Grass Cutting, Broomfield, Midleton

louisemidleton

Grass Cutting, Broomfield, Midleton
hey, not sure if any other home owners in Broomfield are on this but i said i would give this a shot.

Since McInerney's have gone bust the grass is no longer being cut in Broomfield, supposedly the Council were to take this job on when the estate was finished but since McInerney's have gone bust before the estate has been completed it seems it was never handed over.

I have spoken to David Stanton TD and i know he is ringing/emailing the Council (not sure what good it will do) but was wondering if anyone else from Broomfield were interested in also ringing and getting on their case about it as i dont want it to get to the stage where we will have to pay management fees as i know people wont pay & i don't want to be paying extra just because of them.

Hope all the above made sense & hope other residents are out there

Thanks

Louise

scuby

unfortunately same thing will happen in lots of estates, as the council will say they have no money. only thing that could be done is form a residents commitee, maybe with help of local town council or something and might have a bit more power with a formal residents group.
might also have to tender to get someone to cut it and divide costs with residents. crazy but if council will cut it, it might only be once/twice a year

louisemidleton

thanks i just hate the thought of paying fees when i know a lot of people wont pay

Tonio

Over here in Castle Rock our builder stopped cutting the grass a year ago. A few residents took it upon themselves to form a residents association. An annual fee was collected from most houses and this means the grass can be kept to the same standard as before. Newsletters named the houses who paid making it obvious those that did not. Most paid in the end. Is there a residents association in Broomfield? I realise it is a much bigger estate so it may not be as easy to organise.

dahamsta

I live in an estate like this and will probably end up paying a fee for maintenance. However, if I didn't, and this happened...

Tonio wrote: »

Newsletters named the houses who paid making it obvious those that did not.

...I'd sue the "publisher" for defamation, and I'd likely win. It's a nasty way to go about things, and it shouldn't be done.

MunsterCycling

But you weren't named so no defamation took place... Just saying :P

dahamsta

Try that with a judge and he'd likely clip you around the ear for being a smartarse...

mossie

dahamsta wrote: »

I live in an estate like this and will probably end up paying a fee for maintenance. However, if I didn't, and this happened...



...I'd sue the "publisher" for defamation, and I'd likely win. It's a nasty way to go about things, and it shouldn't be done.

It's not defamation if you're not named, plus surely it's only defamation if it's not true? Giving others credit for paying is not the same as naming you for not paying. Any sane judge would likely rule against you.

As for being nasty surely not paying - while benefitting by having your estate maintained - and then suing those who paid now that would be nasty.

scuby

dahamsta wrote: »

I live in an estate like this and will probably end up paying a fee for maintenance. However, if I didn't, and this happened...



...I'd sue the "publisher" for defamation, and I'd likely win. It's a nasty way to go about things, and it shouldn't be done.

i know of an institution years ago that thanks all the people that gave money, of course it shamed the people that did not pay and that was the idea behind doing it, but they could not do anything about it...

dahamsta

mossie wrote: »

It's not defamation if you're not named, plus surely it's only defamation if it's not true?

Did you not understand my previous response on this exact point? Defamation doesn't require a name, an implication is just fine.

And if acting the boll*x is good enough for them... Naming people by extension is just plain ignorant. These associations should either have the balls to name them explicitly, or mind their business.

mossie

dahamsta wrote: »

Did you not understand my previous response on this exact point? Defamation doesn't require a name, an implication is just fine.

And if acting the boll*x is good enough for them... Naming people by extension is just plain ignorant. These associations should either have the balls to name them explicitly, or mind their business.

I certainly don't understand the logic behind the law if this is the case.

As far as I am aware most, if not all, clubs and associations publish list of their members. Is it the case so that non members can sue for not being included on these list?

FreudianSlippers

mossie wrote: »

It's not defamation if you're not named, plus surely it's only defamation if it's not true? Giving others credit for paying is not the same as naming you for not paying. Any sane judge would likely rule against you.

As for being nasty surely not paying - while benefitting by having your estate maintained - and then suing those who paid now that would be nasty.

dahamsta wrote: »

Did you not understand my previous response on this exact point? Defamation doesn't require a name, an implication is just fine.

And if acting the boll*x is good enough for them... Naming people by extension is just plain ignorant. These associations should either have the balls to name them explicitly, or mind their business.

Three points:

1) A defamatory statement concerns a person if it could reasonably be understood as referring to him or her. I think you'd have a large hill to climb to say that not naming you constitutes a "publication" of a defamatory statement. Not impossible though, but not as "slam dunk" as dahamsta thinks.

2) See the defence of Qualified Privilege in the Defamation Act 2009. This would be an arguable defence.

3) The above 2 points are irrelevant as truth is an absolute defence to a claim of defamation.

mossie

I posted a question on the legal affairs board regarding this as it's probably more relevant there. However:

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Three points:

1) A defamatory statement concerns a person if it could reasonably be understood as referring to him or her. I think you'd have a large hill to climb to say that not naming you constitutes a "publication" of a defamatory statement. Not impossible though, but not as "slam dunk" as dahamsta thinks.

