Bankrupt Solicitors deseve to keep their houses says Jim Stafford

LaGlisse

Drivetime tonight with mary wilson , go to 1HR 21 mins 50 secs
http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A10195316%3A83%3A09%2D09%2D2013%3A

One of the newly qualified Personal insolvency planners who will be negotiating with banks on behalf of busted gamblers says that " a professional (and he specifically mentions a solicitor) should be allowed keep a palatial house as this befits his/her standing in society and sends out the signal to neighbours and clients about who they are, thus allowing them to continue to earn a living.
They need a bigger house than a PAYE worker.
Really, said Mary Wilson, even if they are insolvent.
Yes said Jim...the bigger house is in line with their standing in society and he will argue this point with the insolvency board as being a totally legitimate viewpoint."
Saw this on propertypin
words fail me
Unleash Hell

Mike 1972

LaGlisse wrote: »

They need a bigger house than a PAYE worker..

Are Solicitors exempt from PAYE

minidazzler

All viewpoints are legitimate, some are just way more stupid than others and being viewed from a distorted lens.

kfk

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Are Solicitors exempt from PAYE

They are if they are self employed

MadsL

I don't even...the....errm. What?

Ronin247

Another layer of gobsh*tes added to the mess

Almaviva

LaGlisse wrote: »

Drivetime tonight with mary wilson , go to 1HR 21 mins 50 secs
http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A10195316%3A83%3A09%2D09%2D2013%3A

" a professional (and he specifically mentions a solicitor) should be allowed keep a palatial house as this befits his/her standing in society and sends out the signal to neighbours and clients about who they are

But that would send out a signal about who they are not. They are insolvent. Is he not advocating fraud ?

D!armu!d

LaGlisse wrote: »

...a professional (and he specifically mentions a solicitor) should be allowed keep a palatial house as this befits his/her standing in society ...They need a bigger house than a PAYE worker.

Thought this had to be a wind-up 'til I clicked on the RTE link.

After listening to the clip, I wonder which are the banks he says are amenable to doing these deals - leaving their golden circle buddies in their palatial homes while putting the boot into "PAYE workers"?
Surely not the ones we bailed out that have 'public interest' directors???

thisonetaken

people may laugh, but solicitors are going through a really tough time at the moment, I've just donated 200 euro to the solicitors without yachts foundation, its not much but its all I got

Fiery mutant

Nothing surprises me in this country anymore. The lunatics really do run the asylum.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

someone talking ****e in an effort to get a better deal for someone they're representing?

no ****ing way

dxhound2005

Last week on the same programme Pearse Doherty said that people should be allowed to have €6000 savings set aside for their children's education and not to have that touched to pay their mortgage.

MadsL

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Last week on the same programme Pearse Doherty said that people should be allowed to have €6000 savings set aside for their children's education and not to have that touched to pay their mortgage.

How else would one pay for Fintan's polo lessons?

oppenheimer1

The PIP works on behalf of the insolvent, its their job to ensure that their client gets the best deal out of the process. Its the same as a barrister defending a criminal.

The argument that a hospital consultant or solicitor needs a trophy house as opposed to a PAYE worker is laughable and no creditor would ever agree to it. The idea that anyone would even suggest it undermines their own credibility.

woodoo

That's quite a scary viewpoint for someone in his position. We really do have some loopers in this country.. and the worst part of it is they are often in high places.

ezra_pound

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The PIP works on behalf of the insolvent, its their job to ensure that their client gets the best deal out of the process. Its the same as a barrister defending a criminal.

The argument that a hospital consultant or solicitor needs a trophy house as opposed to a PAYE worker is laughable and no creditor would ever agree to it. The idea that anyone would even suggest it undermines their own credibility.

When you say trophy house, do you mean one like Pat's?

SpaceTime

Class system in full view!

Quite stomach churning really

oppenheimer1

ezra_pound wrote: »

When you say trophy house, do you mean one like Pat's?

Yes

LaGlisse

from politics.ie : transcript of the relevant portion of the interview

Mary Wilson (reading a listener email): What happens to my home if I enter into a PIA?

Jim Stafford: Well, under the legislation the PIP is to try and keep the family in their family home if at all possible. The PIP will have to assess the existing mortgage on the family home, if it's a modest house, if it's a trophy house.

