Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
People power halts eviction
Comments
-
When I was in Spain last year, the indignados were blocking evictions as well, and TBH I don't really agree with this strategy.
Both Spain and Ireland have draconian bankruptcy and foreclosure laws. There needs to be some kind of legal way for people to close the door on bad financial decisions, even if their credit takes a hit for 5-7 years. But in Spain, people can never discharge their mortgages, and in Ireland, IIRC, bankruptcy follows you for something like 12 years. If there was a more straightforward option where people could get back on a path towards making themselves financially whole again, I think that could go a long way towards addressing issues of foreclosure, debt, etc. I wish groups like the Indignados )and Occupy movements, etc) would have used their energy to push for more systematic reforms, rather than these ad-hoc street actions which only have individual (and often short-term) benefits.0 -
southsiderosie wrote: »When I was in Spain last year, the indignados were blocking evictions as well, and TBH I don't really agree with this strategy.
Both Spain and Ireland have draconian bankruptcy and foreclosure laws. There needs to be some kind of legal way for people to close the door on bad financial decisions, even if their credit takes a hit for 5-7 years. But in Spain, people can never discharge their mortgages, and in Ireland, IIRC, bankruptcy follows you for something like 12 years. If there was a more straightforward option where people could get back on a path towards making themselves financially whole again, I think that could go a long way towards addressing issues of foreclosure, debt, etc. I wish groups like the Indignados )and Occupy movements, etc) would have used their energy to push for more systematic reforms, rather than these ad-hoc street actions which only have individual (and often short-term) benefits.
There has to be a middle ground somewhere recognising the Government and Banks failure to exercise prudence and also the buyers lack of same.
There has to be culpability and penalty on the buyers side or else the whole thing will happen again, or well more accurately, laws have to be updated, as it will probably happen again given Ireland's emotional ties with property. The biggest property crash in Western Europe hasn't cut that tie, by the looks of it, thinking of property tax debates in particular!Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
The video showed nothing other than a deputy sherrif with no confidence to carry out a court order and a garda who got frightened when asked if he was there on his oath.0
-
jimmycrackcorm wrote: »The video showed nothing other than a deputy sherrif with no confidence to carry out a court order and a garda who got frightened when asked if he was there on his oath.
That's the way I read it too. They can see all the cameras and don't want to make asses out of themselves.0 -
jimmycrackcorm wrote: »The video showed nothing other than a deputy sherrif with no confidence to carry out a court order and a garda who got frightened when asked if he was there on his oath.
Excuse the ignorance of the question but what does it mean that a garda is "on his/her oath"?0 -
celticcrash wrote: »Common law rules, thats not freeman stuff.
Maybe the guy in this clip should encourage more people to stick to common law, like getting the guy who contracted for a mortgage to not go five years without paying it.0 -
antoobrien wrote: »Excuse the ignorance of the question but what does it mean that a garda is "on his/her oath"?
Not 100% sure but I think its something along the lines that the Garda has to be acting on his oath to God or he can be ignored. All men are created by God therefore all men are equal and no man may command another. Only God is above man.
AFAIK thats the type of utter offal that is used to support the freeman ideas.0 -
I wouldn't at all blame the normal joe soap house buyer in the boom. Sure, the prices weren't going to continually rise, but also, who could have predicted a STOP and a big crash?
Just because you and others couldn't be bothered looking through history does not mean the rest of us are idiots.Anyone who claims that they knew the prices would stop rising and then also crash dramatically is bull****ting! Hence I am empathetic and sympathetic to those who have suffered because of this crash.
Anyone with a modicum of common sense knew that prices could not go increasing forever.
there were huge warnign signs there, signs that were ignored by the vested interests and the ones who believe everything they are fed by the former group.
And as history had shown those of us who bothered to look, after a huge bubble comes a huge crash.
You know what, you sounding annoyingly like our ex taoiseach, you know the one that told people who warned about his glorious bubble to go away and commit suicide.southsiderosie wrote: »...
From 2004 - 2006, I worked in Florida and part of my job was to track new real estate developments, the number of units, and the price points. It was patently obvious that the market was going to crash: in a poor city of 200,000 people, there were something like 40,000 units slated to come online over a 5-year period, none of which started at less than $299,000. People knew it was outrageous and unsustainable, but everyone thought that the person behind them would get caught holding the bag...
Ah the glory of flipping.
Ever come across any of the famous Irish organisations flying people out to pressure sell to them ?
BTW are we allowed mention the most famous of these, you know the one run by the owner of an English football club ?
I know it was yet another thing not allowed over on AAM.:(You don't think the banks have anything to answer for? Considering they are the supposed experts and sell mortgages all the time their wreckless lending caused massive damage.
Yes they bare responsibility for lots of things and that is why some of them should have been left go bust.
But then again most of these mortgages are with the two major banks, the smaller players in the mess such as PTSB, EBS and the foreign owned banks.
Now the Irish owned banks are really owned by the taxpayers so are you saying we should now screw the taxpayers further ?
BTW to paraphrase Homer Simpson.
