The Supreme Court has decided to postpone its decision for an appeal, which affects the ability of the financial institutions to obtain the repossession orders which was levied on certain domestic property mortgages.
Permanent TSB appealing a Court of Appeal decision
With many issues going on with the repossession orders, Permanent TSB (PTSB) appealed to the Court of the decision of last July, where it was later discovered that the Circuit Court did not have any authority to claim six Dublin properties which businessman David Langan mortgaged through PTSB. In this case, it was discovered that Langan built the properties after 2001 when the law of rateable valuation of property had already been passed. This issue was termed as the central issue of the whole scenario. With the 2001 Valuation Act coming into the picture, all the domestic dwellings that were subject to the exceptions were not valid.
Lenders seek repossession in the Circuit Court
For the lenders seeking repossession in the Circuit Court, the situation has been much of a favorable one. In this, the property is bound to have a rateable valuation, not above 253.95 Euros. Further, the Valuation commissioner sets all the valuations.
Argument of Langan used in legal proceedings
In Legal proceedings levied by the PTSB, Langan argued that the Circuit court had no right to order repossession because the constituting property was not rateable. However, in 2009 and 2013, new laws were passed which solved the Circuit Court Jurisdiction Issue. But, certain conditions were levied by the Court of Appeal. It meant that the properties built after the year 2001 and were not a part of the oddity created by the 2009 and 2013 laws were not a component of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. Between different fights, PTSB argued that the effect of such kind of decisions will be severe. They further added that the applications for repossession such as the Langer case would ultimately cost them more for the litigants as they have to go towards the costlier high court to solve this case.
The PTSB view of the issue
Brian Murray SC, for the PTSB further said that if the properties at present were not rateable or accordingly not rated, then there is no chance that the rateable valuation exceeded 252 Euros. This was one of the reasons; the Circuit Court had the right to deal with the case. Further, Louis McEntagart SC contended that the Appeal Court decision should stand and said that acceptance of what is explicitly granted on the Circuit Court under certain jurisdiction laws. The Attorney General, Eoin McCullough, who was granted permission to be involved in the case as an “intervening party” said that the COA decision was incorrect or too exaggerated. Such decisions did not take into account the Section 67 of the valuation act as purveying meant that certain properties such as the agricultural land cannot be rateable, but they can be valued.
At last, the five judges of the Supreme Court reserved their decision, and as of now, it will just be a matter of time, and the patience level of all the financial institutions will be tested. Also, a keen watch will be set whether the SC grants them to obtain the repossession orders or not.
Related articles published in How to avoid repossession :
- Repossessions are expected to soar as banks reduce non-performing mortgage loans
- Ireland’s next property crash expected in seven years from now
- Homelessness crisis is engulfing more and more youngsters
- Homelessness crisis continues to deepen as the cap of 7,000 is crossed
Image: Shutterstock