In practice, the PIP will also have to assess the type of house that might be needed for a professional person such as a solicitor, accountant or a hospital consultant as opposed to a house that's needed by someone who is in the PAYE sector for example, so that, as a PIP, I would be making a very strong case, for example, that a solicitor should have a bigger house that accords with his professional status in society so that his neighbours and clients can see that, yes, this person is a good solicitor who's is living in a good house etc. etc.

MW: Really?

JS: Absolutely. The same as for hospital consultants, people like that

MW: Despite the fact that he's insolvent?

JS: Despite the fact that he's insolvent, because remember, if we want the solicitor to continue to earn money or the accountant or the hospital consultant it's important that he has his tools of trade for example

MW: Well, he may need an office, but he hardly needs a palatial house in South County Dublin

JS: Believe me, the clients who we have on our books are insisting they continue to stay in their palatial houses, now, it's possible that some of them might have to down trade, but that all goes into the pot and at the end of the day the banks, the creditors have to agree to that process.

Sickening

dxhound2005

I remember there was a great deal of support for the Kellys from Killiney when they were evicted from their 5 bedroom house. Including from those in the Occupy movement and CAHWT. Have times changed?

Dord

LaGlisse wrote: »

Drivetime tonight with mary wilson , go to 1HR 21 mins 50 secs
http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A10195316%3A83%3A09%2D09%2D2013%3A

One of the newly qualified Personal insolvency planners who will be negotiating with banks on behalf of busted gamblers says that " a professional (and he specifically mentions a solicitor) should be allowed keep a palatial house as this befits his/her standing in society and sends out the signal to neighbours and clients about who they are, thus allowing them to continue to earn a living.
They need a bigger house than a PAYE worker.
Really, said Mary Wilson, even if they are insolvent.
Yes said Jim...the bigger house is in line with their standing in society and he will argue this point with the insolvency board as being a totally legitimate viewpoint."
Saw this on propertypin
words fail me
Unleash Hell

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Wow but what a change of tune from Jim Stafford.
He wasn't that understanding when he was routinely acting as the official liquidator for the self same banks!:mad:

Roger_007

LaGlisse wrote: »

from politics.ie : transcript of the relevant portion of the interview

Mary Wilson (reading a listener email): What happens to my home if I enter into a PIA?

Jim Stafford: Well, under the legislation the PIP is to try and keep the family in their family home if at all possible. The PIP will have to assess the existing mortgage on the family home, if it's a modest house, if it's a trophy house.

In practice, the PIP will also have to assess the type of house that might be needed for a professional person such as a solicitor, accountant or a hospital consultant as opposed to a house that's needed by someone who is in the PAYE sector for example, so that, as a PIP, I would be making a very strong case, for example, that a solicitor should have a bigger house that accords with his professional status in society so that his neighbours and clients can see that, yes, this person is a good solicitor who's is living in a good house etc. etc.

MW: Really?

JS: Absolutely. The same as for hospital consultants, people like that

MW: Despite the fact that he's insolvent?

JS: Despite the fact that he's insolvent, because remember, if we want the solicitor to continue to earn money or the accountant or the hospital consultant it's important that he has his tools of trade for example

MW: Well, he may need an office, but he hardly needs a palatial house in South County Dublin

JS: Believe me, the clients who we have on our books are insisting they continue to stay in their palatial houses, now, it's possible that some of them might have to down trade, but that all goes into the pot and at the end of the day the banks, the creditors have to agree to that process.

Sickening

I have just finished fixing the hole in the floor where my jaw hit it after I read this. :mad:

michael999999

woodoo wrote: »

That's quite a scary viewpoint for someone in his position. We really do have some loopers in this country.. and the worst part of it is they are often in high places.

What's even scarier is these same loopers were probably the same people telling folk to invest in more property in the bertie fraud that was the celtic tiger!

Ray Palmer

Does nobody see the point being made?

I am not saying I agree but I can kind of see the point.

BeerWolf

The elite remain the elite while they sit on the backs of the common folk.

Pappa Charlie

It seems like we have just set up a quango to protect the mighty who have fallen!

