Banks "like black and tans", acting outside law

Corruptable

From this thread

Marie O'Halloran, Irish Times wrote:

A financial institution has been described in the Dáil as worse than the Black and Tans after its agents seized farm and plant machinery from a contractor in the middle of the night and broke into a neighour’s property to gain access to the equipment.


Independent TD Mattie McGrath claimed the “thugs” acting for Bank of Ireland Finance took the machinery from the Co Tipperary contractor, who was in business for 40 years, without a court order and were accompanied by gardaí.


.....Mr McGrath said the gardaí were in a paddy wagon and sat for 40 minutes while the “thugs” loaded up the equipment. The gardaí accompanied them around Tipperary for hours and the “five thugs” were in a repossessed jeep with no tax or insurance disc.....


Linky

Any thoughts/suggestions/comments/complaints on this from fellow scholars, legal eagles, or members of AGS?

I thought it was amusing myself. I wonder who does the repossessions for Bank of Ireland Finance?

Ms Minnie Mouse

All I will say is...remember there are two sides to every story, it may be wise to remember what is said by a constituent to a TD, then by a TD to the Dáil, isn't under oath and maybe what is in the press isn't the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...

Corruptable

Ms Minnie Mouse wrote: »

All I will say is...remember there are two sides to every story, it may be wise to remember what is said by a constituent to a TD, then by a TD to the Dáil, isn't under oath and maybe what is in the press isn't the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...

Absolutely true. It appears that if the vehicles were subject to a hire purchase agreement, the agents of the finance company have the right to repossess the vehicle without a court order if less than one-third of the hire purchase price has been paid off and the client is in arrears.

I suppose that explains why this thread didn't receive much attention from the regular posters, but certainly the above was news to me. So it seems that the gardai had a justifiable reason to be there, and it was generally above board.

castie

Corruptable wrote: »

Absolutely true. It appears that if the vehicles were subject to a hire purchase agreement, the agents of the finance company have the right to repossess the vehicle without a court order if less than one-third of the hire purchase price has been paid off and the client is in arrears.

I suppose that explains why this thread didn't receive much attention from the regular posters, but certainly the above was news to me. So it seems that the gardai had a justifiable reason to be there, and it was generally above board.

He said the payments were almost finished and the equipment was 4-6 years old.

So doesnt seem like less then a third was paid off.

Ms Minnie Mouse

castie - that's assuming the information that he was provided with was true or indeed accurate. Again, don't believe everything you read.

castie

Ms Minnie Mouse wrote: »

castie - that's assuming the information that he was provided with was true or indeed accurate. Again, don't believe everything you read.

Agreed but the poster stated it as fact so unless hes going on something not in the story then dont see where that point could have been gotten from.

Your never going to get the true story from something like this but I have heard of certain banks doing this and even getting locksmiths to open up buildings without court orders to seize things that were more than a third paid for.

BrianD

I recall that years ago a company I worked for had to repossess an agricultural machine. We knew it would be parked in a field at a certain time. Just went down, craned it over the hedge and onto a truck and off. They guy was aware that there was a strong possibility of this happening and we figured he'd call the Gardai and report it stolen. An hour before the action we just phoned the Garda station, told them what was happening and that it was a civil matter - they really weren't that interested.

I think there's more to this story than meets the eye.

Carawaystick

If the user of the plant had some of their own property in the repossessed vehicle, which was taken away with the vehicle, would the bank be on shakier ground legally?

Corruptable

Just to declare, I've no more information than was declared in the article (even though I do have a Dail source I could use).

Maybe it will come out in time, but I would hope that it's not another case of the gardai just going with the whole "it's a civil issue" excuse and inadvertently assisting the unlawful conduct.

I've no problem with debt collection or repossession. It's an area I'm highly interested in and which I'm seeking work experience in, but I like to see things done correctly (i.e.: with a legal basis) as opposed to just taking property from the possession of another person without a solid legal basis.

Jagle

Carawaystick wrote: »

If the user of the plant had some of their own property in the repossessed vehicle, which was taken away with the vehicle, would the bank be on shakier ground legally?

no i believe in this case they are free to go down to the yard where they are held and collect their possessions

BrianD

Corruptable wrote: »

Just to declare, I've no more information than was declared in the article (even though I do have a Dail source I could use).

Maybe it will come out in time, but I would hope that it's not another case of the gardai just going with the whole "it's a civil issue" excuse and inadvertently assisting the unlawful conduct.

I've no problem with debt collection or repossession. It's an area I'm highly interested in and which I'm seeking work experience in, but I like to see things done correctly (i.e.: with a legal basis) as opposed to just taking property from the possession of another person without a solid legal basis.

I would say that there's more to this story than meets the eye - the fact it got as far as the Dail suggests that. There are many repos every year - none of which make the Dail. Even in the good times, repos of agri and construction equipment was quite common. If the bank expected opposition at the seizure they would have brought the Gardai.

