Pat Kenny - A squatter?

kmick

So the court case is settled and Pat has stumped up for some land he originally did not own but claimed squatters rights.

'The Kennys claimed they used it as a nature reserve for foxes and badgers and owned the land by virtue of adverse possession or "squatters' rights".'

Why did he not just buy the land originally and save himself all the hassle and legal fees?

zuchum

'cause the stupid plank thought he could get it for free..

Sherifu

Cause he's a dick. Simple really.

smashey

Damn, I thought this thread was about Asian toilets.

marco_polo

Does it not equally imply that the other guy was a money grabber?

But more to the point who gives a ****e

Sherifu

marco_polo wrote: »

Does it not equally imply that the other guy was a money grabber?

For wanting to keep his land?

Dudess

I think it just implies that the other guy felt the land was his rather than the Kennys'.

Nevyn

smashey wrote: »

Damn, I thought this thread was about Asian toilets.

Wow really and here I tought you being a fitness mod you would have tought it was about 'lifts'.

Ay Cee

Was it established who actually DID own the bit of land? Or was it looking like the neighbour owned it and he thought he'd better paying for it now instead of going the whole way with the case?

BigglesMcGee

My Parents have a piece of land that is too much of a pain to keep tidy. They have let the neighbour use it for free for the last few years for their sheep and not even thought about getting access to it.

Well no things have chnged. They are going to have to collect rent or kick the neighbour off now. And they dont really want to do either. The neighbour will feel like my parents think they are potential Kennys', which is not what my parents think at all, but now need to protect themselves.

If Kenny can one day put a gate up and decide the land is his after the neighbour let him use it in good faith for years then there is somthing wrong with the law.

Kenny is just a bare faced scumbag.

marco_polo

Dudess wrote: »

I think it just implies that the other guy felt the land was his rather than the Kennys'.

Which it would have if it went to court and he won .

Seriously thought know it was his land, isn't the whole law pretty stupid though?

Sherifu

Ay Cee wrote: »

Was it established who actually DID own the bit of land? Or was it looking like the neighbour owned it and he thought he'd better paying for it now instead of going the whole way with the case?

I would say that will never be decided now. I'd say Kenny could smell the verdict coming though. I hope he payed top dollar for the land.

Zzippy

marco_polo wrote: »

Does it not equally imply that the other guy was a money grabber?

Yeah, some guy wants to claim squatters rights to his land, and he's a money grabber? :rolleyes:

Plank Kenny had some cheek, fencing off someone else's land and denying him entry, then trying to claim squatter's rights. I hope it cost him a fortune in legal fees...

smashey

Thaedydal wrote: »

Wow really and here I tought you being a fitness mod you would have tought it was about 'lifts'.

Wash your mouth out young lady. :cool:

humanji

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

My Parents have a piece of land that is too much of a pain to keep tidy. They have let the neighbour use it for free for the last few years for their sheep and not even thought about getting access to it.

Well no things have chnged. They are going to have to collect rent or kick the neighbour off now. And they dont really want to do either. The neighbour will feel like my parents think they are potential Kennys', which is not what my parents think at all, but now need to protect themselves.

If Kenny can one day put a gate up and decide the land is his after the neighbour let him use it in good faith for years then there is somthing wrong with the law.

Kenny is just a bare faced scumbag.

Don't your folks just have to set foot on the land every now and again?

BigglesMcGee

dont know exactly but it seems the law doesnt know what its at.

In my book, if you hold the deeds to land you own it, no matter when you decide to use it.

Maybe we should all walk into abandoned buildings around dubin and put up a few bird houses in the attic and a few plants every now and then. And then just claim them in a few years.

Al_Fernz

Did anybody see the other guy coming out of court yesterday??? He hobbled out with his two daughters linking his arms - making him look like a poor old man. In reality, the guy knew what he was doing.

He made Prat Kenny look like the creepy douche that he is.

escobar

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

dont know exactly but it seems the law doesnt know what its at.

In my book, if you hold the deeds to land you own it, no matter when you decide to use it.

Maybe we should all walk into abandoned buildings around dubin and put up a few bird houses in the attic and a few plants every now and then. And then just claim them in a few years.

A few years ago a guy did that in Middle Abbey Street. He moved into a house (squatted) and now owns it . A lovely four storey in the centre of town...Strangely he used to go out at night and paint all the chewing gum on the footpaths bright orange..... Wonder if he's any relation of Pat Kenny....

kmick

I have heard today the old guy was threatening to build on the squatted land and this is why it all blew up. At the end of the day the old guy probably just wanted some dough so it looks like greed on both sides.

humanji

escobar wrote: »

A few years ago a guy did that in Middle Abbey Street. He moved into a house (squatted) and now owns it . A lovely four storey in the centre of town...Strangely he used to go out at night and paint all the chewing gum on the footpaths bright orange..... Wonder if he's any relation of Pat Kenny....

Don't you have to be on the property for 10-15 years or something?

