Irwin and Mr. Byrne. They are powerful advocates on behalf of themselves and their families and also on behalf of tens of thousands of people who are unfortunately in a similar position to them. There is a term that has now become more familiar to many people, which is mortgage prisoners. They are people who have been sold to the vulture funds who are not able to escape from their claws or grip. Ms Irwin mentioned that she is a private individual. I know many people who reach out and give details on the interest, the additional cost and so on. It is a big step to take to go public, be the face and all of that. I want to commend Ms Irwin and Mr. Byrne on that. Mr. Byrne believes that many people just look at numbers and so on. I can understand that.

A number of years ago I tried to introduce legislation to make sure people's loans were not sold to vulture funds. It was the no consent, no sale legislation. The Central Bank had a code of conduct for 20 years saying that mortgages should not be sold unless there was consent from the individual. I wanted to put that into law. It was blocked by some political parties. We are now dealing with the aftermath of that. In my view, because vulture funds do not have a long-term interest or any further interest in loans, student loans or agricultural loans, they only want to get as much as possible from people's debts, so they were always more likely to increase interest rates over banks.

I will start with Mr. Byrne. His mortgage has gone up by €700. Is that compared with last year? Is that the case?

Mr. James Byrne

Compared with when the rates started rising, yes. I want to say again that we are not in trouble. We are not in arrears and we will not go down that road.

Mr. Byrne has seen an annual increase of over €8,000 compared with last year.

Mr. James Byrne

Yes.

Yet Mr. Byrne has not missed a payment, has not done anything wrong, has not been one of these strategic defaulters or anything like that. Is that before the interest rate hike that is expected to come this month?

Mr. James Byrne

We are still waiting on the letter for that.

Mr. Byrne is still waiting on the letter so he is expecting that to go further.

Mr. James Byrne

Yes.

Obviously the European Central Bank has signalled a number of other interest rate hikes. There are obviously people who can switch. They are in the claws of the vultures. We try to send out a message to them to get advice, to go to the Money Advice & Budgeting Service and the Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation, and look to see what their options are. I was just looking at some of the numbers. Mr. Byrne is a former Permanent TSB customer. The variable rate in Permanent TSB is 3.9%, compared with 7.25%. People with a €340,000 loan over 20 years would pay €146,000 more in interest with a vulture fund than they would if their loan was not sold, if rates remain the same. It is a massive amount. The message is clear that people should try to switch. Mr. Byrne is one of the people who tried everything to switch.

Mr. James Byrne

I tried to switch through pillar banks, mortgage brokers, and everything. Nobody, except one bank, would look at us because we have a split mortgage. It did not matter what we took over. Since we had a split mortgage, they would not look at us. Bank of Ireland was the only one that would look at us and said it would give us €305,000 in principle.

That frustrates me for a number of reasons. I have written to all the main banks. I have also written to the Governor of the Central Bank. There is an absolute moral obligation on these banks to create a pathway for people to be reintegrated back into mainstream lending. What happened in the past has to be undone now. Banks have to create a pathway. For me, Permanent TSB has a responsibility to people who are paying €146,000 more on their mortgage, if the rates remain the same, than they would with Permanent TSB. It has a responsibility to create a pathway back. Did Mr. Byrne have discussions with Permanent TSB as the original lender?

Mr. James Byrne

I did, and through brokers too, but because I had a history with the bank and questioned it, and questioned the tracker rate, it would not go for me.

Mr. Byrne went to Pepper and said he can refinance this at a rate of €305,000. From what he told me, I assume the outstanding loan is €340,000. There is no doubt that Pepper got a larger haircut than that when it purchased this loan in the first place. Has Pepper just point blank refused to sell the loan?

Mr. James Byrne

I am waiting for the refusal letter. I engaged MABS because I could see this going one way. I want to say that I am not in arrears. I am not in any trouble. I am not defaulting with Pepper. However, one can see what is coming down the track. I am not an expert, so I engaged with MABS, and even the person who sent the letter on my behalf said Pepper would be mad not to take this. It is getting its money and running. I am waiting for the rejection letter.

Pepper has obviously assessed Mr. Byrne's case and Mr. Byrne understands it will reject that offer. Is that correct? Mr. Byrne is a person who has paid everything, so Pepper is basically saying it will get the €305,000 off him and it will continue to squeeze him for an interest rate of 7.25%, which will probably go up to 8% before the end of the year, and because he is a person who will stretch himself to the limit, Pepper will continue to bleed him.

Mr. James Byrne

Pepper will not do anything or look at anything because I am not in arrears with it. I am paying and it is getting the money. That is all it cares about.

Where does Mr. Byrne see this going for himself? The ECB has signalled clearly that there will be another interest rate hike in July. That is without doubt unless something dramatic happens in the financial world. There is likely to be another increase at the next meeting in September. When he hears those kinds of announcements from Christine Lagarde, what does that mean to him? The interest rate is 7.25% now so that means interest rates of-----

Mr. James Byrne

Probably 7.5% now. To me, that is another couple of miles in the dark tunnel with no light at the end of it. I do not know where I will find the money. I will find it somewhere. I will do something, but I do not want to go down the road of defaulting. I never defaulted with Permanent TSB. It is not me and it is not what I do. We have responsibilities and we are owning up to them. We just cannot keep going with the high rates. Only so much money comes in.

