The second bail – in / out: the biggest Irish con

We: The Hub – Ireland in conjunction with our buddies promised that we would post and prove the second bail-out and here it is: The banks were bailed out ……. Twice.

We need to look at the Finance Act 2001.

In there, people will see that the banks should apply TRS in 2 ways, these being: a) Either to the mortgage balance and/or b) Apply it to the interest. From IRC Ireland’s analysis, it would appear that if the bank do apply TRS, they apply it either directly to the customers personal current account (against the Finance Act),, or the bank reduces the mortgage repayment by the amount of the TRS entitlement, or else they apply it to the mortgage account, which acts as an over-payment.

The over-payment method is by far the most beneficial to the customer, as it will knock off years towards the end of the mortgage. Revenue states that TRS can be applied in/around 8 weeks – so why is it that the banks appear to only begin to apply it to the customers account in the second year in many cases? Especially when one considers that the mortgage is at its most expensive in the first year. Next point on TRS to note is that states what percentage of TRS a person is entitled to – everyone needs to look at this.

In 2013, Michael Noonan gave us some fantastic news – he told us that anyone that purchased during the years 2004-2008, were entitled to 30% of TRS. But, what he never mentioned, ever, (in between all the adulation he received for his decision), was that people that are in arrears (you know, generally the ones who purchased between 2004-2008), would NOT GET their full TRS entitlement.

So, for example, if a person is struggling and paying half their mortgage, they then in turn, get crucified even more, as they are only allowed half their TRS entitlement. Discriminatory? I think so. Unconstitutional? I think so too. And besides all this, the bank can claim, and keep all TRS entitlements – in effect, another bank bailout – one that no-one is talking about.

What’s worse, is that the people that are struggling are being kicked down even further. What’s worse, is that the banks have an automatic veto on controlling TRS. What’s worse, is that the banks are, in effect, controlling and administering as they see fit tax-payers (your, mine, our) money.

What makes it worse, is that the banks are, in effect, acting as an arm of revenue. Legal? Conflict of interest? And what makes it really worse, is that in the majority of cases that auditors has seen, is that the banks never even passed on the correct percentage that people were entitled to in the first instance – what they were entitled to, was THEIR own money back, and the bank couldn’t even get that right. Second bank bailout? You bet.

Consider getting your mortgage forensically audited.