Dennis the Stone

I am pretty sure that I read that Kenny had tried a few times down through the years to buy the land but was refused.

humanji

Tago Mago wrote: »

I am pretty sure that I read that Kenny had tried a few times down through the years to buy the land but was refused.

I think that was one of the basis for the old fellas arguments. He claimed that since Kenny was trying to buy the land, then he achnowledged that the old guy owned it.

mikemac

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

My Parents have a piece of land that is too much of a pain to keep tidy. They have let the neighbour use it for free for the last few years for their sheep and not even thought about getting access to it.

Well no things have chnged. They are going to have to collect rent or kick the neighbour off now. And they dont really want to do either. The neighbour will feel like my parents think they are potential Kennys', which is not what my parents think at all, but now need to protect themselves.

Get a contract and charge them €1 in rent a year.
Since your parents don't seem bothered about getting rent it can be a nominal amount but the fact that you are getting rent proves they own it

ferdi

Pat Kenny: Squatter. An artist's impression.

see attachment.

niceirishfella

ferdi wrote: »

Pat Kenny: Squatter. An artist's impression.

see attachment.

Well, he's definately SQUATTING there.........and is the whip for BEATING the BADGERS around his new SCRUB land!??!!!!?!?!?!:D

bottletops

ferdi wrote: »

Pat Kenny: Squatter. An artist's impression.

see attachment.

That's ruined lunch for me then

darkman2

I wonder what the people in Dalkey think of PK with his 'squatters rights'........this sort of thing has more in common with travellers.

Dennis the Stone

humanji wrote: »

I think that was one of the basis for the old fellas arguments. He claimed that since Kenny was trying to buy the land, then he achnowledged that the old guy owned it.

Another thing, that would suggest to me that Kenny would have won, as it seemed the Judge was pressing them to make a settlement because she didn't want to see the Charlton's left without what used to be their land. Plus the fact that he never wanted to sell to the Kennys but now he did, perhaps because he knew he was about to lose it

BigglesMcGee

Tago Mago wrote: »

Another thing, that would suggest to me that Kenny would have won, as it seemed the Judge was pressing them to make a settlement because she didn't want to see the Charlton's left without what used to be their land. Plus the fact that he never wanted to sell to the Kennys but now he did, perhaps because he knew he was about to lose it

But all the charltons had to say was that they used to go sunbathing down there in the summers and the kids / grand kids used to play there. and only got pissed when kenny but a lock on the gate. That they didnt feel the need to scold Kenny for using the land as they didnt mind them using it either.
Now both use the land and its very hard to prove they didnt.

escobar

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

But all the charltons had to say was that they used to go sunbathing down there in the summers and the kids / grand kids used to play there. and only got pissed when kenny but a lock on the gate. That they didnt feel the need to scold Kenny for using the land as they didnt mind them using it either.
Now both use the land and its very hard to prove they didnt.

Yeah definitely think that Kenny would have won the case. He's hardly going to go to court when his name isn't on the deeds and he's no hope of winning. I'd say thet was a ploy by the charltons to get more money...

If the Charltons also used the land surely squatters rights doesn't apply ...otherwise I might as well walk into my neighbours garden and stick a bird house up for them and help them with their flower bed while i'm at it..

Dennis the Stone

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

But all the charltons had to say was that they used to go sunbathing down there in the summers and the kids / grand kids used to play there. and only got pissed when kenny but a lock on the gate. That they didnt feel the need to scold Kenny for using the land as they didnt mind them using it either.
Now both use the land and its very hard to prove they didnt.

I never said that Kenny was in the right, I just don't see how it was a successful result for the Charltons, if Kenny's claim for adverse possession was not strong enough then surely Charlton would not be settling now nut instead would press on and be claimed rightful owner?

Dinter

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

My Parents have a piece of land that is too much of a pain to keep tidy. They have let the neighbour use it for free for the last few years for their sheep and not even thought about getting access to it.

Well no things have chnged. They are going to have to collect rent or kick the neighbour off now. And they dont really want to do either. The neighbour will feel like my parents think they are potential Kennys', which is not what my parents think at all, but now need to protect themselves.

If Kenny can one day put a gate up and decide the land is his after the neighbour let him use it in good faith for years then there is somthing wrong with the law.

Kenny is just a bare faced scumbag.

Ah I wouldn't worry about it Biggles. It's not as simple to claim adverse possession as one might think reading the stories about Kenny.

Your parents have given your neighbours permission to use the land. Therefore the neighbours are not building up title by simply using it. Their possession has not come at the detriment of your parents. I.e. they have not fenced it off and your family are quite entitled to use it without needing a key or "permission" from the neighbours.

However if they begin to maintain the land, planting hedges, lawn, fencing etc then they are beginning to show a propriety interest in it. If this occurs make sure that any lock on the gate is put there by yourselves.

Overall though you've no reason to worry. It is complicated to explain properly without having specifics but from what you've described the land is just being used rather than as an attempt to quash your title.

At the end of the day you've got 12 years to sort it out in! If you are worried PM me details and I'll get back to you.