Ray Palmer

BeerWolf wrote: »

The elite remain the elite while they sit on the backs of the common folk.

Anybody getting debit forgiveness is having it paid by tax payers. The people who pay the most tax still remain to be the higher paid. So it is really not off the common folk. That is just the reality

wexie

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Does nobody see the point being made?

I am not saying I agree but I can kind of see the point.

What point would that be?

Personally if I was looking for a sollicitor I'd quite like to know whether or not he'd been declared bankrupt and not be fooled by him still living in a big house.

And where do you draw the line? Should he get to keep his Jag and his Rolex as well? What about the private school for the kids? Couldn't be having people thinking he can't afford the private school anymore now could we?

What about the holidays, should he still get to go on holidays? Gotta keep up the front after all :rolleyes:

munchkin_utd

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Does nobody see the point being made?

I am not saying I agree but I can kind of see the point.

yup, if its an "investment" in the person to allow them to repay their loans, then it can be logically explained.

I'd still have it only as an interim arrangement with the house down for automatic repossession 5years down the line should they not be keeping up payments.

wexie

munchkin_utd wrote: »

yup, if its an "investment" in the person to allow them to repay their loans, then it can be logically explained.

errr....no it can't....

explained....maybe
logically explained.....not by any standard of logic I've ever heard of.

vitani

If my solicitor was stupid enough to keep on a house he couldn't afford just to keep up appearances, I wouldn't trust him to look after my legal affairs.

wexie

vitani wrote: »

If my solicitor was stupid enough to keep on a house he couldn't afford just to keep up appearances, I wouldn't trust him to look after my legal affairs.

The article I believe mentions 'professionals' so it could be an accountant as well

handlemaster

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Wow but what a change of tune from Jim Stafford.
He wasn't that understanding when he was routinely acting as the official liquidator for the self same banks!:mad:

He who pays the piper calls the tune

hardCopy

Dord wrote: »

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Four cars good, two cars bad?

SEPT 23 1989

I love when the mask slips with these parasites

Ray Palmer

vitani wrote: »

If my solicitor was stupid enough to keep on a house he couldn't afford just to keep up appearances, I wouldn't trust him to look after my legal affairs.

That is exactly the point being made to keep up appearances by not taking their home. By taking the home they will lose business and not be able to pay money back.

It seems a little strange to me because I would think professional appearance would be more down to the office and car been driven. I don't know where my accountant lives but I know his offices and the car he drives.

If my accountant was in a crappy office and driving a crappy car I would be a little concerned.

wexie

Ray Palmer wrote: »

That is exactly the point being made to keep up appearances by not taking their home. By taking the home they will lose business and not be able to pay money back.

It seems a little strange to me because I would think professional appearance would be more down to the office and car been driven. I don't know where my accountant lives but I know his offices and the car he drives.

If my accountant was in a crappy office and driving a crappy car I would be a little concerned.

Absolutely agree with you on this, don't see how it should effect the house though. Like you said, most people wouldn't even know where he lives and in the current climate it's a bit of a jump to assume that a bankrupt accountant / sollicitor / architect (actually I could see a point for an architect) is necessarily a bad one.

By all means let them keep the tools of the trade (within reason) but the house shouldn't form a part of that.

norrie rugger

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Last week on the same programme Pearse Doherty said that people should be allowed to have €6000 savings set aside for their children's education and not to have that touched to pay their mortgage.

Savings is a strange one though, should a person be punished for NOT spending all their money Vs someone that blew absolutely everything on disposables?
Also an education, in Ireland, is only free in name. College alone costs most parents a shed load and that would be why they are saving

imitation

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Does nobody see the point being made?

I am not saying I agree but I can kind of see the point.

What point ? Hes trying to make out a big house for a consultant is the same as a hammer for a carpenter. I don't recalling asking for pictures of my doctors house last time I was in hospital. Its deluded, you mess up, you pay, should apply to all at the same level.

At least though hes saying what a lot of these types actually think to themselves

rockbeast

Professionals "need" a trophy house, sure.

Then a trophy car, obviously.

4 holidays a year, naturally.

Private educations for Fiachra and Turlough, but of course.

May I suggest to the banks that it in fact they that now owe the professionals money.

Scary thing is that Donald Trump was allegedly famous in banking circles for pulling the exact stunt as above when he was in financial trouble in 80/90's.

No doubt we'll see it here too.

Ray Palmer

wexie wrote: »

Absolutely agree with you on this, don't see how it should effect the house though. Like you said, most people wouldn't even know where he lives and in the current climate it's a bit of a jump to assume that a bankrupt accountant / sollicitor / architect (actually I could see a point for an architect) is necessarily a bad one.

By all means let them keep the tools of the trade (within reason) but the house shouldn't form a part of that.

I really didn't see the importance of the house but when I thought about a bit more I realised I wasn't considering rural areas. People know a lot about other peoples' business or at least talk about it.
If an accountant in such areas was seen selling his house and moving to a much smaller place or renting it would be noticed. In that situation I can see the point. They could lose their entire business. So to an extent a tool of the trade.

Not saying I agree just there is a certain amount of logic that maybe relevant.

Ray Palmer

imitation wrote: »

At least though hes saying what a lot of these types actually think to themselves

It actually seems to be about how others perceive them not how they see themselves

wexie

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I really didn't see the importance of the house but when I thought about a bit more I realised I wasn't considering rural areas. People know a lot about other peoples' business or at least talk about it.
If an accountant in such areas was seen selling his house and moving to a much smaller place or renting it would be noticed. In that situation I can see the point. They could lose their entire business. So to an extent a tool of the trade.

Not saying I agree just there is a certain amount of logic that maybe relevant.

hmmmm....yeah I can see where you're coming from. Should we not try to get away from that kinda thinking though? It's a slippery slope and before you know it we're looking at buy to lets in Romania again.

Changing the mindset of rural Ireland, now there's a challenge for when the recession is over

Sleepy

Do people understand what a PIP does?

They represent a person that's insolvent in negotiations with their creditors. That's all. They have absolutely no power. Any creditor presented with the argument being made by this eejit would tell him to catch a hold of himself (or deserves the losses it would cause them if they're stupid enough to agree to it).

If the creditors don't like the deal being offered by the PIP on behalf of the insolvent, they can still choose to bankrupt the individual.

alanoakie

https://soundcloud.com/mgslasher/personal-insolvency-practioner

here's the clip so you can hear what a knobend he is

Ray Palmer

wexie wrote: »

Should we not try to get away from that kinda thinking though? It's a slippery slope and before you know it we're looking at buy to lets in Romania again.

You can't stop human nature. If you think of a profession of these types you would expect them to earn a high wage. If they aren't you are naturally going to question their ability especially when you know they used to have a better standard of living.

I don't think it is a slippery slope to that extent.

Ultimately I want what ever is the cheapest option morality/perception of it be damned

Tigerandahalf

This is just madness.
This image is all I can think of.

http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/the-best-blow-chart-ever-bird-****.jpg

Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be linking, but it is the picture of the birds sh*tting down on each other.

rockbeast

Sleepy wrote: »

Do people understand what a PIP does?

They represent a person that's insolvent in negotiations with their creditors. That's all. They have absolutely no power. Any creditor presented with the argument being made by this eejit would tell him to catch a hold of himself.

If the creditors don't like the deal being offered by the PIP on behalf of the insolvent, they can still choose to bankrupt the individual.

Of course he should represent his client to the best of his ability and I think he's really just looking for business and publicity here.

I think it's the fact that this mindset exists, or could exist, that has people riled up.

He, JS, reg'd over on p.ie to respond to that thread. "Interesting" reading...

Tigerandahalf

I wouldn't hold out hope that the ordinary taxpayer will be protected. Many of these solicitors, accountants and other professionals would have been giving financial donations to political parties like FG and Labour who are currently in government.

hardCopy

rockbeast wrote: »

Professionals "need" a trophy house, sure.

Then a trophy car, obviously.

4 holidays a year, naturally.

Private educations for Fiachra and Turlough, but of course.

May I suggest to the banks that it in fact they that now owe the professionals money.

Scary thing is that Donald Trump was allegedly famous in banking circles for pulling the exact stunt as above when he was in financial trouble in 80/90's.

No doubt we'll see it here too.

Don't forget golf club membership. Sure where else would he be able to find new clients?