A bit of good in a bad news story...

sdanseo

And that's that, just as I was starting to lose faith in our justice system what with all the killers and pedos getting stupidly low sentences, it finally seems we have at least one judge that has his head screwed on.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1017/prioryhall.html

Around 100 residents from the Priory Hall apartment complex in Donaghmede have tonight checked into a Dublin Hotel. Many residents, including young families are staying at the Regency Hotel in Whitehall, which was arranged as alternative accomodation for them by Dubiln City Council. The residents had previously been advised they must leave their homes because of fire safety concerns. Compulsory evacuation has been delayed by the High Court until Thursday. A residents meeting was being held at the Regency Hotel in Dublin, where the householders committee will brief people on the latest developments in relation to their homes at the courts today. They are also to be addressed by David Hall of the New Beginning legal group. He said ahead of tonight's meeting it was vital they get legal representation.

Earlier today in the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns gave residents extra time to discuss alternative accommodation options with the city council. He ordered the city council to open five dedicated phone lines to deal with the residents. Mr Justice Kearns was told by lawyers for the city council that there were 8,000 people on the housing list. However, the judge said the residents must be taken care of. He said it was very traumatic for people to be put out of their homes. "We haven't seen this situation in Ireland in recent centuries." Mr Justice Kearns ordered Thomas McFeely and Lawrence O'Mahony to submit statements of means to the court by Friday. He was told that neither man had money to lodge in court to pay for the accommodation of residents. Mr McFeely said all his means would be used to carry out the works.
The judge ordered Dublin City Council to pay the cost of accommodating the residents while the works are going on, if it turns out that Mr McFeely and Mr O'Mahony cannot.
He said he was not having the residents leaving court without knowing where they were going and worrying that they would have to pay the cost of the accommodation.
He said Dublin City Council made this application and this was one of the most obvious things they should have thought of.
Brendan Finlay, a fire consultant for the developers of the development told the court about a schedule of works that had been agreed with the fire service.
He said phase one of the works involved removing the external walls to take away the risk of fire spreading and installing enhanced fire alarms and smoke detectors.
He said this would take five weeks.
Mr Justice Kearns ordered the works to be completed by 28 November and said the High Court would be monitoring the progress of the works on a week by week basis.

Lawyers for Dublin City Council told the High Court this morning that emergency accommodation was being provided for the residents at the Regency Hotel in Swords.
City council officials had gone to the development on Saturday and had identified 249 residents, including 96 dependants - either older people or children.
Removal vans cleared apartments throughout the day today, with storage facilities acorss Dublin being used to store people's belongings.

A fire engine and four staff had been present at the development since Friday. However, some families with young children told the court that hotel accommodation would not be suitable. One father, Darren Kelly, said he had a 13-week-old baby girl and he and his partner needed to make bottles and change nappies. Mr Kelly also had his two-and-a-half-year-old son with him in court. Large numbers of residents were in the High Court for this morning's hearing.

Mr Justice Kearns said he wanted to assure them that his concern was for the welfare of the apartment owners and occupiers. He said they had been heavily penalised for the situation that had been allowed to develop. He said he could not imagine anything more stressful than what residents were going through. He said there did not seem to be any alternative to having the residents move out while work is carried out. A solicitor representing 30 residents said they were very concerned about what was happening and about the lack of information from Dublin City Council. He said there were some families whose English was not good who may not even know they have to leave.

TLDR: Judge orders that these people, put out of their homes through no fault of their own, get to stay in a hotel rather than the street, and orders the developers and/or DCC to foot the bill. He could just have easily found that the residents be put on the housing list behind the 8,000 others.

Fair fúcking play, I say.

orourkeda

F*ck them and their sh1tty little house.

I'm f*cking sick listening to them pissing and f*cking moaning

stovelid

The developer was in an organisation that specialized in burning innocent people to death so it was natural he would try and continue in that vein.

BLACKEN

I think the judge did the right thing in this case............. i just hope he continues it!