Stercus Accidit

Where is Pat Kenny worse?
on the TV, or on the radio?
Neither, in your garden.


Why shouldn't you let Pat Kenny use your toilet?
If he squats on it he may claim its his.


Why is it a good thing to listen to Pat on the radio?
You know he isnt on your property.


Who owns RTE?
Pat Kenny, he's been there longer than 12 years.

oh new one,

Why cant the guards stop Pat Kenny sh1tting in public?
Squatters rights.

Dennis the Stone

International Squatter's Symbol:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/CircleN.svg/180px-CircleN.svg.png

Pat can paint it on all of his suits

pirelli

Adverse possession is a law. People might have views on that but it is still a law and an international law which has been very carefully considered. Pat Kenny described Mr Charltons descriptions of their friendship -walking unannounced into each others house- as fanciful.

Neither comment was made under oath but on the balance of probabilities I would probably believe Pat Kenny.

* The plan view photo's from the newspapers do show a case for adversial possession in that Kenny had almost exclusive access to the land. Pat Kenny used the that land for 17 years as a bird sanctuary - ahem- .

This makes it less of a squatters rights case and more exclusive rights which is very different kettle of fish.

If the Charltons also used the land surely squatters rights doesn't apply ...otherwise I might as well walk into my neighbours garden and stick a bird house up for them and help them with their flower bed while i'm at it..

Mr Kenny should have bid for the Charltons house also as Mr Charlton has implied more or less that it was quite the norm for the family to find Pat Kenny eating cornflakes - his own variety pack - in the morning unannounced over the year's.

niceirishfella

I'd say Pat will soon have his plans ready to go into the Council for that piece of scrub land.

Dennis the Stone

News just in: Pat Kenny is claiming Tibet as his own. He grew a few shrubs there back in 1895

Zzippy

Tago Mago wrote: »

News just in: Pat Kenny is claiming Tibet as his own. He grew a few shrubs there back in 1895

Maybe the Chinese will take him out so, and do us all a big favour...

Cool_CM

Anybody up for some cyber squatting?
http://www.patkenny.com/

The Real B-man

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiIsIE8iT28

My Centiments exactly

Victor

Al_Fernz wrote: »

Did anybody see the other guy coming out of court yesterday??? He hobbled out with his two daughters linking his arms - making him look like a poor old man.

He's seventy something.

That said, apparently the Plank has turned 60 - getting on.

pirelli wrote: »

* The plan view photo's from the newspapers do show a case for adversial possession in that Kenny had almost exclusive access to the land. Pat Kenny used the that land for 17 years as a bird sanctuary - ahem- .

The picture I've seen on rte.ie is a little misleading - there is a laneway between the Kenny house and the disputed land.

escobar

niceirishfella wrote: »

I'd say Pat will soon have his plans ready to go into the Council for that piece of scrub land.

Really....and ruin his nature sanctuary.....I think not

He'll be after the late late studio next

kowloon

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

My Parents have a piece of land that is too much of a pain to keep tidy. They have let the neighbour use it for free for the last few years for their sheep and not even thought about getting access to it.

Well no things have chnged. They are going to have to collect rent or kick the neighbour off now. And they dont really want to do either. The neighbour will feel like my parents think they are potential Kennys', which is not what my parents think at all, but now need to protect themselves.

All you need to do is store some of your property on the land, put a shed there or something, then squatters rights couldn't be claimed as you're using it.
Or rent it out for a cent with the neighbours signature.

kowloon

The Real B-man wrote: »

My Centiments exactly

Nice one

ibuprofen

You're all missing the point. Think of how the fox/s and birds who live on the land will feel after this agreement. God bless Pat

challenges

Dinter wrote: »

Ah I wouldn't worry about it Biggles. It's not as simple to claim adverse possession as one might think reading the stories about Kenny.

Your parents have given your neighbours permission to use the land. Therefore the neighbours are not building up title by simply using it. Their possession has not come at the detriment of your parents. I.e. they have not fenced it off and your family are quite entitled to use it without needing a key or "permission" from the neighbours.

However if they begin to maintain the land, planting hedges, lawn, fencing etc then they are beginning to show a propriety interest in it. If this occurs make sure that any lock on the gate is put there by yourselves.

Overall though you've no reason to worry. It is complicated to explain properly without having specifics but from what you've described the land is just being used rather than as an attempt to quash your title.

At the end of the day you've got 12 years to sort it out in! If you are worried PM me details and I'll get back to you.

Please please help. I have been obtaining rent from a commercial property for many many years. I legally own half the property... my uncle died in 2006 and left me the other half. However a later will made in the UK revoked the Irish will. So how am I fixed with adverse possession? The beneficaries of the UK will are in some cases deceased, some have signed discalimers and some have done nothing. The executors and the solicitor looking aftter the UK will have made no claim or exectuted any steps to possess it. THANKS IN ADVANCE!!

mikemac

Legal forum for you, head over there

The Master

yes, legal forum