Peadar Tóibín
Ceist:44. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Finance if persons (details supplied) qualify for the help-to-buy scheme for their self-build home. [47345/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraHelp-To-Buy Scheme Eligibility
Ceisteanna (44)
Freagraí scríofa
I am advised by Revenue that in accordance with the legislation governing the operation of the Help to Buy (HTB) scheme, one of the criteria to be met to qualify for the scheme is that the loan-to-value ratio in respect of a claim shall not be less than 70 per cent. As the loan to value ratio for the person concerned is less than 70 per cent, the application does not meet the conditions required to qualify for HTB. Revenue has no discretion to vary the terms of the scheme in this regard.
Tracker Mortgage Examination
Ceisteanna (45)
John Curran
Ceist:45. Deputy John Curran asked the Minister for Finance if details of the scheme of compensation for those wrongly denied tracker mortgages by the banks has been examined by him, his Department and the Central Bank; his views on whether the scheme is fair and adequately addresses the different events and circumstances endured by those affected by this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47367/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí scríofa
As the Deputy is aware, the Central Bank is independent in the performance of its duties in the supervision of regulated financial service providers and it is working to ensure that the Tracker Mortgage Examination is completed as soon as possible. Details of the Framework for Conducting the Tracker Mortgage Examination are available at the following link: https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/consumer-hub-library/tracker-issues/appendix1-framework-conducting-tracker-mortgage-examination.pdf?sfvrsn=4
It should be noted that the Central Bank does not have the statutory power to set compensation levels or to compel lenders to implement redress and compensation programmes in respect of failures that occurred prior to the introduction of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 (the “2013 Act”). However, the Central Bank has clearly articulated its expectations of lenders to provide appropriate redress and compensation to all impacted customers in line with prescribed principles for redress developed by the Central Bank. In accordance with the Examination Framework, the Central Bank expects that, for all impacted customers, lenders’ redress and compensation offers will restore them to the position they would have been in had the detriment not occurred and that they are appropriately compensated for the detriment suffered.
As per the Central Bank’s status update of 17 October, circa 13,000 affected customers have been identified to date through the Examination, the majority of whom will receive their redress and compensation before the end of the year. Prior to the Examination, the Central Bank ensured a further 7,100 cases involving tracker mortgage issues were rectified and remedied.
The Framework requires that lenders categorise impacted customers by reference to the type and level of detriment suffered. The types of detriment identified range from overcharging due to the application of incorrect interest rates up to loss of ownership of mortgaged properties. The Central Bank advises that the calculation of redress and compensation proposals for customers can be complex. The Central Bank has challenged all lenders with particular regard to their redress and compensation proposals for loss of ownership situations and as a result lenders have substantially improved their proposals. Each lender's compensation package is tailored to the specific circumstances of its customer. Given the complexity of the issues identified by the Examination, the scale of detriment suffered is unique to each individual customer, and the level of the redress and compensation payment will, therefore, be dependent on the circumstances of each individual case. The Central Bank will continue to challenge and use all powers to force the best outcomes for all impacted customers.
In line with the Central Bank Principles for Redress requiring that all redress and compensation payments are made to customers on an upfront basis, customers can accept the redress and compensation offered and still make an appeal to the appeals panels required to be established by lenders. Customers’ rights to make appeals to the FSO and through the courts are also preserved.
NAMA Debtor Agreements
Ceisteanna (46)
Thomas P. Broughan
Ceist:46. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Finance the way in which NAMA is managing the recovery of the funding of approximately €3.6 billion it advanced to debtors and receivers since 2010; if a large number of these loans are being written off; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47374/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí scríofa
As set out in my reply to Question No. 111 of 3 October 2017, NAMA may provide funding to its debtors and receivers to protect and enhance their assets so as to optimise their income-producing potential and disposal value. This is in accordance with section 10 of the NAMA Act which states that NAMA is required to protect or enhance the value of its acquired assets and to obtain the best achievable financial return for the State.