Is this the same Mattie McGrath TD that came out with the stupid statements around drink driving?

mcmoustache

What about going through the neighbour's property? Would this not be trespassing?
The repossession seems understandable enough and i do think that there's more to the story but it doesn't seem right that they could access the property of a third party.

BrianD

mcmoustache wrote: »

What about going through the neighbour's property? Would this not be trespassing?
The repossession seems understandable enough and i do think that there's more to the story but it doesn't seem right that they could access the property of a third party.

Isn't there, as discussed in another thread, an implied right of way?

There's an article about this in yesterdays Irish Times. Noted this item:

"They also took a hedge cutter worth €20,000 which was with a different finance company, Woodchester Finance. “Now Woodchester have informed them that Bank of Ireland kindly passed this over to them and they’re keeping it as well.” (Full story here)

So there are now two banks content to repossess the equipment?

littlemac1980

BrianD wrote: »

Isn't there, as discussed in another thread, an implied right of way?

There's an article about this in yesterdays Irish Times. Noted this item:

"They also took a hedge cutter worth €20,000 which was with a different finance company, Woodchester Finance. “Now Woodchester have informed them that Bank of Ireland kindly passed this over to them and they’re keeping it as well.” (Full story here)

So there are now two banks content to repossess the equipment?

An 'implied' Right of Way???!!! What thread is that in?

Corruptable

I think you mean an "implied right of access" which is a common law notion. There was a thread on it a while back. I actually briefly consulted a member of the Bar who I know personally on the issue, and that member was quite adamant that such a right did not operate in Ireland but does apply in the UK jurisdiction.

bath handle

Corruptable wrote: »

I think you mean an "implied right of access" which is a common law notion. There was a thread on it a while back. I actually briefly consulted a member of the Bar who I know personally on the issue, and that member was quite adamant that such a right did not operate in Ireland but does apply in the UK jurisdiction.

Have you got any references to back that up? This is supposed to be a legal discussion, not a swap unverifiable opinions forum.

Corruptable

bath handle wrote: »

Have you got any references to back that up? This is supposed to be a legal discussion, not a swap unverifiable opinions forum.

No unfortunately I haven't as I took this persons word for it. Nor will I be naming anyone concerned, as it was not official advice.

I think the previous thread was split on it's existence, I may go back and look over it again, but maybe it's something which could be laid to rest now. I've Wylie's Land Law text with me at the moment, but I don't foresee any references to the implied right of access coming up.

bath handle

Corruptable wrote: »

bath handle wrote: »

Have you got any references to back that up? This is supposed to be a legal discussion, not a swap unverifiable opinions forum.

No unfortunately I haven't as I took this persons word for it. Nor will I be naming anyone concerned, as it was not official advice.

I think the previous thread was split on it's existence, I may go back and look over it again, but maybe it's something which could be laid to rest now. I've Wylie's Land Law text with me at the moment, but I don't foresee any references to the implied right of access coming up.

It wouldn't matterif you named someone or not. Any proposition of law should be supported by some verifiable source. There is nothing more tiresome than, "a solicitor/barrister told me...". I remember a thread on those lines. From what I recall there were a lot of people who did not understand the concept.

Corruptable

bath handle wrote: »

It wouldn't matterif you named someone or not. Any proposition of law should be supported by some verifiable source. There is nothing more tiresome than, "a solicitor/barrister told me...". I remember a thread on those lines. From what I recall there were a lot of people who did not understand the concept.

It was an informal discussion, so no authorities were provided. I understand your position and maybe the person in question didn't really know either but decided to fob me off, but they're a member of the Bar so I took their word for it.

Is the concept not what was outlined (i.e.: that unless otherwise expressly stated, there is an implied right of access). To be honest, there's not a whole lot more than that in reference to it online other than a load of freeman on the land ****e.

bath handle

Corruptable wrote: »

bath handle wrote: »

It wouldn't matterif you named someone or not. Any proposition of law should be supported by some verifiable source. There is nothing more tiresome than, "a solicitor/barrister told me...". I remember a thread on those lines. From what I recall there were a lot of people who did not understand the concept.

It was an informal discussion, so no authorities were provided. I understand your position and maybe the person in question didn't really know either but decided to fob me off, but they're a member of the Bar so I took their word for it.

Is the concept not what was outlined (i.e.: that unless otherwise expressly stated, there is an implied right of access). To be honest, there's not a whole lot more than that in reference to it online other than a load of freeman on the land ****e.

That is not the concept. There is ni "right". There is an implied invitation.

Corruptable

bath handle wrote: »

That is not the concept. There is ni "right". There is an implied invitation.

Right, so we'll call it an "implied invitation" instead of a "right", and it generally operates in the way Victor outlined:

Only insofar as they can come to your front door and ring the bell / deliver something. They can't wander around to the back garden and prop themselves up on the deck furniture or pick your flowers.

Any restriction you put on the right invitation to access doesn't apply to people who have a statutory right of access, e.g. a garda serving a warrant and possibly quite a few others, e.g. post man has a legal obligation to deliver post, ESB / Bord Gáis may (not sure) have a right to read meter (statutory and contractual). As the TV licence inspector has statutory powers, you can't stop him coming to the door. Even if you did, you might subsequently find yourself at the end of a search warrant or a summons.