What would Mr. Byrne like to see policymakers do?

Mr. James Byrne

Acknowledge people like me. As I heard earlier, they are people who are not strategic defaulters. They are stuck. They made a mistake, borrowed too much, or whatever the case may be, but are owning up and trying their best to pay things off. There needs to be some form of policy to protect people like me.

Mr. Byrne said an interesting thing, that if he was back with Permanent TSB today-----

Mr. James Byrne

I would not have a split mortgage.

He would not have a split mortgage and he would be meeting all his payments on the mortgage that he-----

Mr. James Byrne

Less than what I am paying now.

Not in arrears and meeting everything, and Mr. Byrne would still have more money leftover to support his family.

Mr. James Byrne

Less than what I am paying now, yes.

Has Ms Irwin considered any switching options, or is that possible in her case?

Ms Grainne Irwin

We had started to look at how all this came about. I spoke to the husband of a friend of mine, a mortgage consultant, and he did some calculations and homework for us to determine whether switching was a route we could go down. I really do not envisage us ever getting away from the vulture fund unless there is some extra push to get that done. As Mr. Byrne just said, the fund will make it so difficult. It will really try to make it as difficult as it can. Switching is something we are looking into, and I hope it will be a successful venture, but who knows? The fund does not seem to be accountable to anybody. Who is asking how much money these guys are making? I have asked a question in this regard and have got no answer to it. I emailed Deputy Doherty's office and got the best answer I got from anybody, namely that the fund will not say what it bought the loan or mortgage for. It just will not give that figure out. If the bank was prepared to write off a certain amount of the debt, why was a reduction not offered to the people it wanted to get rid of to determine whether they could make a new payment before offloading the loan to a vulture fund that really could not give a rat's ass – pardon my French – about anything apart from money? All we are to it is a cash cow. We have continued to pay and do not intend to default. That is not an option. Our cost is €800 or €900 per month more than it was this time last year. If I had not drawn down the split mortgage, it would have been less. If we had drawn more down, the figure would go up. To my knowledge – Mr. Hall can back me up or correct me – the warehouse account rate sits at 0%, so there is absolutely no motivation whatsoever for me to draw down. The institution is quite happy for the amount in question to sit there. You are reminded that it is your responsibility to pay it. The institution does not really want you to because the minute you start making noises about moving away from it and getting back a bit of control, you are slapped down immediately.

Absolutely. The reason Ms Irwin was not offered the deduction is that the institution was given an easy option, which was to sell all the mortgages to a vulture fund. This should never have happened. The banks had a responsibility to work through the issues, restructure the mortgages and offer discounts where required. Ms Irwin put it well when she talked about her kids. A family home is more than an investment; it is where you raise your family and keep them safe. It is different from buy-to-let properties and all the rest. The family home should never be in the grips of mortgage institutions.

The Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation deals with countless cases of financial distress. Our two guests today are meeting all their payments but that does not mean they are not in distressing circumstances. They are not alone. There are tens of thousands in the same category and things are going to get worse. Intervention options are being considered across the water because there is a similar scenario in Britain. Where does Mr. Hall see the solution to this? There are people who can and should switch and who should get advice. Their loans are performing and are not split, and there is a bank that may be willing to refinance. There is also a category with people who are paying everything, namely that of Mr. Byrne and Ms Irwin, but they are finding it difficult to switch because they might not meet the affordability test or the loan-to-value ratio may be wrong. There is also a category including those in arrears. These people are complete mortgage prisoners and do not have the option to switch.

The solutions are not coming from mainstream banks but, as we are hearing, from the credit union movement. Core Credit Union is considering the cases of people who have been in arrears and saying that if they have been able to afford their repayments to date, it will consider refinancing them through the credit union movement. The rate is high enough but less than the 7.5% being charged at the minute. Where does Mr. Hall see the solution given where we are today?

Mr. David Hall

Those are good points. Ms Irwin's point on the 0% rate in respect of the parked amount is correct. Her former bank is Permanent TSB and the current vulture fund is Pepper. Ms Irwin is in Cork and is not covered by the same amount of parliamentary privilege as we are here, so, for the avoidance of any doubt, her bank was Permanent TSB and the vulture fund is Pepper.

Solutions are very obvious, to a certain degree. Help is required. The Government giving renters €500 is wonderful and very helpful but Mr. Byrne's and Ms Irwin's differential to survive has gone up by €7,000, on average. The vulture fund is charging rates that we believe are required to be charged and passed on by it because it is borrowing from different infrastructure. The Central Bank did not want powers. It was discussing climate change this morning but did not want powers. There needs to be direct intervention. We need to make sure the insolvency regime is fit for purpose for those people the Deputy mentioned who are going to or are starting to go into arrears. We have a review that has been outstanding for seven years, and recommendations on the insolvency legislation have not been implemented. They are four years old now. The measures were agreed upon by creditors and debtors but not introduced.

We need an insolvency regime that is fit for purpose. We need to cap rates. We have to ensure that we stop people from drowning. It is a very straightforward thing. We should not ask many questions while people are drowning. People forget that you can drown in shallow water. Mr. Byrne and Ms Irwin have declared their own circumstances publicly today, which is very difficult, and they have done everything right. What do you do when you do everything right? Do you do everything wrong and stay in your home and not experience the stress? If, as a society, we are going to encourage people to do things correctly when they land themselves in difficulty, we must not punish them. We need to protect them going forward. In this regard, we must ask what the Central Bank's view is on capital allowances for lenders for the next cohort of people who get into mortgage difficulty. We need to cap the rates and ensure we protect people from defaulting. This is not about giving somebody welfare or helping somebody else; this is about saving people and their families, protecting their health and mental well-being and preventing the distress by doing the right thing.