2) See the defence of Qualified Privilege in the Defamation Act 2009. This would be an arguable defence.

3) The above 2 points are irrelevant as truth is an absolute defence to a claim of defamation.

So essentially, for example, if Residents Association Y publish something that implies Mr X didn't pay his fees, and can prove that he didn't, then it's not defamation?

mossie

mossie wrote: »

I posted a question on the legal affairs board regarding this as it's probably more relevant there. However:



So essentially, for example, if Residents Association Y publish something that implies Mr X didn't pay his fees, and can prove that he didn't, then it's not defamation?

I would be more aware about the Multi-unit Developments Act 2011 if I were a resident there. That is assuming, of course, that the estate comes under the definition of a multi-unit development in section 1 of the Act.

FreudianSlippers

mossie wrote: »

I posted a question on the legal affairs board regarding this as it's probably more relevant there. However:



So essentially, for example, if Residents Association Y publish something that implies Mr X didn't pay his fees, and can prove that he didn't, then it's not defamation?

Yes, but Kayroo makes a good point as well.

dahamsta

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

3) The above 2 points are irrelevant as truth is an absolute defence to a claim of defamation.

I don't agree on your 1st point, it's crystal clear to me that the publication of these lists is done entirely with the malicious intent of highlighting those that don't, and I'm pretty sure it would be crystal clear to a judge too.

Of couse that's nearly here nor there because you're 100% right on your third point, which I honestly hadn't thought of. Now I have to wonder - again, hypothetically - if something else could be used against these petty little numpties...?

FreudianSlippers

dahamsta wrote: »

I don't agree on your 1st point, it's crystal clear to me that the publication of these lists is done entirely with the malicious intent of highlighting those that don't, and I'm pretty sure it would be crystal clear to a judge too.

Of couse that's nearly here nor there because you're 100% right on your third point, which I honestly hadn't thought of. Now I have to wonder - again, hypothetically - if something else could be used against these petty little numpties...?

No, I totally see your point, but I don't think you could argue that it's "crystal clear" that not including names in a list is necessarily publication.

You may be correct that the Judge may perceive it that way, but the argument would still arise that it's not properly "publication" under the Act.
Your counter argument would be that it is a class of people under s10(b)... but is an omission a publication would certainly be an argument.

Edit: I should point out that it'd be a complete waste of money as well. You'd have a total fight over Section 10(b) and Section 14 and even if you won that the defence of truth would still prevail.

dahamsta

Agreed.

I hate to have to reiterate this, but - and this doesn't include your good self - there seem to be some dull blades in here that don't understand that this is hypothetical:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72247446&postcount=5

mossie

dahamsta wrote: »

Agreed.

I hate to have to reiterate this, but - and this doesn't include your good self - there seem to be some dull blades in here that don't understand that this is hypothetical:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72247446&postcount=5

I think that most people were aware it was hypothetical. Pointing out that you were wrong in stating "I'd likely win" doesn't justify insults like calling people "dull blades".

Alv_M

I talked to a woman in Broomfield about this not so long ago..She was saying that if everyone even gave 1 euro a week there would be enuf money to hire out a private contractor to cut the grass..im sure she even got a name of a local man that would do it

whiterebel

I'm living in another estate in Midleton. We were told during the "good times" that cork coco would take over the estate "eventually", but that we would probably never get them to cut the grass. We organised our own gardener, and for €80 per house per year we get the grass cut in the estate.

Mr. Jim

If you or your fellow residents form a residents committee I would like to offer my companies services in relation to the maintenance of the grass areas, http://vallum.ie/ I won’t be beaten on price!

DanWall

Will you still pay if/when they introduce service charges?

dandelion4

Hi LouiseMidleton - I realise this post is over 8 months old now, but I wondered if you got this sorted? I think there are a few residents commitees in Broomfield, presumably all paying different amounts for grass cutting - just wondered if you knew how much?

bingbangboom

dandelion4 wrote: »

Hi LouiseMidleton - I realise this post is over 8 months old now, but I wondered if you got this sorted? I think there are a few residents commitees in Broomfield, presumably all paying different amounts for grass cutting - just wondered if you knew how much?

Hi Dandelion,

This is LouiseMidleton - Can't remember log in details! I didn't get anywhere with the whole grass cutting - my new mission is ringing Cork County Council about fixing those sunken man holes!

I wasn't aware that there were residents committees do you have details about these?

deRanged

bingbangboom wrote: »

my new mission is ringing Cork County Council about fixing those sunken man holes!
?

good luck with that - it'd be great to see those fixed.

I'm just after moving into Broomfield, I'm expecting someone from a residents committee to knock on the door one of these days.
if I hear something I'll mention it here.

bingbangboom

deRanged wrote: »

good luck with that - it'd be great to see those fixed.

I'm just after moving into Broomfield, I'm expecting someone from a residents committee to knock on the door one of these days.
if I hear something I'll mention it here.

The pot holes are a joke I've rang council twice and both times I get told they will forward my message on to their supervisor. Its the trucks that cause them and they shouldn't be allowed to drive on that road - it is a housing estate after all!

Def let me know about a residents committee