A former chief executive of card-payment firm Payzone John Nagle has told the High Court he wants to come to an agreement with Bank of Ireland allowing him and his wife Joan to stay at their family home in south Co Dublin.
Mr Nagle’s home at Falls Road, Shankill, is the subject of a mortgage from Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank. After mortgage repayments fell into arrears, the bank issued a demand for repayment in September 2009.
When repayment was not made, it brought proceedings resulting in judgment for €5.1 million being granted against the Nagles. A stay on execution of that judgment remains in place.
Negotiations later resulted in the bank’s Arrears Support Unit (ASU) rejecting the Nagles’ proposals for repayment.
The couple, represented by Gary McCarthy SC and Patrick O’Reilly SC, appealed that decision under the Central Bank’s Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears set out in Bank of Ireland’s brochure.
A stay applies on the summary judgment order, pending compliance with the code of conduct and the outcome of the appeal.
The Nagles claim they have been unable to advance their appeal due to the bank’s alleged failure to provide them with information including details related to the appeal procedures.
In proceedings which began yesterday before Mr Justice Paul Gilligan, the Nagles are seeking various declarations, including that the bank has failed to comply with the Central Bank’s code and failed to establish written procedure for the handling of appeals.
They claim it breached the code of conduct in failing to provide them with documents related to its consideration of their proposals to repay the money owed.
‘Raw deal’
Opening the case, Mr McCarthy said the Nagles felt they had got “a raw deal” from the bank.
Michael McDowell SC, for the bank, argued the Nagles’ action was “misconceived” and that they had failed to co-operate with the bank by not giving financial information as required under the code of conduct. Counsel denied that the bank had breached the code. The Nagles had never stated the grounds on which they intended to bring their appeal, which would be considered as a new hearing, he said.
Mr Nagle rejected claims he had not co-operated with the bank. The case continues.