It takes to borrow, one to borrow and one to lend.The securitisation thing is a huge problem in the US at the moment. Banks are losing cases when trying to forclose because they haven't got the proper paperwork or even the deeds. They were in such a hurry to give absolutely anyone a mortgage's in order to sell it on as bonds the paper trail is a mess.
Even people who were paying found themselves being forclosed on. Good article about it here:
Invasion of the Home Snatchers
Matt Taibbi on how foreclosure courts are helping big banks screw over homeowners
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-courts-helping-banks-screw-over-homeowners-20101110
Could something similar be possible here?
Wouldn't surprise me.
Ah looking for yet another way to welch on your debts and dump them on the taxpayers. :rolleyes:
What would society do without you.Sure. Both the banks and the government acted in a reckless irresponsible fashion.
...
This idea that if a bank tells you you can have a 100% mortgage then you have no responsibility to actually evaluate for yourself if that mortgage is a good idea or not, or if it is too risky an investment or not, is frankly moronic.
Shure who would want such an inconvenient thing as personal responsibility. :rolleyes:
Nowadays it this same sh**e that is wheelled out everytime somebody is up in court for a crime.
Shure they are not responsible for bluddeoning the old person to death, they come from a disadvantaged area/background.
They are the ones that need saving.
Fook that for a game of cowboys. :mad:I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
Warnings were given re the housing bubble. Now some of the same people are warning about an upcoming mortgage crisis as well. Should we just ignore them again like last time? Worked out well then.
I know feeling smug and calling people stupid is fun for some but isn't it time to prepare and put something in place to head off this problem or should we wait until it becomes a crisis again?0 -
Advertisement
-
The securitisation thing is a huge problem in the US at the moment. Banks are losing cases when trying to forclose because they haven't got the proper paperwork or even the deeds. They were in such a hurry to give absolutely anyone a mortgage's in order to sell it on as bonds the paper trail is a mess.Ah looking for yet another way to welch on your debts and dump them on the taxpayers. :rolleyes:
What would society do without you.
I have to agree with 20Cent here. The foreclosure issue isn't about dumping on taxpayers, it is about rule of law. Just as buyers were trying to make extra money by flipping houses, lenders were trying to make money by bundling and selling mortgages. Only the mortgage holder has the right to foreclose on a home - if you can't prove who actually holds the mortgage, then how can you kick someone out of their house?0 -
Warnings were given re the housing bubble. Now some of the same people are warning about an upcoming mortgage crisis as well. Should we just ignore them again like last time? Worked out well then.
I know feeling smug and calling people stupid is fun for some but isn't it time to prepare and put something in place to head off this problem or should we wait until it becomes a crisis again?
There is a difference between warning about something and doing what you are doing.
What you are doing is akin to a banker telling everyone in 2007 that they should be given billions in a bailout less the world caves in.
We all know there probably is a load of mortgage defaults coming down the road.
Some are just surviving and if anything rocks the boat they will sink.
But what you are doing is demanding that those people be given a get out of jail card on their debts, i.e. debt forgiveness.
Just like I argued against bailouts for banks like Anglo/INBS and NAMA, I am arguing against a bailout of every mortgage defaulter.
Where would the madness end ?
Basically this country would be a state where you can borrow as much as you like, not pay it back and continue as if nothing had happened.
Try and see if any lender would give mortgages after that.
You could definetly say goodbye to any foreign bank offering any form of loans in this country.southsiderosie wrote: »I have to agree with 20Cent here. The foreclosure issue isn't about dumping on taxpayers, it is about rule of law. Just as buyers were trying to make extra money by flipping houses, lenders were trying to make money by bundling and selling mortgages. Only the mortgage holder has the right to foreclose on a home - if you can't prove who actually holds the mortgage, then how can you kick someone out of their house?
Yes we know the situation in the states and I have a feeling the somehting similar may apply to some of those developers who got wads of cash with little securitisation in return and the deals were poorly documented.
Now if someone was to come on here and say that developer X does not have to pay back x hundred million to NAMA, because the paperwork was screwed up there would be uproar.
And I can assure you that some of those getting angry would include the very ones that think it is ok if mortgage holder Y doesn't pay anything back because there was a screwup with the paperwork.
IMHO it appears 20cent is hoping that there might be similar screwups with the paperwork here and thus some get out of paying their debts.
I wonder does he think the same should be used by seanie fitz, sean dunne, seamus ross, sean quinn, etc ?I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
There is a difference between warning about something and doing what you are doing.
What you are doing is akin to a banker telling everyone in 2007 that they should be given billions in a bailout less the world caves in.
We all know there probably is a load of mortgage defaults coming down the road.
Some are just surviving and if anything rocks the boat they will sink.
But what you are doing is demanding that those people be given a get out of jail card on their debts, i.e. debt forgiveness.
Just like I argued against bailouts for banks like Anglo/INBS and NAMA, I am arguing against a bailout of every mortgage defaulter.
Where would the madness end ?
Basically this country would be a state where you can borrow as much as you like, not pay it back and continue as if nothing had happened.