Guy:Incognito

While its a **** position to be in, was it not known for a least a couple of years that this whole thing was coming? Plus am I right in thinking the building never had a fire cert?How did people buy and live in the apartments for however loong its been without that coming up?

Reamer Fanny

orourkeda wrote: »

F*ck them and their sh1tty little house.

I'm f*cking sick listening to them pissing and f*cking moaning

This is so funny

Gingersnaps

orourkeda wrote: »

F*ck them and their sh1tty little house.

I'm f*cking sick listening to them pissing and f*cking moaning

Those homeowners bought those properties in good faith. It's not their fault that the property was built to such a sub standard condition that the property was a fire hazard.
I think you would be more sympathetic if you bought a property that was deemed to be such a hazard that a judge had to order you to vacate it.

Chuck Stone

Wait.

Is this not just another example of a property speculter's problem being socialized?

Those fuckers who built those apartments should be stripped of all of their assets and lose their right to limited liability for ever more.

Gingersnaps

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

While its a **** position to be in, was it not known for a least a couple of years that this whole thing was coming? Plus am I right in thinking the building never had a fire cert?How did people buy and live in the apartments for however loong its been without that coming up?

Afik, the property had a fire cert but it wasn't built in compliance with the cert. The cert is usually issued at the planning stage. The fire cert only states that the plans meet the fire safety requirments.

orourkeda

Gingersnaps wrote: »

Those homeowners bought those properties in good faith. It's not their fault that the property was built to such a sub standard condition that the property was a fire hazard.
I think you would be more sympathetic if you bought a property that was deemed to be such a hazard that a judge had to order you to vacate it.

Firstly the standard of houses that were buit in the celtic tiger era is a disgrace. This should be common knowledge to anyone with eyes and ears.

On this basis, anyone who pays a grossly inflated price for a sub standard property needs to have their brain examined.

Frankly, I have damn all sympathy for these people. They allowed themselves to be blindsided by hype for nothing and will spend the rest of their lives paying for it.

stovelid

justryan wrote: »

orourkeda wrote: »

F*ck them and their sh1tty little house.

I'm f*cking sick listening to them pissing and f*cking moaning

This is so funny

You're easily amused.

Killer Pigeon

Well, it wasn't me who decided to spend €400,000 on a sh*tty flat in a very badly build and run down apartment block.

sdanseo

orourkeda wrote: »

Firstly the standard of houses that were buit in the celtic tiger era is a disgrace. This should be common knowledge to anyone with eyes and ears.

On this basis, anyone who pays a grossly inflated price for a sub standard property needs to have their brain examined.

Frankly, I have damn all sympathy for these people. They allowed themselves to be blindsided by hype for nothing and will spend the rest of their lives paying for it.

I agree with you to a certain extent - anyone who paid such silly money for a house in the economic boom needs a good slap. That said, if you couldn't predict when prices would fall, and needed somewhere to live/start a family, what where they meant to do? Rent indefinitely?

All that aside - these people have forked out HUGE amounts of money - probably twice or three times the cost of construction - for houses that were not fit for purpose and have, according to the DFB, been an accident waiting to happen since they opened. Put that on top of that instead of being on the fringe of a beautiful new neighbourhood with facilities coming out of their ears, they now live in a psuedo-ghetto. And now, they have been turfed out of their homes, onto the street effectively if it weren't for this court order. You think they deserve all that for a bad choice? I don't think they're the ones needing their brains examined - your lack of sympathy shows nothing but dissacociated arrogance.

Gingersnaps

orourkeda wrote: »

Firstly the standard of houses that were buit in the celtic tiger era is a disgrace. This should be common knowledge to anyone with eyes and ears.

On this basis, anyone who pays a grossly inflated price for a sub standard property needs to have their brain examined.

Frankly, I have damn all sympathy for these people. They allowed themselves to be blindsided by hype for nothing and will spend the rest of their lives paying for it.

