The Pepper Finance Tullamore Circuit Court Case-What does it mean for you and vulture funds?

[@davejmanning544]

Thanks Terry.

[@louisfinegan4546]

Thanks Terry. Can an entity that "owns" a loan be compelled to charge a specific interest rate? That seems very unlikely to me. What if some judge decided that the holder of the mortgage be compelled to apply a 0% interest rate or even minus 10%? surely such entities have some rights in their possessions? I have nothing but sympathy for the householders in this situation and hope it all works out for them but I struggle to see how the government can say "you used to have this thing of value and now it is of much lesser value" without any kind of compensation.

[@pjcollins4]

Hi Terry Re the Tullamore Court Case From my observation the Judge ordered pepper to give the couple 2.5% interest fixed on there loan for 20yrs because of pepper refusal to disclose the price they paid for the load Is there any way a person can find out the price pepper paid for there loan

[@terrygorry]

Not that I am aware of. That would be "commercially sensitive", I would have thought. It would be like asking a builder how much it cost him to build the house or what the site cost.

[@brackloon4584]

Terry doesn't work for you he works in the commercial interest, as do The Courts. That's why you'll never get a straight answer from him on any inquiry regarding what the vulture paid. This is the key question that must be answered, before anybody "owes" anything. Terry knows this, but it is not profitable to attack the vultures at their weakest point. Rather, let people continue in perpetuity trapped by vultures and their inhumane and unjust practices, because hey, your friendly practitioner or solicitor will always be there to "advise" you.

[@staffofdagda6238]

so you cannot vary the contract in any circumstances?

[@terrygorry]

If both parties agree. Otherwise, a deal is a deal.

[@adrianflynn4739]

@@terrygorry An unfair term can be excluded from the contract by the Courts.... although Irish Judges appear to have difficulty in finding any unfair terms in contracts

[@brightrose9405]

Did the couple agree to Pepper buying their mortgage in the first place. Or were they informed about their mortgage being sold to another agency. If not is that not illegal?

[@terrygorry]

There is no problem with a lender selling a loan. They do not need consent.

[@adrianflynn4739]

@@terrygorry Surely that is not entirely accurate Terry. Is the factual legal position not actually that they do need consent,? However, their position is that you have already consented in sinning the mortgage and connected T&C's of your mortgage which says they can securitise your mortgage. However, if the mortgage contract is void for some reason, then there is no valid and lawful terms and conditions which they can rely on so in that case, you did not actually give your consent as the contract is void. Is it also not the case that there could be an argument that the consent is actually an unfair term in the mortgage under the EU Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive?

[@terrygorry]

@@adrianflynn4739 See section 100 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/2009/act/27/revised/en/html#SEC100

[@adrianflynn4739]

@@terrygorry Thanks for your prompt reply Terry. A number of things on this: 1. This act came into force in 2009 so I assume that it does not apply to mortgages that were taken out prior to when it came into force in 2009 as the law should not be applied retrospective. 2. Section 100 is dealing with the "Power of Sale" and refers to selling the mortgaged property... this is different to selling the loan. What Pepper are involved in is the sale of the loan or some people might even argue they are only involved in buying the account and the legal charge. The original question was is it not illegal to sell the loan without the home owners consent, to which you replied that there was no need for consent. So your link to the 2009 act does not answer that question, or the possibility of "secularization clauses" and/or consent given in a mortgage contract could be an unfair term.... who knew anything about secularization prior to 2009... is the secularization terms and consent in a mortgage contract understandable by a normal person and written in plain understandable language?? It has taken Judges days in Court cases to understand secularization clauses in contracts so how would they be plain and understandable to the ordinary Joe soap? 3. Section 100 2 says it can't be sold (that is the property) unless they have a Court Order OR the consent of the Mortgagor i.e. the home owner usually "(2) The power of sale shall not become exercisable without a court order granted under subsection (3),

[@terrygorry]

@@adrianflynn4739 A statutory right to sell arises by virtue of Section 19 of the Conveyancing Act 1881. For the right to arise the Mortgage Money must have become due. In most cases this can be established by checking the terms of the Mortgage Deed itself as it may fix a legal date for redemption. Once this date is past the right of sale has arisen. Where there is not a fixed date for redemption the Purchaser should seek evidence by way of a Statutory Declaration that in the case of a Loan repayable by instalments the Borrower was in arrears or in the case of a loan repayable on demand that a formal demand had been made and no payments received on foot of same.