Try and see if any lender would give mortgages after that.
You could definetly say goodbye to any foreign bank offering any form of loans in this country.
We all know there is a large amount of mortgage defaults coming down the road. Just as we knew a housing bubble was coming. Ignoring a problem makes it worse. Some debt forgiveness is the only solution I can think of maybe you have a better one?
The rest is slippery slope arguments.Yes we know the situation in the states and I have a feeling the somehting similar may apply to some of those developers who got wads of cash with little securitisation in return and the deals were poorly documented.
Now if someone was to come on here and say that developer X does not have to pay back x hundred million to NAMA, because the paperwork was screwed up there would be uproar.
And I can assure you that some of those getting angry would include the very ones that think it is ok if mortgage holder Y doesn't pay anything back because there was a screwup with the paperwork.
IMHO it appears 20cent is hoping that there might be similar screwups with the paperwork here and thus some get out of paying their debts.
I wonder does he think the same should be used by seanie fitz, sean dunne, seamus ross, sean quinn, etc ?
I certainly hope that is not the case. But since you mentioned it I have seen it reported that many of the loans NAMA took over don't have proper documentation.
Don't think your list of people are going to be stuck for somewhere to live or a few quid despite the amounts they owe do you?0 -
The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »
I don't get why you said the Government are making a mockery of You and Me, cause we had an election a year ago, it was all free, there have no major protests, opinion polls are strong for the Government and it all is fairly stable. So looking at it objectively, it seems the Government are acting exactly the same the majority of people want it to act.
I have never voted for any of the three major parties in this country so I would consider what they are doing to be a mockery of what I believe and stand for and so by extension me as a whole.
The general consensus from all I have read on the boards and other forums is that the majority of people in this country are not happy with what the government have done over the last year.
One subjective example of this is my position regarding furthering my education. The new rules regarding post-grad grants and fees mean that I will not get any help in doing a masters degree. The current figures show that the average time spent on the live register is 21 months. I no doubt will have to sign on in may when I finish my exams. Even if I by some miracle only last half of the average time on the dole the government will have spent nearly twice as much for me to p*ss about looking for jobs that aren't there rather than making me more employable which would cost around 5k.
Further to this the new rules they propose to bring in about expected signing off the live register are yet another grand scheme which will most likely result in disaster. How can they implement this sort of policy without adequate time to create the massive infrastructure needed to fulfil it? Where are these training opportunities going to come from? Where are the jobs going to come from ? 200,000 jobs by 2020? Are you serious? In the 1950s and the 1980s Irish governments relied on emigration to reduce the unemployed of this country. Back then it was mainly uneducated people leaving - today all the highly educated brains (that we as tax payers paid for) are leaving. We will end up mass-exporting our greatest asset, hell they are leaving right now!
Less access to education + mass emigration ≠ highly educated workforce
This is not going to get any better any time soon. Our government and the ESRI think our growth will be nearly 1% this year... The IMF say 0.5%. I'd be inclined to agree with the IMF. Either way we are screwed.
I haven't got time to continue this which has clearly deviated into rant territory - suffice it to conclude that this is not the type of country I want to live in nor is this the type of Europe I want to live in. I feel like I have been made a mockery of.0 -
We all know there is a large amount of mortgage defaults coming down the road. Just as we knew a housing bubble was coming. Ignoring a problem makes it worse. Some debt forgiveness is the only solution I can think of maybe you have a better one?
The rest is slippery slope arguments.
And what do you think a debt forgiveness program would be.
How do you envisage a debt forgiveness solution working ?
Should it only apply ...- to those who bought normal houses and not massive houses ?
- to those who did not roll any other debt into their mortgages ?
- to those who did not remortgage ?
- to those who only borrowed 4 or 5 times their salary at the time ?
- to those who did not take out 100% mortgages ?
- to those who only bought between 2002 and 2008 ?
- to you ?
For a start you cannot have a blanket system.
Secondly how do you force a non irish owned bank to write off chunks of mortgages ?
Those banks have to receive compensation and who pays that but the taxpayers once again.
You cannot have a system where someone is allowed walk away from their debt yet keep ownership of the property.
If you think otherwise you are deluded if you think others would agree to it.
Otherwise why should the rest of those who are paying their mortgages not refuse to pay and demand they get some debt forgiveness as well.
What about those who don't have a mortgage ?
What do they get for their contribution to the mortgage of the one who is receiving debt forgiveness ?
The only thing that will have to happen is if people can't repay mortgage is that they declare bankrupt are left with nothing and lose ownership of the house.
Yes this will have knock on affect on house prices whihc I know is one of your concerns, but tough sh**.
House prices are still overvalued and it is about time they reached the bottom of the crash.
And by overvalued I mean they are still hovering at a point during the beginning of the bubble (probably 2000-2001) and they have gone down to apoint before the bubble even started (mid to late 90s).
There is going to be huge fallout, but dreaming up ways that people keep their homes and somehow magically walk away from their debts will not run with the ones who will have to cover the cost of that little scheme.
