Squatters in Dublin to get millions!

Mahatma coat

ah yes but my contempt for swampy types is only exceeded by my hatred of Banks

PauloMN

Sangre wrote:

Squatter's rights (or adverse possession) exist for some solid reasons.

Firstly it stops the land falling into disuse and disrepair at the hands the the rich, absentee landlord. Land is seen as extremely valuable to society and the court has decided, use it or lose it. We can't have huge tracts land left lying around in rural areas for decades.

Yeah, those squatters are really taking care of the land, eh? It looks much nicer now that people are living on it in caravans with rubbish everwhere than if it had been left vacant. :rolleyes:

Well done Fingal Co. Co. - not only did you fail to remove these folk who have been trespassing for years and littering the place, but you are now going to have to cough up millions of our money to pay them off.

Hopefully that money will bring them nothing but bad luck.

Sam Vimes

Mahatma coat wrote:

I own land in Ireland that I haventy set foot on in 6 years, I may be another 6 years before I set foot on it again, this is because I live in Australia,

Mahatma coat wrote:

Duh, if the l;and has been passed through the same family for 100 years then yes, are you telling me that the family that held it for 100 years didnt notice some serious heavy building on their plot of ground and charge acording rents.

they might not notice if they live in australia.


what if they hadn't noticed? would it be ok for someone to buy mayo and then never go back there, secure in the knowledge that this huge amount of land could never be used by anyone? personally i think 12 years is too short a time. what do you think would be an acceptable forfeit time?

Mahatma coat

the rest of my family live at home still, so someone might notice

I'd like to think that if I owned Mayo I'd probably rent out a few bits (tho findin people willin to live there may be hard)

but ultimatley while I'm off adventurin around the world buildin my fortune its nice to know that theres always a small bit of home that belongs to me and any future offspring I may have.

My issue wit squatting is that anyone who claims squatters rights Knows that they have no natural claim to the land, they're squatters therefore by their own admision they have stolen the land they inhabit

Mahatma coat

Bloody post duplicatin ****eheap laptop

kildarejoe

They have to prove they were resident there for 12 or more years.
So lets see utility bills, bank statements with that address on it like everyone else has to do when applying for a mortgage, phone line or any other red tape wrapped government thing.
Also these so called business, surely they would have to submit at least 12 years records of trading, and prove that they are tax compliant etc like every other citizen of this island?
Also if they claim to be travelers then it is very unlikely that they have resided there constantly for a full 12 years without leaving once.????
As for their vehicles are they all registered and insured and taxed from that address???????????
If they are claiming to be resident there that makes the caravans etc permanent structures needing planning permission (maybe not but worth a try) is the land zoned for residential use?
If they claim they want to be treated the same as everyone else then they should be treated like everyone else, no other citizen would get away with that.
I wonder if I hid in leinster house for 12 years would I be let claim it under this law??? after all it is unoccupied at the moment???

Sangre

Mahatma coat wrote:

I dont doubt you that there may have been reasons in the past to maintain these antiquated laws, I personaly think this case highlights the absurdity inherent in the system

What I do with my land is my business not the courts, If I want to dig a huge feckin hole in the middle of it for no good reason then (planning requirements aside - dont even get me started on that ripoff) I should be entitled to do so, its my Land

Don't have time to reply in detail but I want to answer a few points.

Firstly Mahatma, your whole arguement is based on you should be allowed to do 'whatever you want' with your land. Well, that may be so but that has never, ever been the case. People have always been bound by the law of the land on their property. There is also (as you mention) the huge restriction of planning permission, from urban to rural to industrial. In fact, people are very limited in what they can do on their own land and so what you think should happen is no where near the reality of life. I'm not here to argue whether this should be the case or not but its a bit fanciful to base your reasoning on this notion.

Definition: Open and notorious possession of property that does not belong to you in hopes of establishing a claim of right.

I don't know where you got that definition but its actually legally, a very poor one. It completely ignores the reality that a lot of AP is when people think they're building on their own land but there not due to either mistaken boundaries or else the land wasn't transferred properly by them or another.

I think people are focusing too much on the fact these are scummy travellers. The law has to be neutral in its enforcement, if you have a claim, you've a claim, it doesn't matter if you're well to do or a criminal.

