Lack of candour by debtor in dispute over personal insolvency arrangement

Personal Insolvency – debtor made a proposal for a Personal Insolvency Arrangement (“PIA”) pursuant to the Personal Insolvency Acts 2012 – 2015 - rejected by the creditor - application pursuant to s. 115A(9) of the Acts that the Circuit Court would approve the coming into operation of the PIA notwithstanding the objection - Circuit Court rejected the application - appeal by the debtor of the decision of the Circuit Court - amount due on the loan secured on the principal private residence of the debtor at the date of the preparation of the PIA was €380,276.35 – property worth €105,000 - negative equity of €275,276.35 - secured loans – proposed PIA - creditor argues that the proposed PIA causes them unfair prejudice - debtor has not shown how he proposes to service the increased repayments – creditor objects to the extent of the proposed write-down in mortgage debt of in excess of 72%, where it argues that no credible basis exists on which the court could take a view that the revised mortgage, after this write-down, is capable of being serviced by the debtor - Section 105 of the Personal Insolvency Acts - structural and repair condition of the premises suggests a clear breach by the borrower of the terms and conditions in the mortgage - evidence of the debtor - mortgage payments since engagement with the PIP - PIP was not aware that the debtor had ceased to make payments on his mortgage in September, 2016 - Section 115A of the Acts - gives the court a much broader and far-reaching power to preserve the continued occupation by a debtor of his or her principal private residence - debtor has no reasonable prospect of continuing to reside in the premises in its current condition - debtor has not adequately, or at all, addressed the fact that the premises is arguably constructed in its entirety in breach of planning permission – Court not satisfied that the debtor has adduced sufficient evidence for me to be satisfied regarding the quantum of such costs, or whether they can be met by him - singular lack of convincing and concrete detail contained in the application – Court not satisfied that the debtor has adduced sufficient evidence to persuade the Court that the proposals are sustainable – bona fides of the debtor – affidavit filed for appeal without informing his PIP or his legal advisors of very significant discrepancy – debtor’s lack of candour is material and serious – appeal dismissed.