There is only so far you can push the ones that keep this country going and asking them to support their neighbour who often lived the high life, but now wants a bailout I reckon will be a step too far.I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
True, I certainly know people who are kicking themselves now for being so naive but who would say that at the time they felt a pressure that they had to buy something, anything, in order to get on the rising tide.
This pressure to buy property is central to the entire question of how Ireland and it's prople ended up in this dreadful situation.
What makes it all the more disgusting,is that a great source of this presure came from actual Government Policy enacted by a legislature comprised of Gamblers,Publicans,Auctioneers,Lawyers and Speculators.
This cabal managed successfully to forge the folk-myth that owning a Place of your own was almost compulsory if one was to survive at all.
Whilst all of this policy formulation was going on,the same crew managed to consistently derail any attempts to advocate affordable,regulated Private Long-Term Rental as a sustainable means of housing citizens.
Sadly,even in todays supposedly clearer situation,our Government still clings to the fallacy that we can still get the Property Canoe upright again.....:)Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
Advertisement
-
Warnings were given re the housing bubble. Now some of the same people are warning about an upcoming mortgage crisis as well. Should we just ignore them again like last time? Worked out well then.
I know feeling smug and calling people stupid is fun for some but isn't it time to prepare and put something in place to head off this problem or should we wait until it becomes a crisis again?
Of course. We should also though be putting in place acceptance of responsibility in society so that hopefully the next time we have a bubble (which seems to be about ever 20 to 25 years) perhaps people act a little bit more responsibly than they did before.
Or to put it another way, this generation need to take responsibility for the mess they have gotten themselves into so when their children are faced with the same choices (albet probably on a smaller scale than this time around) they can be educated by their parents mistakes.0 -
Anyone with a modicum of common sense knew that prices could not go increasing forever.:
Eh, I never said otherwise, and if you bothered to read what I wrote you would know this. I said I do not believe average folks could confidently predict two events happening together. Prices would STOP rising, as well as them then dramatically crashing. I know well the prices couldn't keep rising. They were great at saying this after it happened, but there were never clear signs that the prices would stop AND drop dramatically.0 -
This cabal managed successfully to forge the folk-myth that owning a Place of your own was almost compulsory if one was to survive at all.
Not to mention the group-think that it was unpatriotic somehow to question this folk-myth..talking the economy down I believe was the phrase at the time.
That and the media being 'negative'.0 -
Eh, I never said otherwise, and if you bothered to read what I wrote you would know this. I said I do not believe average folks could confidently predict two events happening together. Prices would STOP rising, as well as them then dramatically crashing. I know well the prices couldn't keep rising. They were great at saying this after it happened, but there were never clear signs that the prices would stop AND drop dramatically.
When?
In 2006 I gave two people I knew who were just about to buy apartments clippings from the Economist predicting a 50% drop for Ireland and drawing comparisons with other property crashes.
I got laughed at. They bought anyway. I think one is now 60% underwater.0 -
Of course. We should also though be putting in place acceptance of responsibility in society so that hopefully the next time we have a bubble (which seems to be about ever 20 to 25 years) perhaps people act a little bit more responsibly than they did before.
Or to put it another way, this generation need to take responsibility for the mess they have gotten themselves into so when their children are faced with the same choices (albet probably on a smaller scale than this time around) they can be educated by their parents mistakes.
The banks, nope they were bailed out.
Bondholders nope they got paid back,
Developers, nope they get a wage pus will be buying back their property for a song soon.
The bloke who wanted a home for his family yep, hammered for all they have moral hazard only applies to them. And soon we will be bailing out the banks again when this goes tits up.
To properly learn from this incident we need some justice re-Anglo, the banks, developers etc or its bound to happen again. Not to mention a lot of people losing their homes ending up in Gov accumulation which will probably end up costing us more than helping them out now. Cheapest bank bailout ever etc............0 -
Advertisement
-
Eh, I never said otherwise, and if you bothered to read what I wrote you would know this. I said I do not believe average folks could confidently predict two events happening together. Prices would STOP rising, as well as them then dramatically crashing. I know well the prices couldn't keep rising. They were great at saying this after it happened, but there were never clear signs that the prices would stop AND drop dramatically.
Ah FFS remember the stuff I said about looking at history.
For a start all someone had to do was talk to someone who had lived in the UK during the 80s who saw the prices drop drastically, checked out the Japanese collapse of the early 90s or the Scandanavian bubble of the 90s.
Disregarding all these bubbles/bursts and somehow believing the bullsh** being pedalled by vested interests about how we were somehow different to everyone else and how we would have some mythical soft landing was really dumb.
What type of sign did you want ?
An appartition at Knock or something ?The banks, nope they were bailed out.
Bondholders nope they got paid back,
Developers, nope they get a wage pus will be buying back their property for a song soon.
The bloke who wanted a home for his family yep, hammered for all they have moral hazard only applies to them. And soon we will be bailing out the banks again when this goes tits up.