I don't think the reaction would be the same for a family who built and lived on a piece of land (adjoining their own) which they honestly thought was their and which they had good reason to believe. Is it fair that a landlord who knew of this for 20 years then decides to kick the family off (after doing nothing) and denying them the land AND the house?

Of course, I'm not 100% behind AP and it does have its flaws. Although if we remove AP should we never be allowed to statute barr legitimate claims? Should I able to sue a shop for a broken arm 50 years after the event?

I wonder if I hid in leinster house for 12 years would I be let claim it under this law??? after all it is unoccupied at the moment???

Ehh..no because the owners would still be in possession.

Actually there was very similar case in a very well to do area of London. A guy who had been living on land in a hut got the rights for a very developable piece of land. There was no ill feelings in the media because he was apparently a very nice guy and well known in the area.

Mahatma coat

Sangre wrote:

Don't have time to reply in detail but I want to answer a few points.

Firstly Mahatma, your whole arguement is based on you should be allowed to do 'whatever you want' with your land. Well, that may be so but that has never, ever been the case. People have always been bound by the law of the land on their property. There is also (as you mention) the huge restriction of planning permission, from urban to rural to industrial. In fact, people are very limited in what they can do on their own land and so what you think should happen is no where near the reality of life. I'm not here to argue whether this should be the case or not but its a bit fanciful to base your reasoning on this notion.

OK so I oversimplified my argument there a bit, I was trying to convey my general dissatisfaction with the governmental situation in Ireland re Property and planning.

I don't know where you got that definition but its actually legally, a very poor one. It completely ignores the reality that a lot of AP is when people think they're building on their own land but there not due to either mistaken boundaries or else the land wasn't transferred properly by them or another.

yeah I liked that deinition as it best suited my argument, found it through a quick google

I think people are focusing too much on the fact these are scummy travellers. The law has to be neutral in its enforcement, if you have a claim, you've a claim, it doesn't matter if you're well to do or a criminal.

I didnt think I focused on the traveller issue much, but yes the law should be neutral in all cases.

However in my opinion Squatters have no leg to stand on, the situations you outline below should have been dealt with before construction began through the planning process. as you said people cant build things without planning,


so there is a good cutoff point. if you can get planning permission on land before you build then whatever you put there is yours. then if the Landlord comes back after twenty years to find that there were people living in a house on his land and he'd missed the boat to object, well he cant force em off but they still owe him money.


However If I were to return home and find people livin in my house for free they would be out, wouldnt matter how long they'd been there aas far as I'm concerned.


same would go if I found that someone had built a house on the land without planning, no issue bulldozing it.

That said tho I keep in touch with home so I cant see someone sneakin something in there on me at the moment, but I'd rather not have to worry about it.

I don't think the reaction would be the same for a family who built and lived on a piece of land (adjoining their own) which they honestly thought was their and which they had good reason to believe. Is it fair that a landlord who knew of this for 20 years then decides to kick the family off (after doing nothing) and denying them the land AND the house?

Of course, I'm not 100% behind AP and it does have its flaws. Although if we remove AP should we never be allowed to statute barr legitimate claims? Should I able to sue a shop for a broken arm 50 years after the event?

Ehh..no because the owners would still be in possession.

Actually there was very similar case in a very well to do area of London. A guy who had been living on land in a hut got the rights for a very developable piece of land. There was no ill feelings in the media because he was apparently a very nice guy and well known in the area.

Interesting, I think theres a homeless guy in Toowong in Brisbane trying the same thing, he's been sleeping in a big pile of blackbinbags on a cornerfor as long as Ive been here

PauloMN

Sangre wrote:

Actually there was very similar case in a very well to do area of London. A guy who had been living on land in a hut got the rights for a very developable piece of land. There was no ill feelings in the media because he was apparently a very nice guy and well known in the area.

I remember that case - it was on the news about a month ago - and I think he was an Irish guy (from Sligo/Mayo perhaps?). I remember at the time saying to my wife that it was disgraceful that someone can just plonk themselves on a piece of land and claim it as their own after a certain period of time.

Regardless of how nice the people are, I think it's morally wrong. Anyway, that and the Dunsink thing is ultimately the fault of the land owners not exercising their rights to have squatters evicted off their land.

My main gripe with the Dunsink thing is that it's public money going to pay these people. That's the crux of the issue. If it was privately owned land, it wouldn't bother me although I'd still disagree with it. The fact is the council are supposed to be acting in the public's interest but clearly dropped the ball on this one.