The price they paid for the property is irrelevant. The hype they fell for is also irrelevant.
They didn't know that the property wasn't built to the correct safety standards. Only the builders knew that was happening and they went ahead and let people buy them and consequently put lives at risk.
I actually feel sorry for you that you can't seem to feel any sympathy for those people.

orourkeda

sdeire wrote: »

I agree with you to a certain extent - anyone who paid such silly money for a house in the economic boom needs a good slap. That said, if you couldn't predict when prices would fall, and needed somewhere to live/start a family, what where they meant to do? Rent indefinitely?

All that aside - these people have forked out HUGE amounts of money - probably twice or three times the cost of construction - for houses that were not fit for purpose and have, according to the DFB, been an accident waiting to happen since they opened. Put that on top of that instead of being on the fringe of a beautiful new neighbourhood with facilities coming out of their ears, they now live in a psuedo-ghetto. And now, they have been turfed out of their homes, onto the street effectively if it weren't for this court order. You think they deserve all that for a bad choice? I don't think they're the ones needing their brains examined - your lack of sympathy shows nothing but dissacociated arrogance.

I dont think they deserve to be on the street. I never said they deserve to be on the street.

orourkeda

Gingersnaps wrote: »

The price they paid for the property is irrelevant. The hype they fell for is also irrelevant.
They didn't know that the property wasn't built to the correct safety standards. Only the builders knew that was happening and they went ahead and let people buy them and consequently put lives at risk.
I actually feel sorry for you that you can't seem to feel any sympathy for those people.

Whys that?

kieran26

orourkeda wrote: »

Firstly the standard of houses that were buit in the celtic tiger era is a disgrace. This should be common knowledge to anyone with eyes and ears.

On this basis, anyone who pays a grossly inflated price for a sub standard property needs to have their brain examined.

Frankly, I have damn all sympathy for these people. They allowed themselves to be blindsided by hype for nothing and will spend the rest of their lives paying for it.

Not everyone is an engineer and would be able to spot the faults with these houses. Even if they had a snag list done the fact that the external walls of this building were a fire hazard would not have been spotted.

They would have bought the apartments in good faith and got a raw deal' and i think they deserve sympathy its not like they're not paying for their houses or asking someone to give them a bail out. they just want to live in the place where they bought thier home!
There are building standards to adhere to and clearly someone wasn't doing there job inspecting the site be-it the structural engineers or the architect both of whom i think should also be accountable

Jess16

orourkeda wrote: »

F*ck them and their sh1tty little house.

I'm f*cking sick listening to them pissing and f*cking moaning

You're like a poster boy for anger problems

kieran26

orourkeda wrote: »

Whys that?

well you don't feel sympathy for people when you're on the internet
i'm sure if you met these people in real life you'd say it to their faces

orourkeda

Jess16 wrote: »

You're like a poster boy for anger problems

Well thats how I see it.

sdanseo

orourkeda wrote: »

I dont think they deserve to be on the street. I never said they deserve to be on the street.

You said you had no sympathy for them, implying you'd have no sympathy if they'd been turfed out with nowhere to go. Saying you've no sympathy for someone is the same as saying they deserve to be where they are.

orourkeda

kieran26 wrote: »

well you don't feel sympathy for people when you're on the internet
i'm sure if you met these people in real life you'd say it to their faces

The whole problem here is that nobody told them the truth.

If the builder had a decent hair on his head he wouldnt have built these sh*tboxes let alone charged them an inordinate sum of money.

If their bank manager had been doing their job properly they would never have lent them the money.

If they had been more realistic in their expectations then they would not have gotten themselves into this mees

Isnt that the whole problem here.

orourkeda

sdeire wrote: »

You said you had no sympathy for them, implying you'd have no sympathy if they'd been turfed out with nowhere to go. Saying you've no sympathy for someone is the same as saying they deserve to be where they are.

I said I have no sympathy for them. I have not said anywhere that I wish they were on the street. I thought that was pretty clear.

orourkeda

Jess16 wrote: »

You're like a poster boy for anger problems

I could sit here and feign interest or pretend to have sympathy for them but I dont. They invested poorly and now the chickens are coming home to roost.