To properly learn from this incident we need some justice re-Anglo, the banks, developers etc or its bound to happen again. Not to mention a lot of people losing their homes ending up in Gov accumulation which will probably end up costing us more than helping them out now. Cheapest bank bailout ever etc............
Yes I agree that we really need to see justice.
We need some high ranking bankers, entrepreneurs/developers and regulators seeing their assets being stripped away, pensions removed and answering questions in a court of law.
BTW I don't think the number of developers getting salaries from NAMa is anything like it is made out.
What is more concerning is indeed the fact that they have salted away their wealth to family and friends to allow them fight another day.
Every penny they have ceeded post 2005 should be confiscated.
But all of the above still doesn't also mean I want to see someone who bought a 4,000 sq ft house, rolled his credit card debt and car loans into his mortgage getting a bailout which allows him stay in his home and walk away
from his debts.
There should never have been any bailouts except for the two big truly systemic banks.
Your idea of justice seems to be that rather than stopping fraud/theft, everyone should be allowed do it.I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
MOD NOTE:
A few of the posts on the last two pages have gotten overly personal and nasty. Please tone it down - it is possible to disagree while remaining civil.0 -
The general consensus from all I have read on the boards and other forums is that the majority of people in this country are not happy with what the government have done over the last year.
Where is your evidence for this?
http://irishpollingreport.wordpress.com/
Read the last poll referenced on this blog. According to this, the EU Treaty Reforms would be passed by 53% to 47% if put to a referendum. Combined support for FG and Labour remained at 44%. Adding in FF at 18% - they have said they support the general thrust of the government's decisions - gives you a total of 62% support plus whatever independents are FG or FF in disguise. So you could easily make an argument that somewhere between 53% and 65% support the course of action that the government is taking.
Where is your evidence to the contrary?0 -
It's Freeman misuse/misunderstanding of the word "law" and a large distinction they draw between "common law", "admiralty law" and "statute law" (ridiculously inaccurate distinctions as well mind you).antoobrien wrote: »Excuse the ignorance of the question but what does it mean that a garda is "on his/her oath"?
There is some line they are drawing in the video to the "oath", really called a solemn declaration from section 16 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005:(1) On being appointed, each member of the Garda Síochána shall make before a Peace Commissioner a declaration in the following form:“I hereby solemnly and sincerely declare before God that—(2) The words “before God” may be omitted from the declaration at the request of the declarant.
• I will faithfully discharge the duties of a member of the Garda Síochána with fairness, integrity, regard for human rights, diligence and impartiality, upholding the Constitution and the laws and according equal respect to all people,
• while I continue to be a member, I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all my duties according to law, and
• I do not belong to, and will not while I remain a member form, belong to or subscribe to, any political party or secret society whatsoever.”.
Shouting "common law" over and over makes about as much legal sense as shouting "banana bread" repeatedly... sure, it means something... but not in this context.0 -
The argument runs....
Have you broken a criminal law if you have not discharged a debt?
If not, then your house is not violable under the constitution.
A Garda on his Oath to be "upholding the Constitution" means he cannot allow the house to be entered.0 -
"People power" may have delayed the eviction, but I hope true "people power" carries out the eviction shortly.
These people are deadbeats and nothing more. They've clearly made no attempt to pay their debts and are occupying a property they do not legally own. I hope they're removed and if necessary, by force. An example needs to be set, those working hard to cover their commitments need to be rewarded with the knowledge that they're doing the right thing and that those who aren't are being punished accordingly.
ULA/SWP/"Freemen" are socialist wasters but thankfully we'll never see them with any real presence in this country.0 -
"People power" may have delayed the eviction, but I hope true "people power" carries out the eviction shortly.
These people are deadbeats and nothing more. They've clearly made no attempt to pay their debts and are occupying a property they do not legally own. I hope they're removed and if necessary, by force. An example needs to be set, those working hard to cover their commitments need to be rewarded with the knowledge that they're doing the right thing and that those who aren't are being punished accordingly.
ULA/SWP/"Freemen" are socialist wasters but thankfully we'll never see them with any real presence in this country.
You will be glad to know that the man who lived there with his two young children are now homeless, the bank now owns the property which it probably can't sell, the family still owe the balance of course. His marriage split up over the stress. Expect this to be repeated thousands of more times over the next few years and we will be bailing out banks again instead of helping citizens.0 -
He never had a home, he was an occupying a building he didn't own nor was he paying for. Indeed, the action taken serves as proof that he wasn't even trying to pay for it. It wasn't his, he had no right to be there.You will be glad to know that the man who lived there with his two young children are now homeless, the bank now owns the property which it probably can't sell, the family still owe the balance of course. His marriage split up over the stress. Expect this to be repeated thousands of more times over the next few years and we will be bailing out banks again instead of helping citizens.
It was especially reckless for him to be acting in such manner when the welfare of his own children at risk over it.
At least, through their parents failures as responsible adults, his children have learned an extremely valuable lesson that should serve them well in life.0 -
-
Unless the flaw in this argument is self-evident...could someone please enlighten me as to the legal basis for the Sheriff's bailiffs?The argument runs....