That allied to the fact that this group of people will take advantage of the law when it suits them but will continually flout it at other times bugs the sh1te out of me. :mad:

EDIT: Here's a link to the recent UK case with the Irish guy:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0530/6news_av.html?2253838,null,230

Ruen

Stekelly wrote:

Do you even realise that no one cares how long they've been there and are not debateing the fact of the law seeign as it's been said over and over already in this thread. People are annoyed that the law allows it to happen.

Oh I know that Stekelly and I think what people are doing is whinging because they're annoyed that it's Travellers who are involved in this.

tell me, if travellers moved into your field would you walk into the middle of the halting site and shout "f*ck off you horrible pikeys"? i don't think you would because you'd never be seen again. the gardai won't be much help because they're just as afraid. you'd need the army to get rid of them tbh. or a lot of money as in this case

Actually Commander Vimes a few years ago a load of them moved into a field in front our house and stayed for about 3 weeks until the gardai came and removed them. I watched the whole show and the guards didnt look one bit scared even though there was a few scuffles.

Mahatma coat Quote:
ETHNICITY!!??!!!!!
Eth****innicity, they are not a separate race, its not ethnicity, its just an excuse they use to talk Gibertish and avoid washing.

in that case I.m an ethnicity of one and I claim my freebies.

Ok so the world dosent owe me a living, but a Stereo would be nice

Yes actually it is Ethnicity! Ethnicity has nothing to do with race and they dont claim to be a different race either.
What's your excuse for not washing Mahatma???

Guy:Incognito

Sangre wrote:

Do you think you should have a right to land that has been passed down for 100 years that has been heavily built on since then?.

Without squatters rights no one would have been given permission to build on the land in those 100 years so it would be irrelevant.

bmaxi

Don't know what all the fuss is about. In a recent nationwide poll over 41% of those who responded were in favour of giving taxpayers' money to dodgy characters.

Ruen

haha nice one bmaxi

magicbastarder

just because they're (possibly?) criminals doesn't mean they should be excluded from all rights the rest of us have; plus it's probably worth pointing out that mahatma coat (or certainly, a user posting as mahatma coat) was banned from another forum i used to frequent after claiming to have physically intimidated travellers.

magicbastarder

this also highlights the issue of all those houses sitting empty in dublin; near me, there are several houses whose back gardens look out onto dalymount, which are empty and have been for several years. local lore has it that gardai bought them in anticipation of the development of dalymount and a hike in the value of the houses. at the moment, the front gardens are full of rubbish, and the houses in a mild state of disrepair (rotting windowframes, broken panes of glass). doesn't do the look of the area much good, and could be argued that it's bringing the value of the rest of the area down.

if someone started squatting in any of these houses, and actually kept more care of them than their owners, more power to them. they'd be doing more for the area than the owners.

Mahatma coat

I didnt so much Claim to have intimidated them as Brag about actualy scareing them away, so far they havent been back, and that was a while ago.

AAAAANTYWAY why did you feel that it was probably worth pointin out.


Podge

Mahatma coat

and anyway the point I'm making is that even if someone moving into the houses in Dalymount was from a well heeled family and had a good job etc they are still Thievin someone elses property, no matter how well they look after it or how much they are liked in the community, its something they have gotten illegaly.

the law as it stands at the moment rewards their crime with a free house, I'd love a free house, even if you inherit one there are still taxes etc, so the only way to get a house for free is to Squat.


Feckit shur why are the rest of the saps botherin wit rent and mortgages etc, surely if we just have a look around there's plenty of houses out there which can be had for FREE. and if you play yer cardsright the Council will have to buy their land back sometime

well thats the ultimate Buy low Sell high init

Mahatma coat

Ruen wrote:

.......What's your excuse for not washing Mahatma???

I live in Brisbane so its Level 5 Water restrictions, 4min showers, targeted usage of 140L per day per person. Water levels in Dams at as low as 15% in some

magicbastarder

it's gas how het up the irish get about property. there are some laws which transcend the right to do whatever you want with your property, and we'd be a lot worse off without those laws.

ruprect

dame wrote:

Squatters should not be given rights over land. They do not own it. They have effectively stolen it.

I always thought it was a bizarre law, and totally outdated. The taxpayer is paying them. Should be a new law introduced, at least just kicked off, at best they should be charged backdated rent for the previous 20 years.