Correct? Agreed so far?

Then it stands to reason to this invitation can be withdrawn so that they can no longer come to your front door and ring the bell/deliver something because they are clearly notified that they are not welcome.

bath handle

Corruptable wrote: »

bath handle wrote: »

That is not the concept. There is ni "right". There is an implied invitation.

Right, so we'll call it an "implied invitation" instead of a "right", and it generally operates in the way Victor outlined[/UR

Only insofar as they can come to your front door and ring the bell / deliver something. They can't wander around to the back garden and prop themselves up on the deck furniture or pick your flowers.

Any restriction you put on the right invitation to access doesn't apply to people who have a statutory right of access, e.g. a garda serving a warrant and possibly quite a few others, e.g. post man has a legal obligation to deliver post, ESB / Bord Gáis may (not sure) have a righ and he is not sure etc. Guards do not deliver warrantst to read meter (statutory and contractual). As the TV licence inspector hastatutory powers, you can't stop him coming to the door. Even if you did, you might subsequently find yours..elf at the end of a search warrant or a summons.
[/QUOT
Correct? Agreed so far?

Then it stands to reason to this invitation can be withdrawn so that they can no longer come to your front door and ring the bell/deliver something because they are clearly notified that they are not welcome.

IAll due respect to Victor, but it is quite flaky. He is talking about possibly and not sure etc. A guard does not deliver a warrant.

Corruptable

bath handle wrote: »

IAll due respect to Victor, but it is quite flaky. He is talking about possibly and not sure etc. A guard does not deliver a warrant.

In what way is it flaky? Could you explain your understanding of the implied invitation in your own words?

Also, is there not some cases where personal service is required, which would be carried out by a paid summons server in civil cases and by a guard in certain criminal cases?

Milk & Honey

Corruptable wrote: »

In what way is it flaky? Could you explain your understanding of the implied invitation in your own words?

Also, is there not some cases where personal service is required, which would be carried out by a paid summons server in civil cases and by a guard in certain criminal cases?

Do you know the difference between a summons and a warrant? What is the source of the powers of summons servers, garda or civil, allowing them enter property in a manner which would otherwise be a trespass?

Corruptable

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Do you know the difference between a summons and a warrant? What is the source of the powers of summons servers, garda or civil, allowing them enter property in a manner which would otherwise be a trespass?

Let me guess, there is no statutory power under which a garda has the power to serve a summons on private property?

Ok, so I'm wrong, but like Victor, I thought there was some sort of exemption which explicitly dealt with the summons, not warrants. Obviously I'm mistaken.

So, apart from that piece, would YOU agree with Victors description of this implied invitation

bath handle

Corruptable wrote: »

bath handle wrote: »

IAll due respect to Victor, but it is quite flaky. He is talking about possibly and not sure etc. A guard does not deliver a warrant.

In what way is it flaky? Could you explain your understanding of the implied invitation in your own words?

Also, is there not some cases where personal service is required, which would be carried out by a paid summons server in civil cases and by a guard in certain criminal cases?

What is this? A tutorial with you as the tutor? This is a discussion forum not a do your homework forum.

castie

bath handle wrote: »

What is this? A tutorial with you as the tutor? This is a discussion forum not a do your homework forum.

Its also a forum where people back up what they say.
You said it was flaky and hes asked you to explain simples.

Jumpy

Thats twice in one thread you have done that now. Sort of starting to look like a "bath handle sarcastic response" forum.

bath handle

castie wrote: »

bath handle wrote: »

What is this? A tutorial with you as the tutor? This is a discussion forum not a do your homework forum.

Its also a forum where people back up what they say.
You said it was flaky and hes asked you to explain simples.

I explauned it in my commenr. Use of phrases such as possibly and not sure. Obviously neither of you read that.

MagicSean

I'm a little unsure as to what the argument is about as it's gotten a bit bitchy. It seems to be about the power of entry through the site of a third party property without the permission of said third party.

It's similar to an argument I've heard made a number of times in relation to speeding tickets. People claiming that the speedvan was parked on private property without permission so any pictures it took should not be allowed as evidence.

I can't see how it changes anything though. The power of entry to the land was there. The third party can persue them for trespass on his property but the rights of the person in debt were not affected at all.

Corruptable

Bath Handle, originally you said that there was a poor understanding of the concept in the previous thread, so I assumed that meant that you or anyone else who wishes to participate constructively could put forward and discuss their ideas.

I'm not tutoring anyone (as I'm not clear on this issue myself), but wanted to bring the issue to discussion as it's something that continually occurs on this particular forum and which there is also much wrangling about. I was just hoping that it could be clarified, as it's a theoretical issue which I, and judging from past threads, many others are curious about.

So, to bring back the question which arose: Is there an implied right of access/implied invitation to enter another's property (e.g.:delivering leaflets, summons, etc.), which by it's implied nature, can be withdrawn in Ireland?