Have you broken a criminal law if you have not discharged a debt?
If not, then your house is not violable under the constitution.
A Garda on his Oath to be "upholding the Constitution" means he cannot allow the house to be entered.0 -
Advertisement
-
The argument runs....
Have you broken a criminal law if you have not discharged a debt?
If not, then your house is not violable under the constitution.
A Garda on his Oath to be "upholding the Constitution" means he cannot allow the house to be entered.Unless the flaw in this argument is self-evident...could someone please enlighten me as to the legal basis for the Sheriff's bailiffs?
The second sentence does not hold up. Completely flawed.
http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Ninth%20Progress%20Report%20Private%20Property.pdf
Have a read of the linked Oireachtas report for some guidance. Some quotes:
"it is important not to lose sight of the fact that a significant majority of constitutional challenges in the area of property rights fail""the right of the Oireachtas to impose restrictions on the right to property in the public interest is by now well established and much of the subjectivity and uncertainty of the relevant constitutional provisions has been tempered on the one hand by the evolution of the proportionality doctrine and by the emergence of relatively settled case-law on the other."
Even more here:
"A similar theme may be detected in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madigan v Attorney General where the constitutionality of the residential property tax on private dwellings created by the Finance Act 1983 was under challenge. Here O’Higgins CJ said that tax measures which necessarily interfere with citizens’ property rights
cannot be challenged as being unjust on that account, if whatby Article 43.2."
has been done can be regarded as action by the State in
accordance with the principles of social justice and having
regard to the exigencies of the common good as envisaged
0 -
Where does that leave our TD supporting this then?
There is no Oath of Office is there for TDs - if I'm correct...??0 -
Realistically there is a massive lack of understanding regarding how mortgages operate. The mortgagor, while having the appearance of owning the home, actually only has an equitable right to use the home as they wish – obviously this is heavily dependant on them making the agreed repayments.
The mortgagee (the lender) actually owns the home/property; their contract with the mortgagor is clearly subject to protection both statutorily, in the laws of equity and in common law. However, once the mortgagee has applied to the courts for possession then they are entitled to evict the inhabitants out of the property.
If you think it's easy to get an order for possession, it's not. You have to prove multiple things to the courts, comply with the Family Home Protection Act and jump through many hoops. I have been in court on both sides of this situation (although admittedly more often for the banks) and I can tell you that borrowers/mortgagors are given every possible opportunity to make good on their payments – this, compounded with the massive amount of statutory protection in place for mortgagors and an onus on the mortgagee to negotiate and deal with the mortgagors puts the borrower in a very strong position.
Do I feel sorry for people that are losing their homes? Of course I do, but it simply cannot be said that they have not had a chance to work things out with the banks.
They do not own these homes; they can and should be taken away where there is continued non-payment and the banks have satisfied the courts that they have complied with the rules and proceeded fairly.0 -
NoThe argument runs....
Have you broken a criminal law if you have not discharged a debt?
Not necessarily. The lender could either be the mortgagee of the property (in which case they already own the property) or they could have been granted a judgment mortgage or well-charging order over the property and then been granted an order for possessionIf not, then your house is not violable under the constitution.
Their duty is to protect the constitutional rights of the home owner and/or to enforce a court order.A Garda on his Oath to be "upholding the Constitution" means he cannot allow the house to be entered.
The squatter who refuses to leave following a possession order is the one violating the owner's constitutional rights. Any concerns about the mortgagor's or debtor's rights were duly considered by the courts prior to granting the order for possession.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »No
Not necessarily. The lender could either be the mortgagee of the property (in which case they already own the property) or they could have been granted a judgment mortgage or well-charging order over the property and then been granted an order for possession
Their duty is to protect the constitutional rights of the home owner and/or to enforce a court order.
The squatter who refuses to leave following a possession order is the one violating the owner's constitutional rights. Any concerns about the mortgagor's or debtor's rights were duly considered by the courts prior to granting the order for possession.
Out of interest, does this get anywhere where a loan has been taken on the house, but the householder owns the house?0 -
Out of interest, does this get anywhere where a loan has been taken on the house, but the householder owns the house?
I haven't read a mortgage agreement, but it's common with loan agreements that the item being purchased is not owned by the loanee until the last payment has been made.
AFAIK mortgages are given on this basis, secured on the property. So I've no sympathy for if if it is true that, as asserted earlier in the thread, he has stopped making payments in 2006.0 -
This is what needs to be done
Families that can't afford there family homes should be evicted, we should stop allowing people to keep properties that they refuse to pay for
If need be they could be housed in nama apartments for a smaller rent but good quality houses should be allowed to be released on the open market0 -
It really depends. If you use the house as security, then it's in danger... but I doubt the court would really give an order for possession if you owed like 10,000 to the bank on a loan secured with a house.Out of interest, does this get anywhere where a loan has been taken on the house, but the householder owns the house?