Has anybody got the actual laws on this. Could I stick a tent up in the phoenix park or someother place, and lay claim to acres of land in 12 years?

dame wrote:

The county council should have turfed them out long ago, well before they could have claimed any rights to the land.

If they had asked them to leave a single time would they have had the rights. Whoever is responsible should be sacked.

magicbastarder

ruprect wrote:

Could I stick a tent up in the phoenix park or someother place, and lay claim to acres of land in 12 years?

yes, if you ended up living there for twelve years. which is highly unlikely, given that camping in the park is banned, and the park is patrolled by rangers.

skywalker

kildarejoe wrote:

They have to prove they were resident there for 12 or more years.
So lets see utility bills, bank statements with that address on it like everyone else has to do when applying for a mortgage, phone line or any other red tape wrapped government thing.
Also these so called business, surely they would have to submit at least 12 years records of trading, and prove that they are tax compliant etc like every other citizen of this island?
Also if they claim to be travelers then it is very unlikely that they have resided there constantly for a full 12 years without leaving once.????
As for their vehicles are they all registered and insured and taxed from that address???????????
If they are claiming to be resident there that makes the caravans etc permanent structures needing planning permission (maybe not but worth a try) is the land zoned for residential use?
If they claim they want to be treated the same as everyone else then they should be treated like everyone else, no other citizen would get away with that.
I wonder if I hid in leinster house for 12 years would I be let claim it under this law??? after all it is unoccupied at the moment???

fantastic. Best post in the thread.

Sam Vimes

magicbastarder wrote:

yes, if you ended up living there for twelve years. which is highly unlikely, given that camping in the park is banned, and the park is patrolled by rangers.

no, the land has to be unoccupied and there are several houses in the park

magicbastarder

Commander Vimes wrote:

no, the land has to be unoccupied and there are several houses in the park

ah; i had assumed that since the boundaries of the land the houses occupy is clearly defined, that wouldn't count.

Mahatma coat

well then you shouldhavereembered that the whole park is walled so it'd be all or nothing by that logic

Sangre

Commander Vimes wrote:

no, the land has to be unoccupied and there are several houses in the park

Not necessarily. The land owners still have to be in occupation. You don't need to actually live in the land. The occupation could include maintaining the land and boundaries. Legal occupation doesn't necessarily mean actual residing on the land.

Mahatma coat

Define Legal occupation then please, co that post is confusung

PauloMN

magicbastarder wrote:

if someone started squatting in any of these houses, and actually kept more care of them than their owners, more power to them. they'd be doing more for the area than the owners.

LOL. I can see it now, squatters going around the house with rubber gloves and Jif, scrubbing the windows/doors/floors, cutting the grass with their Flymo, putting down some nice flower beds, replacing and painting window frames etc.. Get real!

Believe me, if you had squatters in there, the place would look no better, and you'd have the added bonus of all sorts of dodgy characters hanging about. Would you really like that???

I'm not defending the actions (or inactions) of the current owners by the way - I know exactly the houses you are on about as I pass there frequently and they are in a state. People should keep their houses in a reasonable state of repair not only for themselves, but out of respect for their neighbours.

Tha Gopher

kildarejoe wrote:

They have to prove they were resident there for 12 or more years.
So lets see utility bills, bank statements with that address on it like everyone else has to do when applying for a mortgage, phone line or any other red tape wrapped government thing.

Im sure benefit office letters can be used :rolleyes: Awful situation, the working man gets another kick to the bollix working to buy a house beyond his means, but tbh its a situation that government inaction caused.

Out of curiousity why does the council suddenly want/need this land after over 20 years? Not far from Dunsink there is miles of empty land suitable for housing. Why pay off these scammers? Just buy it off a legitimate landowner and build houses down the road tbh.

magicbastarder

PauloMN wrote:

LOL. I can see it now, squatters going around the house with rubber gloves and Jif, scrubbing the windows/doors/floors, cutting the grass with their Flymo, putting down some nice flower beds, replacing and painting window frames etc.. Get real!

Believe me, if you had squatters in there, the place would look no better, and you'd have the added bonus of all sorts of dodgy characters hanging about. Would you really like that???

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4729310.stm

i'd prefer these guys living next door than a bunch of people who believe physical violence against travellers is A Good Thing.