NAMA advances loans to its debtors and receivers for a range of purposes, primarily for capital expenditure purposes but also for essential current expenditure required to protect the value of assets including remediation works, health and safety requirements, security and insurance. For instance, it has been necessary for NAMA to incur significant expenditure on remediation work so as to enable unfinished or defective housing to be brought to a habitable standard.
I am advised that NAMA has advanced €3.6 billion in funds to its debtors and receivers from inception to August 2017, comprising both current and capital expenditure. I am further advised that the majority of loans have been repaid either by the debtor or receiver, or by the proceeds of loan sales.
I am advised that, of new funding advanced since 2010, €0.6bn is currently outstanding to NAMA and is being actively managed by the Agency, as it relates to debtors whose loans are still held by NAMA.
I am advised by NAMA that there has been no write-off of new funding advanced by it. The proceeds of an asset sale or of the associated loan sale are invariably greater than the amounts of new funding advanced against the asset concerned. Normally, sales proceeds are applied, in the first place, against new advances made by NAMA and the balance of the proceeds is then applied against the loans originally acquired from the participating institutions.
It is important to note that the realised proceeds from asset or loan disposals reflect the positive impact of any new funding advanced in order to preserve or enhance asset values. NAMA advise that, in the absence of new funding, the assets concerned would have deteriorated in value, the health and safety works would not have been completed and, as a result, the proceeds realised from their disposal would have been less than those actually realised.
Company Liquidations
Ceisteanna (47, 48, 49, 50)
Michael McGrath
Ceist:47. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the status of the proceedings of the liquidation of a company (details supplied); the number of persons affected by same; the amount owed to them; the funds available for distribution at the time of the liquidation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47397/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraMichael McGrath
Ceist:48. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the number of persons who have been paid in full out of the total number of persons affected by the liquidation of a company (details supplied); the number who have been paid partially; the number who have not been paid at all; the amount that has been paid out to persons as part of the liquidation; when he expects the liquidation to be complete; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47398/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraMichael McGrath
Ceist:49. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the cost to date of professional and liquidation fees from the liquidation of a company (details supplied); the cost he expects from the liquidation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47399/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraMichael McGrath
Ceist:50. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance if the Central Bank has a role in the liquidation of a company (details supplied); if it has been consulted since the liquidation has commenced; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47400/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí scríofa
I propose to take Questions Nos. 47 to 50, inclusive, together.
I am informed by the Central Bank that it has been actively engaged with Custom House Capital Limited (Custom House Capital) since 2009, which led to a series of restrictions being imposed on the firm. In July 2011, on instruction from the Central Bank, Custom House Capital was prevented from carrying out any transactions or making payments to any clients in order to protect the interests of all clients, and prevent any further effect on client investments, until the impact of the issues involved was established.
On 15 July 2011 the Central Bank sought the appointment of High Court Inspectors to conduct an investigation into the affairs of the firm and assess its financial position, as there were significant concerns about the firm's operations following the identification of new and previously unknown issues.
Following a detailed investigation, Central Bank High Court Inspectors published a report identifying a range of significant, serious and previously unknown issues, which threatened client interests and made the firm unviable. This report also recommended the appointment of a liquidator to Custom House Capital as the most appropriate action.
On 21 October 2011 the High Court appointed Mr Kieran Wallace, Chartered Accountant, of KPMG, as Official Liquidator to Custom House Capital. The Official Liquidator was also appointed as the administrator of Custom House Capital for the purposes of and pursuant to Section 33A of the Investor Compensation Act 1998.
The Official Liquidator was appointed by and is accountable to the Court for the conduct and completion of the liquidation of Custom House Capital.
The process of establishing legitimate ownership of all investments involves a significant and lengthy reconciliation of client holdings that will take time to fully complete.