In fact, now that I think about it... I don't think the bank would be able to accept a house as security for such a small loan. I'm not a banking expert though, so I'm open to correction on that.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »It really depends. If you use the house as security, then it's in danger... but I doubt the court would really give an order for possession if you owed like 10,000 to the bank on a loan secured with a house.
In fact, now that I think about it... I don't think the bank would be able to accept a house as security for such a small loan. I'm not a banking expert though, so I'm open to correction on that.
When I've taken out small business loans previously it was all based around personal guarantees not on any assets.0 -
Advertisement
-
When I've taken out small business loans previously it was all based around personal guarantees not on any assets.
My previous boss, 25 so employees, 9 years trading, was asked to put his and two other directors houses up for collateral for a 'high-street' Irish bank to extend the business banking facility.0 -
My previous boss, 25 so employees, 9 years trading, was asked to put his and two other directors houses up for collateral for a 'high-street' Irish bank to extend the business banking facility.
I'm talking about sums less than 20 grand and before the bust. Is that the case with your ex-boss?0 -
http://www.thejournal.ie/laois-homeowner-who-stopped-the-sheriff-left-demoralised-after-eviction-385195-Mar2012/
As many people thought would happen. It appears that the sheriff turned up when there was no one there and continued with the eviction, so the thread title should really be "people power slightly delays eviction"0 -
He's 'demoralized'???
My god, he hasn't paid a red cent towards the property (of which the dole would probably easily cover repayments) in years. What does he expect?
More the fools who went to stand up for him.
edit: And I also see 'The Journal' makes no mention of the amount owed and the amount of time passed without payment.0 -
URGENT - The SHERIFF BROKE IN ASSISTED BY GARDI and CHANGED THE LOCKS!
^^ on youtube video.
More freeman ****e :rolleyes:0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »Realistically there is a massive lack of understanding regarding how mortgages operate. The mortgagor, while having the appearance of owning the home, actually only has an equitable right to use the home as they wish – obviously this is heavily dependant on them making the agreed repayments.
The mortgagee (the lender) actually owns the home/property; their contract with the mortgagor is clearly subject to protection both statutorily, in the laws of equity and in common law. However, once the mortgagee has applied to the courts for possession then they are entitled to evict the inhabitants out of the property.
If you think it's easy to get an order for possession, it's not. You have to prove multiple things to the courts, comply with the Family Home Protection Act and jump through many hoops. I have been in court on both sides of this situation (although admittedly more often for the banks) and I can tell you that borrowers/mortgagors are given every possible opportunity to make good on their payments – this, compounded with the massive amount of statutory protection in place for mortgagors and an onus on the mortgagee to negotiate and deal with the mortgagors puts the borrower in a very strong position.
Oh hell no. Thats feudalism. As legal mod you know this. You do own your home and the lender retains a security interest in your home (in the form of amortgage lien).
From a purely practical point of view, there are disadvantages to this as with the property market bottomed out the way it currently is, the lender usually prefers to restructure the debt and use the lien for negotiating leverage. But if there is no realistic prospect of ever fulfilling the terms of the loan then it may seize the property. That in itself is expensive in legal fees, auctioneers fees and the lender has to hold a physical asset that is worth far less than the loan and which is extremely difficult to sell. At that point it really sucks for everyone involved but it sucks more for whoever is losing their home. Every one of these people will have unique personal circumstances so I cannot and will not tar all defaulters with a broad brush. Some people's personal circumstances will be more sympathetic to the public than others.
What you described is called feudalism. Nevertheless, anyone who doesn't acknowledge the tragedy in this for the people getting evicted has no idea what its like to be hounded by solicitors. No idea what its like to live between county registrar court dates and have every aspect of your personal finances blown wide open for all in open court to see. No idea what its like to experience such a sudden and dramatic shift in the quality of your life.0 -
Advertisement
-
Rojomcdojo wrote: »edit: And I also see 'The Journal' makes no mention of the amount owed and the amount of time passed without payment.
Can anyone confirm just what are the details on this?0 -
Can anyone confirm just what are the details on this?
http://www.thejournal.ie/i-stopped-the-sheriff-activists-prevent-eviction-of-man-from-laois-home-362020-Feb2012/A GROUP OF housing activists and an independent TD prevented an attempted eviction of a man from his home in Laois yesterday.
A collection of housing groups and the People Before Profit TD Joan Collins were in Mountrath to prevent the deputy sheriff, accompanied by the gardaí, from evicting a man from his home, arguing that their actions were not constitutional.
It was the first such case of People Before Profit, Freedom From All Debt, the Defend Our Homes League, Its Not Our Debt and the Anti-Eviction Task Force coming together to defend a home from repossession.
Collins told TheJournal.ie that it won’t be the last: “The main aim is that there will be no evictions or repossessions of family homes in Ireland.”
Lee Wellstead, 47, was facing eviction from his home having lost in his battle against Ulster Bank in the Commercial Court, the Laois Nationalist explains.
He had bought the three-bedroom property on four acres of land in Knockanina - near Mountrath and Castletown - in 2003 for €80,000 and then acquired a top loan on the mortgage of €30,000. Having failed to keep up with repayments, the bank pursued him and was granted a repossession order last year, the paper reports.