The Deputy correctly implied Mr. Byrne and Ms Irwin are under pressure, as can be seen, but they are doing the right thing. We have to protect people who are doing the right thing and encourage others to do it, get help and switch. Permanent TSB has a moral obligation to step in and re-offer the mortgages, as do AIB and Bank of Ireland. Bearing in mind that we talk about affordable housing and affordable housing schemes, there are levels of protection that can be offered. Mr. Byrne and Ms Irwin and her husband are working away doing the right thing, paying their bills and making repayments as best they can. With regard to Mr. Byrne, Bank of Ireland and the offer of €305,000, there was no movement. In that context, what chance is there for the tens of thousands affected?

I do not underestimate the genuine difficulty many people are in. On seeing the pressure that those who are complying are under, can you imagine the pressure on those who are trying to comply but who do not have the wherewithal of Mr. Byrne and Ms Irwin. I am referring to their mental fortitude in doing what they have done today and protecting their families over recent years. This is not something that has just happened; it has been going on for many people and will for a cohort yet to come. There has to be intervention and there is a way. The legislation involving promissory notes ran to 298 pages. We dealt with the Covid pandemic, so we most certainly can take interventions. This is not about giving anybody a freebie. No one wants a handout; they want to be helped and protected.

I thank Mr. Hall. I really appreciate that.

I thank Ms Irwin and Mr. Byrne for being here and Mr. Hall for all the really important work he does. This meeting reminded me of the human stories we heard when we had witnesses in regarding the tracker mortgage scandal. We hear many of these stories in our offices all the time. Worryingly, more and more people are coming forward all the time. We know what it will mean if someone has to find an additional €700 to €1,000 per month when his or her wages have not gone up and if the household income is the same.

Mr. Byrne said the other option given was to default on other loans.

Would he expand on that point?

Mr. James Byrne

I have a credit union loan. I would not have anything to do with loan sharks or anything like that. I do not want to default on any loan but the mortgage providers will say that you must prioritise your mortgage. That is it. They do not care who else suffers as long as they are getting their money.

There is a total disregard for a person’s credit rating or what that might do, besides the stress.

Mr. James Byrne

I have been dragged right out of the gutter and they want to send me straight back down there.

Obviously, Mr. Byrne was assured even when it happened and when the mortgages were transferred over without his consent, but we were also assured in this committee by everybody across the board that mortgages which were sold off would be no worse off in respect of being managed by vulture funds. We were told that over and over again. At what point did Mr. Byrne realise that things were very different?

Mr. James Byrne

When we saw the rates starting to go up, the first thing we looked for was for it to stop. We looked to arrange a fixed mortgage. If I was still with Permanent TSB or any other bank, I could walk in and arrange for a fixed mortgage and get some sort of clarity and pause, look down the road, take a breath and assess things. We have had eight interest rate rises in eight months.

Up to that point, was Mr. Byrne of the impression that he could fix his mortgage if he needed to, until he went to ask for this to be done?

Mr. James Byrne

Yes, I am no expert and I do not know which way it works but I learned fairly quickly how these companies work and operate. Yes, we asked for a fixed rate and we were told that the companies could not do that and that they were not banks. If it is not a bank, what is it doing with a load of mortgages?

Just on that point before I turn to Ms Irwin, on the issue of where Mr. Byrne’s extra money is actually going; has he been able to find out who the beneficiaries are, where it is going or who actually owns his mortgage?

Mr. James Byrne

As I said to the company, when I am finished paying for it - I am determined that I will be finished paying for it one day - I have asked who will hand my deeds back. I still have not got an answer.

Where are Mr Byrne’s deeds?

Mr. James Byrne

I have no idea. I presume they are with Pepper but I do not know.

Mr. Byrne does not know where the deeds to his house are. That is a very serious situation. Where the deeds to Ms Irwin's house?

Ms Grainne Irwin

I know where my deeds were; that was with the bank I took my mortgage out with. I have no absolutely idea where they are now. They will not tell me, I cannot get answers and one is just given the standard, as Mr. Byrne has said there: "We are not a bank." If the company is not a bank, why is it raising interest rates following the ECB's lead and what is it doing with the mortgages of a great number of people? If the company is not a bank, why is it involved in banking practices?

Has Mr. Hall any idea where the deeds are of the houses of the thousands of people’s mortgages that have been sold on?

Mr. David Hall

No, I have no idea where they are. We must remember that, say, Pepper, it manages loans on behalf of 30 vulture funds. I have been trying to gather and have got most of the names of these funds over the past number of months. I am trying to piece together a definitive list of all of the vulture funds that are currently in Ireland. I do not know where they are and it is a very difficult and unsettling situation for many people not to know where the deeds are and who indeed, more importantly, owns those because Pepper are managing this on behalf of an unnamed faceless fund.

What do the witnesses believe the Government needs to do in this regard? It is a very big thing when someone continues to pay a mortgage, clears it and then gets the deeds to the house back. When people are dealing with a bank, they know where the deeds are.