The Official Liquidator continues to undertake reconciliation work on client holdings within Custom House Capital and this can be broadly categorised as occurring in the following order:
- Segregated cash and equities
- Other investments, property funds, equity and cash funds, bonds and other funds
- Segregated property investments (individually owned)
- Syndicated property investments via SPVs (mainly European properties)
- Syndicated property investments via Exempt Unit Trusts (mainly UK properties)
It should be noted that any client wishing to clarify individual investments/holdings will need to contact the Official Liquidator’s office directly for information.
The Official Liquidator’s work is overseen by the Examiner's Court and this includes reviewing the costs and progress of the Liquidation of Custom House Capital.
The Central Bank has, and continues to be, committed to working with all relevant statutory bodies in supporting them in the exercise of their powers in relation to the activities of Custom House Capital and the individuals concerned. Referrals have been made to the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation, the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, Director of Public Prosecutions, the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Justice and Equality. The Central Bank continues to work with these bodies.
Mortgage Resolution Processes
Ceisteanna (51)
Michael McGrath
Ceist:51. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the number of mortgage restructures by restructure type for both PDH and BTL mortgages in tabular form; the number under each restructure type restructured by regulated financial institutions, retail credit firms and unregulated loan owners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47411/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí scríofa
I am informed by the Central Bank that their Residential Mortgage Arrears and Repossessions Statistics show that at end-June 2017, 120,398 PDH mortgage accounts were restructured.
The breakdown by entity type is as follows: Banks 111,156 accounts, Retail Credit Firms 6,695 accounts and unregulated loan owners 2,547 accounts. Similarly, 23,623 BTL accounts were restructured at end-June. The breakdown by entity type is as follows: Banks 22,833 accounts, Retail Credit Firms 318 accounts and unregulated loan owners 472 accounts.
In addition to the above published statistics, please see below a further unpublished breakdown of restructures for PDH and BTL accounts. Given the small number of observations in some categories, it is not possible to provide the level of detail requested. However, the Statistics Division within the Central Bank is currently reviewing the breakdowns published, with a view to expanding coverage in the New Year, subject to confidentiality measures.
Principal Dwelling Houses
|
- |
Banks |
Non-Banks |
PDH Total |
|
Arrears Capitalisation |
34,093 |
5,074 |
39,167 |
|
Split Mortgages |
26,788 |
724 |
27,512 |
|
Other |
50,275 |
3,444 |
53,719 |
|
Total |
111,156 |
9,242 |
120,398 |
Buy-to-Let Properties
|
- |
Banks |
Non-Banks |
BTL Total |
|
Reduced Payment > Interest Only |
5,138 |
383 |
5,521 |
|
Arrears Capitalisation |
5,056 |
217 |
5,273 |
|
Other |
12,639 |
190 |
12,829 |
|
Total |
22,833 |
790 |
23,623 |
Mortgage Resolution Processes
Ceisteanna (52, 53)
Michael McGrath
Ceist:52. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the number of mortgages owned by a company (details supplied); the credit-servicing firms it uses for these mortgages; the number of these mortgages that are currently deemed by the Central Bank as being restructured; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47412/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraMichael McGrath
Ceist:53. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance if the Central Bank is satisfied that a company (details supplied) is acting in compliance with the code of conduct on mortgage arrears and the mortgage arrears resolution process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47413/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí scríofa
I propose to take Questions Nos. 52 and 53 together.
The Central Bank has informed me that the Company referred to is not an entity regulated or supervised by the Central Bank of Ireland (the “Central Bank”).
Data on mortgages owned and currently being restructured by non-bank entities (which includes Retail Credit Firms and unregulated loan owners) is not published routinely by the Central Bank and it is not therefore possible to provide the breakdown requested. However, I would refer to the Central Bank’s Report on Mortgage Arrears, published on 16 December at https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/news-and-media/press-releases/mortgage-arrears-report.pdf?sfvrsn=0. Section 4.2 of this report comments on restructuring activity for non-bank entities.
