I have been a senior officer for many years with a local Bank, and especially treating with those debtors not performing the payments of their loans.

All banks and financial institutions take months to convince those debtors to come to terms regarding such non-performance. At times, more than eighteen months to two years? negociations are carried out between the debtor and the creditor. Hence, no one, who deals with such matters, can ever complain of harassment of banks and institutions.

I open a bracket here to state that since the year 2000, the law regarding creditors other than banks and financial institutions had been amended, with the result that such creditors have ceased lending money. Hence, again, since year 2000, no loans are being processed through these creditors.

Coming to the new bill, we find:

(a) it gives right to the parties (borrower/guarantor) to sell amicably by contract. This exists already in our law. Hence, nothing new, as anyone can dispose of his mortgaged property amicably to pay to the creditor.

(b) in case of failure to do so, tenders will be called, but no recourse if no tender is received, which means the institution creditor will have to wait eternally to obtain redress.

In the Sale of Immoveable Property Act, a ?mise à prix? is fixed and the creditor is bound to buy the property to recover the debt.

In case, the property has found a purchaser by tender, with the new bill, it is an end for the debtor?s protection.

In the Sale of Immoveable Property Act, seven days are given to the debtor to find a relative to OUTBID and reopen the sale (hence, protecting the debtor. It has been noticed in many cases, that the debtor?s son or daughter, did OUTBID).

In the case of approval of tender, no further delay is granted but to pay forthwith the sale price, whereas when properties are sold before the Master?s Bar, the purchaser (at times the son or daughter of the debtors) deposits a quarter only leaving the purchaser with almost six months? delay to contact a financial institution to borrow for the three quarters? balance.

It is to be noted that, since the Government has stayed the Sales of Properties of NHDC & MHC, most of the debtors are using this as a pretext not to meet their engagements with the result that, in the end, with the New Bill, the Governmental & Semi Governmental Financial institutions will find themselves in a mess waiting for the ?Commissaire? with his backlog of cases & claims, to decide on the borrowers? claim against such institutions.

There are many other intricacies and issues in the New Bill,which, in the end, work against the interests of the debtor/s. This may take a long article to cover.

My aim is for the legislators to read well the Sale of Immoveable Property Act and that of the New Bill and they will surely, find that the new bill will cause more harm and prejudice to the borrowers.

Gorah PEERMAMODE