Mr. David Hall

From a Central Bank perspective, we need to ensure that they are aware where the deeds are and that they are present. The deeds must be identified. There is an internal system in a handover between Permanent TSB and Pepper when any vulture fund buys those loans but a system needs to ensure that they exist and identify where they are. The Central Bank should be a central repository of that information, at least, if not of the deeds themselves, to secure and protect consumers. There is a missing part to this link and the Deputy and I had this conversation on the previous occasion, that is, given the amount at stake, the number of people, families and the number of mortgage holders who are affected, it is quite remarkable that such answers cannot be openly given. That is crazy.

I believe as a committee we need to write to the Central Bank to ask the question whether it has that information on where people's deeds are held where the mortgages have been sold to vulture funds. This is very important.

I also ask Mr. Hall to elaborate on his comment earlier that the Central Bank: “is fast asleep ... and... horrifically conflicted.”

Mr. David Hall

The Central Bank has a dual role of regulating funds and banks. It also has a statutory function to protect consumers. This is all housed in the one building. As we mentioned previously, hundreds of different charities deal with cancer and deal with housing. There is then ourselves and MABS dealing with debt, given the amount of debt that is involved.

We need the Central Bank to step up and to be central in all of this and to give reassurance to the Oireachtas and to mortgage holders that they are indeed protected. I would love the Central Bank to give me assurance that Pepper does need to charge 7.25%. I am not happy that this is the case but I am not even confident that it has to. Fundamentally, I do not understand why that has not been established very quickly. I would love to see and I am very confident that many lending institutions in this State will make bumper profits this year on the back of these interest rates. It is incumbent on everybody to intervene now and not to wait until next year’s annual report comes out to say that these institutions made massive profits. Why are banks and vulture funds making additional profits on interest rates they allegedly have to put up? I have above average intelligence and I cannot figure that one out. That needs to be looked at.

The Central Bank must wake up and invoke its powers. The bank is the wrong place to have consumer protection when it comes to mortgage holders and customers. It must be an independent entity with the appropriate powers to do that. Unfortunately, at the moment that is falling upon advocates such as committee members and individual financial journalists to put the pressure on. Even at that, it is a painstaking process.

Both Ms Irwin and Mr. Byrne are in a situation where they have strived not to go into arrears and to make all their payments. On the aggregate figures, can Mr. Hall see any repossessions coming down the line as people are stretched to the pin of their collar trying to pay the extra amounts being demanded of them each month?

Mr. David Hall

The concern I have now is a far greater concern than repossession. My concern now is health and mental health and the effect on individuals and families. I am not speaking specifically about Mr. Byrne or Ms Irwin but it can clearly be seen from their honesty and sincerity today the pressure this puts on people. These are real people and not all of whom, by the way, are equipped to deal with financial uncertainty, difficulties and challenges. The assumption lending institutions and the Central Bank have made is that people are up for dealing with difficult and stressful circumstances. Repossessions have not happened. The banks and the vulture funds made a decision pre-Covid-19 when many sales happened. I do not believe that people will get free homes so there is a problem ahead.

I am far more concerned at the undercurrent of stress that has been going on for ten years where we thought that this had passed, and now people are going to be back under pressure again.

I was speaking to Mr. Byrne earlier, and as regards normal family responsibilities, he has protected his family exceptionally well. He should not have to deal with this rubbish. This is unnecessary stress caused by a policy decision of the Central Bank and a State-owned bank to sell to a vulture fund - Pepper. I am more concerned about loss of life, stress and about family issues, challenges and mental health issues than I would have been about repossessions given the recent history.

I share Mr. Hall’s concern. If there was one single thing which Mr. Byrne and Ms Irwin want to come out of their being here today - for which I want to thank them again and also for representing the many families who are in a similar situation - what would it be?

Mr. James Byrne

It would be fairness for everybody.

Would that involve the bank taking his mortgage back from the vulture fund?

Mr. James Byrne

I would say so, yes. I am not going to sit here and say that I have never made a mistake in my life, or did not make mistake in taking out that mortgage, but the banks made mistakes along the way with me. I am getting pain for it, which is fine, but the bank made mistakes and how come I am paying for that? I am getting pain for that.

Mr. Byrne is looking for fairness and transparency. Can I ask Ms Irwin the same question?

Ms Grainne Irwin

Yes.

The thing that frightened me a lot in recent weeks is that I realised that the amount we are paying now on the split mortgage is higher than the amount we were paying when we started the mortgage in the first place because of the increase in the interest rates. It is €60 more. That is down to one thing, that is, the interest rate. That has to be controlled. It should not matter that the lender says it is not a bank. It is acting as a bank, so in my mind it is a bank. I was of the same belief. I did not care who I paid my money to once I was paying it. Now I care because the fund is not fit to handle mortgages. There needs to be some sort of intervention by the State, perhaps by the Central Bank, owing to the fact that the Central Bank allowed this to happen. I would like to see someone find out why the Central Bank was a little bit asleep at the wheel. We need a little fairness, as Mr. Byrne said, for people who are put in our situation, despite having done everything right.

I apologise for arriving late. I was in the Chamber. It is hard to be in two places at once. We do our best.

I entirely sympathise with the story I just heard. We have heard several similar stories, and continue to hear them, not only in the past ten years but also, as far as I can see, into the future. I had reason to bring the matter up in the Dáil this morning with respect to what I see as a new arrogance with regard to some of the mortgages that have been sold on from the original lender to a fund and from the fund to another purchaser. There appears to be a resolution from the lenders' point of view to deal with the situation quickly and arrogantly, regardless of how people suffer and of the fact the banks were the first to create the problem by not ensuring they were lending in accordance with people's ability to pay and the value of the collateral.

We need to bring the Governor of the Central Bank, the financial ombudsman and the regulator before the committee again to find out whether they are aware of what is happening. From my experience, with a few exceptions I will deal with in a minute, the offers made by the borrower to facilitate the lender were never accepted. They were always short. The customers were told that their proposals were unsustainable. From whose point of view? It was from the banks' point of view. They wanted more. They kept putting it off. I have dealt with cases for which, over the course of ten years, reasonable offers were made to liquidate the debt and were refused on the basis that they were not sustainable. Sustainability is important. However, they discovered sustainability late in the day. They could have looked at it a lot earlier. The problem now is that there is a rush by the current owners of debt to push borrowers into financial oblivion. They do not care. Without doubt a different attitude has developed and it needs to be challenged. The committee is in a position to do so and we should do so at the earliest opportunity. We do not have much time left in this session, but I will take any opportunity.

All banks and lenders did not treat people in the same way. Some entertained customers and warehoused debts with no interest attached for many years while others could not, did not and would not do so and continue not to do so. There are variations in the way debt and borrowers were handled by the banks. I can think of some people in the pillar banks who did everything in their power to assist in every way they could and did assist. I can think of other people in the same banks who did not. They did the direct opposite, flying in the face of what was being done.

I am aware of situations where properties were sold from under the feet of borrowers. Corners were and are being cut to facilitate that. For instance, when a repossession order that is five, six or seven years old is available in the courts, they suddenly go to enforce it. It is no longer valid, but they get away with it. Once they have established that, they repeat it again and again. I saw a situation recently where the repossession order was obviously way out of date. I pointed it out. The response was that they do it all the time. The fact that they get away with it all the time proves nothing. The property was repossessed on the basis of the old repossession order and it went on from there. The property was sold. Who had the deeds? The lenders have a hold of the deeds and do with them as they want. They move them around like deckchairs to suit themselves. Anyway, the house was sold. Then someone followed it up and another person wrote back from the lending institution in response, and one line near the bottom of the letter stated that the courts had issued a new repossession order after the event. We all know that is not playing the game. They applied for the new repossession order at the time I pointed out to them that what they were doing was not in order as the repossession order was not valid. To be sure to be sure, the bank went back after the event. The house had been sold. Action needs to be taken in those kinds of cases. We cannot allow institutions away with that kind of thing. It is happening now and continues to happen.

We also need to ensure the regulator and financial ombudsman take more of an interest in what is going on. The two customers spoke about the fact they will never know how much the original bank sold the allegedly impaired mortgages for. Some were not impaired. The reason we cannot know is moral hazard, the theory being that if everyone knew, it would become the arbiter for determining how every other loan would be dealt with. The fact they get away with it does not mean it is right. They impose penalties and hardship on people and are aggressive with people. I was talking only yesterday to a person who was visited on a nightly basis. There was a knock on the door as soon as the person returned home from work, putting pressure on for the mortgage to be paid. The lender eventually forced the householder out of the house as it was not possible to put up with it any longer. It became unbearable. We need to ensure we take control to some extent, insofar as we can, or that we encourage those who have the statutory responsibility to do so, to do the job more vigorously and to stand up for people who are coming under pressure. As long as it is allowed to continue, it will continue.

The last point I will make is that legislation may be necessary. We would then be talking about a template, which can easily be dealt with if we want to do it. It would identify the total indebtedness and arrears and offer a template for addressing the debt from the point of view of the householder. That would remove the variation. At least everyone would or would not get fair play, as the case may be. There is still a need for a vigorous intervention with the Central Bank and the other two personages I referred to.

They have the power and they can do things if they want to. In the heel of the hunt, if we do not make some attempt to defend them and elicit the reasons why the institution that is there for that purpose is not defending them, then we will be at fault ourselves. We need to do something about that. Like everybody else here, including Mr. Hall, I have dealt with these cases for many years. Incidentally, the insolvency agencies do not always win out either. They do not leave a sugary taste in the mouth afterwards.

I am going to deal with what happens. People will normally go to anybody they think can or should be able to help them. That is understandable. Sometimes people get impatient because years can drag on while nothing is achieved. Very often, from the point of view of the borrower, that is the best thing that can happen because they get into a better bargaining position as time goes by. However, it may be the case - more than once - that the unfortunate borrower has to come back to us again after something has failed. That happens all the time. It is a sad situation and it should not be happening. That is where I believe legislation is needed as a safety net to insure against the worst that can happen, and to try to ensure that the borrower or the householder has something to lean on. I have seen situations where a reasonably good argument was made, a good case was made and the lending institution agreed to it, then somebody came along with a better offer, or so they thought, and it did not happen. There is a lot of work that we still have to do and we should to it. We should let it be known to the regulator, the Governor of the Central Bank and the Ombudsman that we are interested and that we need to know more about it.

Apologies to the witnesses for being late, but I had to speak in the Dáil. I have read the submissions. First of all, I thank Mr. Hall for all his great work and for often being of great assistance to me in difficult cases where people are having mortgage difficulties. Mr. Byrne's account speaks for itself. I assume that the situation for Mr. Byrne and Ms Irwin is not sustainable with the interest rates they way they are, is it? In a word, it is not.

Mr. James Byrne

It is not sustainable at the moment. The rates are only going to go one way, and that is up. That is the only future we can see.

If you do not get help, you are in serious trouble. Is that it?

Mr. James Byrne

More or less, yes.

I want to know what the ask is here. Our view is that the vulture funds should just be given six months to get out of Ireland completely. They should be forced to transfer their loans to the banks and interest rates should be capped at 3%. That is our policy. I would be interested to hear the responses of Mr. Byrne or Ms Irwin on this. When we put it to the Government, as we have done since interest rates have gone up, we have been told that it is not realistic and that we cannot do it. Perhaps the witnesses can comment on whether it would solve their problem if their loans were handed back to the proper banks and their interest rates were capped at 3%. Maybe Mr. Hall could answer the more technical question of whether or not that is practical. I certainly see it as practical. We know the banks are making a fortune. Perhaps Mr. Hall could comment on what these investment funds are making or what he thinks they are making. We certainly think they got these loans at massive discounts, so they made a big profit on what they got them at and now they are charging exorbitant interest rates in respect of them. I have not even heard whether they have given justifications for charging these extortionate interest rates and the reasons they claim they have for charging interest rates to that degree. Is it just pure profiteering? That is what I think it is. The behaviour of vulture funds looks like pure profiteering and greed. Because they are allowed to get away with it, they do get away with it. They do not really care about the consequences for people like Mr. Byrne, Ms Irwin and many others. Is that a crude analysis? That is the way it looks to me.

Mr. David Hall

No. I think it is all of the above. I did meet with representatives of Pepper recently. There was very good and positive engagement with them in relation to facilitating switching of various mortgages. I think it is something that is incumbent upon them, the Central Bank and the main lenders, especially Permanent TSB, in Mr. Byrne's and Ms Irwin's situation. I am not comfortable with the fact assurances were given by the Department of Finance and the Central Bank. As Deputies mentioned previously, we were all given the assurance that vulture funds provide the same protections. How does a central bank not understand where a vulture fund gets it money from? How does a central bank not understand, in making such statements to reassure politicians, journalists, commentators and vulture fund supporters, that they do not get the money from the same place? How, 12 months ago, did somebody not wake up and realise that there is a bit of a technical problem? They do not get the money from an ATM or a mainstream bank, they get it in a different market place that is going to be difficult. Vulture funds are under pressure. It is a rare admission that I will make, but I will always say it as it is. That it is because they are vulture funds, where they have chosen to get their money from and the casino they have chosen to gamble it in has attributed to the fact that they are paying money. It is incumbent on the Central Bank to give this committee and the Oireachtas the assurance that there is no gouging going on, because I believe it is going on. I do not believe for one minute that in Ms Irwin's set of circumstances, Mr. Byrne's set of circumstances and 10,000 other sets of circumstances, they should not be back with the mainstream lender. The Central Bank should be doing everything humanly possible to ensure that happens. To be fair to Pepper, there is an open door in relation to switching. I hope some more progress will be made in relation to that. It is a combination of all of the above. It is a very uncomfortable position to be in. A State-owned bank and a State regulator have been fast asleep. I mean no disrespect to the Deputy, I am aware of his views and I note that he is animated as I am about this, but it is remarkable that those questions get asked. It is remarkable that on occasions certain questions get asked. Mr. Byrne, Ms. Irwin and I, like many others, are sitting here saying that we are citizens. I have advocated and have helped mortgage holders for ten years. Mr. Byrne and Ms Irwin are looking to protect their families, themselves and their mental health to ensure they stay between the white lines, and they have done a great job. We have Oireachtas Members and others asking questions and not getting answers. It is a remarkable situation.

What about our suggestions? Would they solve it?

Mr. James Byrne

Yes.

Mr. David Hall

As Mr. Byrne said, if Permanent TSB took back his mortgage in the morning, his problem would be solved. He does not want anything else. Ms Irwin is paying €60 more a month than she paid originally when she got into difficulty. Anybody on an interest rate of 7.25% would be in the same position. Is very important to highlight that nobody chose this. It is not like the subprime days when people could not get money and chose to go to subprime lenders or had to go to subprime lenders because of a bad set of financial circumstances. These were people who were with a mainstream bank that was owned by the State, and their loans were sold at a discount. I personally believe - and I have good experience in relation to bidding on and being a party to various loan sales - that they were sold, on average, at a 50% discount. It is galling to sit here and think that there is an interest rate of 7.25% on a loan that was bought by one of 30 unknown entities, potentially at a 50% discount. Of course, representatives of Pepper and others are perfectly welcome to come here and anywhere else and give those numbers, as is the Central Bank. The doors are open and I know the committee has opened the door for that. The word that Mr. Byrne used earlier was "fairness". That is all anybody is asking for.

It is a given that that is what Mr. Byrne, Ms Irwin and others in their situation should get. They should get fairness, they should not have been treated like this and they should not be being gouged the way they are.

Why is the Government not doing what is necessary? What are the impediments? When we say get the vulture funds out and cap interest rates, it just says it cannot do that. To me, that is the only answer.