In addition, as an unregulated loan owner, the company referred to would be required to appoint a regulated Credit Servicing Firm to service loans on its behalf. The deputy may be aware that Lapithus Management DAC states on its website that it has been appointed by the company referred to, to administer and manage its loans for and on its behalf.
In relation to PQ 47413/17, the Central Bank has informed me that Credit Servicing Firms are subject to the provisions of Irish financial services law that apply to regulated financial service providers. This ensures that consumers whose loans are sold to third parties maintain the same regulatory protections they had prior to the sale, including under the various Statutory Codes such as the Consumer Protection Code 2012 (the “CPC”) and the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears 2013 (the “CCMA”).
Therefore, where a consumer has a grievance or dissatisfaction with the provision of a product or service by regulated entity, or the failure or refusal of a regulated entity to provide a product or service, he/she may make a complaint to the regulated entity, in accordance with Provisions 10.7 to 10.12 of the CPC. If the consumer is not happy with the resolution of the complaint he/she is entitled to escalate the complaint to the Financial Services Ombudsman (FSO) who has the statutory powers to investigate complaints against regulated financial services providers. Further information about the FSO is available at www.financialombudsman.ie .
While, the Central Bank does not have a statutory remit to investigate individual complaints of customers of financial services, it does accept and appreciate information from consumers of financial services in the context of its ongoing supervisory work. In this regard, the Central Bank would welcome any information or evidence that may help its work. As you may be aware however, due to confidentiality requirements imposed by domestic and EU legislation, which provides for confidentiality of information relating to ongoing supervision and limits disclosure to circumstances specifically provided for in Section 33AK of the Central Bank Act 1942, it cannot release supervisory information.
Mortgage Interest Relief Application
Ceisteanna (54)
Michael McGrath
Ceist:54. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the reason the tax-relief-at-source history from the Revenue Commissioners shows the loan of persons was owned by a certain firm (details supplied) when the loan was transferred from its previous lender in 2012; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47414/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí scríofa
I am informed by Revenue that the mortgage interest relief in respect of the loans to which the Deputy is referring was correctly applied by the various lenders for the years in question.
The cases to which the Deputy referred were relatively complex cases, with multiple loans and lenders in recent years. When providing confirmation to the borrowers in question regarding the correct application of mortgage interest relief, Revenue used the name of the current lender to assist in distinguishing the loans in question from other older previously held loans.
Mortgage Interest Relief Extension
Ceisteanna (55)
Willie Penrose
Ceist:55. Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Minister for Finance if the mortgage interest relief scheme will be extended for a period of five years and would then be subject to review (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47447/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí scríofa
I announced in Budget 2018 that, in fulfilment of a Programme for Government commitment, mortgage interest relief for owner-occupiers would be extended on a tapered basis to end-2020 for the remaining recipients of the relief.
The process of phasing out Mortgage Interest Relief for homeowners has been under way since 2009. Relief has expired for qualifying mortgages taken out prior to 2004 and, with some limited exceptions, the relief ceased for new borrowings with effect from January 2013.
Legislation currently provides for the relief to cease for remaining recipients at the end of this year. I am aware of the financial pressures that individuals continue to face and of the fact that, without any action in the Finance Bill, the relief holders of MIR would have faced a ‘cliff’ where their relief would have ceased entirely from January 1st 2018. Therefore, Finance Bill 2017 provides for the relief to be continued on a reducing basis for a further three years, to allow the remaining relief-holders a period of adjustment in which to adapt to the winding-down of the relief. Subject to the passing of the Finance Bill, the effect of the measure will be to provide for 75% of the current relief to be continued into 2018, 50% of the current relief into 2019 and 25% of the current relief into 2020. The relief will then expire at end 2020.
It must be remembered that this relief has ceased for homeowners who purchased before 2004, and that those who purchased their homes from 2013 onwards have never benefitted from the relief. It is my view that this tapered extension of the relief for a three-year period strikes an appropriate balance between supporting those current recipients and also considering fairness to homeowners who have never benefitted from the relief.