Collins said she heard about Wellstead’s story and travelled to Laois with the other groups to help him defend his home.
In the video entitled ‘Constitution Halts Sheriff’ Ben Gilroy from Freedom from All Debt argues with the deputy sheriff, Pat Dunne, that it is unconstitutional for him to attempt to evict Wellstead from his home.
After a lengthy argument the sheriff and the accompanying garda officers depart:
“We’re trying to work on two fronts,” Collins told TheJournal.ie “We’re defending people from evictions but we’re also going to put our own bill through the Dáil in relation to homeowners and to help them when they are in distress with their mortgage.”
The story was first flagged by Politics.ie and has been written about by the NAMA Wine Lake blog today. It notes that some 600 properties are repossessed each year according to the latest figures from the Central Bank.
Collins said they hoped yesterday’s successful blocking of the eviction can raise awareness of their campaign: “What he wanted to do is highlight that people will stand with these people facing eviction if people ask us to do it.
“Some people are particularly ashamed of letting people know what they’re going through. They are fearful that they are in debt and people knowing about it. We’re trying to get the word out so people can know that we will stand with them if they are evicted.”
Collins said that in Wellstead’s case, the sheriff will now have to seek another order for eviction and added: “We’ll be back down again if he does do that.”
“These banks gave out these loans in full knowledge that people were strapped and now they’re saying we’re going to take them back and they’ll be forced into social housing. But there’s no room on the social housing list for these people to be accommodated,” she added.
http://www.laois-nationalist.ie/tabId/153/itemId/13804/I-stopped-the-sheriff.aspxA MOUNTRATH man remains in his house today after a county sheriff failed to evict him from his home yesterday (Monday).
Lee Wellstead (47) has been battling through the commercial courts for the past three years to save his home after being served with an eviction notice from Ulster Bank.
Mr Wellstead said that in 2003 he purchased the three-bedroom, two storey detached house in Knockanina, between Mountrath and Castletown, on approximately four acres of land with a mortgage for €80,000.
Shortly after that, he acquired a €30,000 top-up loan on the mortgage.
He said he fell behind in his €700 monthly repayments in June 2006 and the loan was called in “just 19 days after I missed my last monthly payment”.
Ulster Bank filed for repossession and was granted the order in February 2009. It got its eviction order on 25 August last year.
He said: “I tried to come to arrangements with them, but they refused it. I had an offer of €80,000 on the house and was also receiving €150 a week from letting three stables. But they refused to accept that.”
Speaking to the Laois Nationalist while waiting for the arrival of the county sheriff , Mr Wellstead said that if the bank is successful in evicting him, he will become homeless, which would put in jeopardy his shared custody arrangements for his daughter.
“They will come and seize everything I have in the house and throw it out onto the roadside. I haven’t got anywhere to go yet.”
Mr Wellstead said that the ordeal has put him under mental and physical stress.
“I’ve had to put my life on hold for the past three years to try and deal with this. It caused me huge anxiety and torment.”
He hasn't been paying a cent since June 2006. Also, he tried to argue with the judge that the bank, in fact, had no right to the deeds of the house based on an argument straight out of Zeitgeist!
He's a bloody chancer. I would advise anyone on this guy's side to at least question his motives.0 -
Can anyone confirm just what are the details on this?
http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B.nsf/0/C0E389B2AF58A93C8025797A0052EFF3?Open&Highlight=0,Wellstead,~language_en~However, as is made clear on page 28 of the said judgment, that case in fact has no relevance to the present case given the fact that the charge in question in the present case is dated 14th March 2003, and the order for possession itself was made in February 2009.The applicant is also seeking leave to argue that Ulster Bank have no longer any entitlement to benefit from the order for possession because as part of some unspecified securitisation agreement the bank has sold the applicant’s mortgage, and is therefore no longer owed anything on foot of the mortgage herein.Every allowance has been made by me for the fact that the applicant appears personally. Equally, he has been greatly indulged since August 2011 by stays being granted so that he could put his best foot forward on the present application. But there comes a time when this must come to an end, so that those for whose benefit the order for possession was made can have the benefit of it.
For all the reasons stated, I therefore must refuse leave to seek the reliefs being sought. Given the time of year approaching I will grant one final stay to expire on the 10th January 2012, after which date the bank will be entitled to enforce the order for possession and recover possession.0 -
Ouch. Lay litigant botches his own case by running out statutory time limit to appeal the original repo order then presses for discovery when its irrelevant.
I kind of wish he had a solicitor who wouldn't allow that to happen, but in so many respects, it seems that money = access. Its Mr. Justice Peart though, and he is well aware of the problem of money and access in the legal profession at least. He spoke about it at a seminar in Ballina not too long ago.0 -
I can't believe people are attempting to defend this man. He hasn't paid a cent towards his home since 2006, before the world went arseways and while Ireland was neck deep in euros.
Chancing arsehole who deserves to be tossed out.0 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement