Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
The Daily PollTHERE ARE MORE than 70,000 mortgage loans in arrears in Ireland and more the 30,000 of those have been in arrears for over two years.
Earlier this month Free Legal Advice Centre (Flac) policy analyst Paul Joyce suggested that the Legal Aid Board should relax the merits tests for applicants.
The current legislation does allow the board to offer free legal aid in arrears cases, but very few of these make it through the strict merits test.
Should the State relax free legal aid rules to cover more arrears cases?
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
There should be a limit on criminal free legal aid cases….Say max of €4000 max over 5 years…At present a criminal with 100 previous convictions is entitled to full legal aid often a senior and junior barrister as well as a solicitor in court for serious cases also legal aid for an appeal….This policy should be reformed
…..
@John003:
How do you know all this are you a barrister
@Casper: You got me there your honour…Not a barrister…Only barristers and some solicitors can understand it…..
@John003: This article has nothing to do with criminal legal aid.
@John003:
Oh so are you a criminal
@Casper: Very droll my lord…….
@John003: That would allow for abuse – people being set up for crimes. Only the rich would be able to depend themselves.
@John003: or just have a rule where when you hit your 50th conviction we push you off a cliff.
@Martin Byrne: if criminals were jailed to serve their full sentences it wouldn’t be an issue.
If you can’t afford your mortgage, you certainly can’t afford a solicitor. The government approved vultures have no such worries when looking to add you to the many thousands of homeless.
@DaisyChainsaw: well and truthfully said.
if Paul Murphy can qualify for free legal aid then anyone can
@Roy Dowling: that was criminal legal aid in a very serious case with a theoretical risk of life imprisonment. There would have been no need for criminal legal aid if the case had been tried summarily in the District Court.
This article is about civil legal aid, not criminal legal aid. Eligibility for civil legal aid is severely restricted.
@Roy Dowling: You know the System was drawn up by Politicians
Flac should be overhauled full stop.
@Brendan Hughes: why should flac be overhauled? Barristers, solicitors and law students giving up their personal time to provide free advice at clinics.
Muggle, are you confusing FLAC with legal aid?
Inequality of arms characterises the battle by the Banks against distressed borrowers.
I have seen teams of lawyers for the Banks, Senior Counsel. Junior Counsel solicitor and legal executive on the one side, highly resourced, experienced, inaccurate affidavits and proofs on the one side, County Registrars, Circuit Court Judges and some High Court judges just batch processing the cases against beleaguered and distressed borrowers without legal representation.
The schocking thing is there are often serious legal defects in the Banks and vulture funds cases but these go unremarked.
It is getting more and difficult for those without legal representation to get any fairness.
The provocative thing is when Judges belittle and humiliate borrowers because of their lack of knowledge and familiarity with arcane court processes.
The Banks and vulture funds rarely fully comply with Section 4 Data Protection requests and often behave malevolently and atrociously, overcharging interest, legal penalties, not allowing credit for partial payments, having irresponsibly lent in the first place.
This is a total scandal.
Courts in other countries are far better and there is better facility for legal representation.
Consumer protection is often not observed and the number of ruses pulled by the Banks and vulture funds of off the scale.
If a case has merit ,and the litigant is in not in a position to pay then the deciding officer should be allowed to use their powers of discretion to approve ,legal,aid but the litigant must also contribute to the cost,
@Brian O Reilly:
I think it’s obvious that they can’t pay legal fees if they are in arrears in the first place
@Brian O Reilly: But this is about allowing legal aid to people who have already failed the merits test. Maybe the merits test is too strict, but we are given no evidence to work with here.
@Ben McArthur: The merit tests are ridiculous. Someone on minimum wage wouldn’t qualify.
@Niall Sullivan: In order to qualify for legal advice you must pass a means test. If your application is successful you will be asked to make a financial contribution. How much you pay will depend on your means. If you are a complainant in a sexual assualt or rape case, you do not have to pass a means test or pay a contribution.
A minimum contribution of €130 must be paid where your disposable income is less than €11,500. So if you don’t have that lying around, you’re gonna end up at the BAR anyway…
@Niall Sullivan:
Someone on minimum wage probably wouldn’t have a mortgage
@Casper: no but their rent would rival a mortgage for financial stress
If you look at the number of mortgage arrears cases in arrears for more than 90 days, there is a truly massive problem. If all of these borrowers are disposed where will they go?
@Fiona deFreyne: I believe the government are fast tracking a rental scheme at present to allow them stay in their homes and rent. Of course, it should have been dealt with years ago in a sustainable manner. With house prices rocketing, the banks will repossess much quicker now to recoup costs. Pop over to askaboutmoney and read some of the threads.
@Niall Sullivan: will the scheme become operational in time?
AIB is starting to sell off it principal private dwelling house mortgages in default to vulture funds. Vulture funds won’t bother with rent back schemes. That’s not how they make money.
@Niall Sullivan: We can thank Mickey Noonan and his love for banks and Vulture funds, and his contempt and hatred of ordinary people, for the mess the country is in re evictions, mortgage fraud, and the homeless problem.
@Fiona deFreyne:
And that’s before rates rise, you could most likely treble that figure (or more) if they do !
The Government wont do anything that helps or is seen to be fair to its citizens.
This mess is a direct result of the private housing system.
Its costing the state IE us taxpayers billions.
The sooner the better we start building state owned housing provided by the councils.
As a member of a recently recognised ethnic minority, I feel the protection offered to us via the free legal aid is essential to the continuation of our valued way of life. Not only for wrongful misdemeanour suits, but primarily as an essential route to ensuring we have the option to continue our nomadic way if life while also retaining a structured home base for when we need it.
The banks have unlimited resources to pay top legal barristers in the event of court cases. Ironically funded by the taxpayer. In the boom banks flung money at people, when the gangesterism of the banks and developers brought this country to it’s knees, the people who borrowed and people who never borrowed were forced by austerity measures to bail out the banks. After this austerity people who under massive financial strain were evicted by the banks with the blessing of the courts. Two bankers in criminal cases were acquitted by the incompetent handling by the state. They would have been entitled to free legal aid if they needed it.While the victims of their gangesterism were denied it.
The obvious and cheapest solution is to take cases, where it’s the principal home, out of the courts and into a separate and simple arbitration system. I’m amazed it hasn’t happened already.
Repossessing houses MAKES money for the banks (state). Putting people in jail COSTS the state money.
No. They should cut the fees of overcharging lawyers.
@Maxwell Tsu-Araujo: they should not allow TDs to practice at the Bar.
Yep, it should be extended, but in order to get legal aid in a civil matter, your case must have a reasonable chance of success. “But the bankers…” is not a solid argument for not making any repayments. In all honesty, I don’t see a whole heap qualifying on that ground alone.
Current system is a gravy train and will not be reformed as too many get rich off it
Question should be Should the taxpayer subsidise..insert blank
have your say