Mr. David Hall

There are no impediments. Nobody can say there are impediments after 298 pages of legislation for €64 billion in promissory notes or all of the quick responses that were put in place for the pandemic. Nobody can use that argument anymore. It is not valid. Nobody is looking for a free house or for any freebie. They are looking to survive, to protect their family and health and to do the right thing. Mr. Byrne and Ms Irwin have done everything right. I am not speaking on their behalf but I have no doubt it was difficult and the committee is not seeing the full impact of that here today. I have no doubt it was difficult and there are many other families around the country who are in the same position. Why are they being gouged at 7.25%, which will soon be 7.5%, and where does it end ten years later? People need fairness. Those rates should be capped at the Permanent TSB rate of 3.9%. Why would somebody pay their mortgage all the time, meet those payments and put themselves under pressure? That is not sustainable. I know Mr. Byrne will do everything possible. He will do everything humanly possible to do it, as will Ms Irwin, but that is not right. That is not sustainable. That has an impact somewhere else. The deck of cards falls. It is not healthy for anybody so intervention is needed. Nobody can tell me anymore it is not possible. There is soft intervention, there is hard intervention and there is legislation, none of which have been applied bar soft intervention, and I do not even see transparency in soft intervention. The Central Bank has great power to wield here officially and unofficially. The Minister for Finance has the same power, as do the Oireachtas and this committee, and it needs to be wielded.

Clearly, I agree with Mr. Hall and I do not think anybody listening to the account could not agree that something needs to be done. Why will they not do it? Perhaps Mr. Hall does not want to answer because he just wants to try to convince people to do it.

Mr. David Hall

It is all that waffly business about interfering with the market.

It is the interference with the market-----

Mr. David Hall

It is waffly, waffly, waffly - interfering with the market. The Government put €64 billion into the market. It blew the market up. It took it over. It took ownership of it, so what is it doing waffling about interfering with the market? The mortgages of more than 40,000 people stuck in homes under immense pressure and stress were sold by a bank the State took over in the first place. It is waffle. That is all it is. It can and should be done. Some will argue that they do not want this coming out of the Department of Health budget, which is where these people will end up. This is massive pressure for people who have already been in difficulty for ten years. There are tens of thousands of people in this situation. You cannot give someone €64 billion of our money and run around with regard to billions of money in a pandemic, all of which was justified, and then tell me you cannot bring in Pepper and a bunch of other vulture funds and tell them in no uncertain terms to comply or leave, to pick their choice but they are not going to do our citizens and screw them as they have already done, that that is not happening.

I am with Mr. Hall 100%. We will see. Mr. Hall has put his finger on it. It is the nonsense that we cannot interfere with the market.

Mr. David Hall

We can interfere with humans but we cannot interfere with the market.

We will keep pushing. I thank the witnesses for their testimony and Mr. Hall for his work. I hope we can put enough pressure on the Government to do something because, clearly, it is an intolerable situation.

In his opening statement, Mr. Hall mentioned various mortgages that are in trouble. Separately, people like Mr. Byrne and Ms Irwin, who are trying to do their bit, pay their mortgage and get on with it, are under pressure. Is there a breakdown of the number who are in the same category as Mr. Byrne and Ms Irwin?

Mr. David Hall

The Central Bank has varying levels of detail that it publishes quarterly. It stemmed from a total number of more than 40,000 in arrears and 23,000 in long-term arrears. A startling figure, which was announced last week, was a 60% increase in the figure for arrears under 90 days, which was published since last year. There are a number of loans. Pepper and some of the other funds account for 80% of the loans that are in long-term arrears. We have given 80%-----

Yes, but when we drill down into these figures, is there a figure for the category that Mr. Byrne-----

Mr. David Hall

That is a question for the Central Bank to categorise. It is a very important question because there are many people who are under immense pressure but are doing the right thing and there are some who cannot. The Central Bank has those numbers. To be fair, the banks and vulture funds have given the Central Bank the numbers of people they believe are in difficulty and cannot fulfil it and those who are meeting those obligations. The obligation between 4%, 3.9% and 7.25% is a huge gap.

So the Central Bank presents the numbers but does not give solutions. It needs to be empowered in terms of legislation to take some action.

Mr. David Hall

Yes. Clearly, it needs to be able to take action regarding freezing interest rates in an emergency. What greater challenge is needed other than what the committee has heard from Mr. Byrne and Ms Irwin? Mr. Byrne's point earlier, which I had forgotten, is very important. This is not over yet. We are not having a conversation in real time that has stopped. Nobody knows what is happening. Everyone else watching here today is under pressure with living costs but the interest rate rises have not stopped.

Regarding the Central Bank information around what the future might hold in terms of the vulture funds, the vulture funds hold a huge amount of mortgages and loans. Are they obliged to report all of that to the Central Bank? Does the Central Bank know what is going on? In respect of Ms Irwin's question about where the deeds of her house are and where her mortgage is, are the vulture funds obliged to provide that?

Mr. David Hall

The Central Bank has a repository of information it requires from vulture funds and lenders for the mortgage arrears resolution process. The Supreme Court and the High Court have been alluded to in this committee previously. There is no requirement on any lending institution in the State to provide any mortgage solution. We constantly hear referrals to suites of solutions but there is no requirement to provide solutions. The Central Bank does not have the power to compel lenders in circumstances like those of Mr. Byrne and Ms Irwin to take back those mortgages and allow that transfer or to engage and facilitate such transfers. The Central Bank does not have the power to compel a lender to offer a split mortgage. What happens to the next cohort of people who will be in difficulty imminently? Will lenders offer split mortgages, which gave Ms Irwin and Mr. Byrne some relief and were helpful at the time? No vulture fund will offer split mortgages going forward.

What the committee was trying to do was bring in the vulture funds to get some sort of structure around the mortgages they have - the detail of that. They refused to come in and they continue to refuse to come in. Pepper has indicated that it may meet the committee. That is for another day. Up to now, they have said "No" and there is no compellability on the part of the committee so we cannot force them to come before us. I find that pretty hard to take when they are dealing with so many citizens of this State in terms of their mortgages. I have heard Mr. Byrne's story and Ms Irwin's story and I am sure they are representative of thousands of others. Someone has to try to get to the core of this and get the information from the vulture funds. They have been named here today. It is normal practice that if you are named here, you have the right to come before us. The vulture funds have that standing invitation from us to come before us. We continue to engage with the Minister for Finance and the Government on the issue, but the vulture funds should be compelled through some form of legislation to come before a committee like this one and answer the questions Mr. Byrne, Ms Irwin and many others are asking. We have a job to do in respect of that but it is very difficult to fight a case for Mr. Byrne, Ms Irwin and all the others with one hand, and possibly two hands, tied behind our backs. The vulture funds are free to take whatever action they want.

Mr. David Hall

There are many people here, including the Cathaoirleach, with whom we will talk outside the committee about any help and advice that can be given to Mr. Byrne and Ms Irwin. I did put a call into Pepper and Permanent TSB and we will follow up that conversation for them specifically.

The Central Bank is the party which should be here, responsible to this committee, answering those questions and giving that exact information in detail and apprising the committee as to where things are, and what actions it has and has not taken. That may need to be a session that is held in private. No one cares. It is not about having a bash at the Central Bank, which is very therapeutic, but does not hep Mr. Byrne, Ms Irwin, or the thousands of others out there. We need to know that information and the Central Bank should be proactive. With the greatest of respect, the Chair should know this information. The Central Bank should have told the Chair this information. This is not a small problem affecting a handful of people. This is not a problem the Chair or Deputies Durkan, Boyd Barrett, Doherty or Conway-Walsh and everyone else on this committee has not spoken about for a decade. All of the members have raised the issue of and unfairness around banks and vulture funds. The Central Bank is the entity that has the responsibility to convince, and to give the committee the responsible answers that are required to make us all comfortable. We are not comfortable. This conversation is not comfortable. Mr. Byrne and Ms Irwin having to be here today and having to be brave is not a comfortable situation. It is not a comfortable situation to have citizens in here when those answers are available down in the docks where it is discussing climate change this morning.

That is shocking in itself.

There is not a single member of this committee who would not want to do something for Mr. Byrne and Ms Irwin to alleviate the issues they face. I am delighted both have come before the committee to give their experience of what it is like to be with a vulture fund and to deal with an issue like the increase in the rates and not knowing where they will end up. That is an addition of two miles to the end of their tunnel with no light at the end.

I refer to the offer Mr. Byrne made to Pepper Finance on a loan that was possibly discounted to the tune of 50% or whatever it might have been. Pepper Finance can answer that question for us, if it wishes. Pepper Finance is more than welcome to come back to the committee on that. It is like punching in the dark.

All I can say is that this committee will renew its efforts with the Central Bank. We will invite the Central Bank to come in to answer the queries members have put today, and in particular questions the from Ms Irwin and Mr. Byrne. If they do not mind, the committee will contact Pepper Finance about the details of both cases and to see if the committee can apply any pressure, or has leverage, to set a template, not just to deal with Mr. Byrne and Ms Irwin, but also to deal with others. That is what I, and I am sure the members, will commit to today. Do Mr. Byrne or Ms Irwin wish to make any further closing remarks?

Ms Grainne Irwin

I echo what was said and what Deputy Boyd Barrett referred to. I would like some stability. That is really all I am asking for here - a little bit of stability and fair, equitable treatment. If I got a chance to back to my mainstream bank tomorrow with a fixed rate, I have no doubt I would draw down almost all, if not all, the warehouse account within a couple of years and we would be back on full payments and have our mortgage well paid off within the term. That is all I want. I am not asking for a freebie or a special favour. I just want to be able to do what I set out to do when I drew the mortgage down in the first place which was to pay my mortgage and own my home and to give my children a safe and stable environment to grow up in. That is all I want.

Mr. James Byrne

I will echo what Ms Irwin said. I am the same and if I was offered a fixed rate tomorrow, I would not have a warehouse split. It would be gone. I have made great strides in taking it over from what it was to what it is now but at these rates, I have no chance, not a hope.

Mr. David Hall

I thank Ms Irwin and Mr. Byrne. I would not underestimate the power. It is quite unusual to be in a room like this and to have external parties watching. I say to Ms Irwin and Mr. Byrne that their story is the same as thousands of others. They are brave to do what they did today and they should not underestimate the value of their contributions today.

We will send a transcript of the meeting to the parties named and ask for their response and for them to take action in the individual cases. I thank the witnesses for attending.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.06 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Thursday, 22 June 2023.
Barr
Roinn