Couple evicted from house in Killeny

Tim Robbins

Anyone hear about this couple in Killeny. Call me mean or whatever you want but I find it difficult to have any sympathy for them?

Why should the tax payer keep funding their massive house and their property portfolio. I think Karl Deeter was right. There are people who could pay debts but are choosing not to.

It's a pity more people don't speak up about this. It is not fair to the people that are genuinely in very deep difficulty through no fault of their own.

What ya think?

ednwireland

according to pat kenny they remortgaged a lot of property in 07/08 then didnt pay the mortgage, as you say very hard to find any sympathy for them

antoobrien

These people and their ilk were what fueled the property bubble.

They bought 21 properties over the last two decades, while still owning 4 of them, while apparently (if the newspaper articles are to believed) not paying a penny towards this house's mortgage since 2009.

They have claimed poverty in not being able to use any of their "investment properties" as they are least, but isn't there a clause in most leases that states if the landlord needs it for housing use they can break the lease?

This case has been going on for two years, they've had enough time to come to an agreement on one of the remaining leases with the tenants, so not a shred pity for them at all.

Climber

Couldn't they just sell some or all of their investment properties to pay off the loan on the house in Killiney?

They want to have their cake and eat it me thinks. The same sleeven attitude that has this country in ruins.

liammur

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Anyone hear about this couple in Killeny.
What ya think?

This has been rammed down our throats for the past 24 hours.

bensweeney

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Anyone hear about this couple in Killeny. Call me mean or whatever you want but I find it difficult to have any sympathy for them?

Why should the tax payer keep funding their massive house and their property portfolio. I think Karl Deeter was right. There are people who could pay debts but are choosing not to.

It's a pity more people don't speak up about this. It is not fair to the people that are genuinely in very deep difficulty through no fault of their own.

What ya think?

Where have you been hiding for the last two days?

someuser905

the neck on these greedy old pigs
even got a rte golf buddy to put them on the news

Delancey

No sympathy for them - pure unadulterated greed brought them to this , wish Anglo had moved on them in 2010 when they first got the re-possession order.

NIMAN

It was shocking viewing, UNTIL I heard their history, and it does appear they were just greedy.

Plus they knew 2 years ago that they had to leave the house, and despite owning 20 other properties, did nto make arrangements to have somewhere else to move into, instead deciding to cry on the news and say they were now homeless.

Their age will get a lot of sympathy, but if you are able to buy 21 properties, then you know how the world works.

Jez, sure even Enda said that they should just have moved into another of their own properties.

Tim Robbins

antoobrien wrote: »

These people and their ilk were what fueled the property bubble.

They bought 21 properties over the last two decades, while still owning 4 of them, while apparently (if the newspaper articles are to believed) not paying a penny towards this house's mortgage since 2009.

They have claimed poverty in not being able to use any of their "investment properties" as they are least, but isn't there a clause in most leases that states if the landlord needs it for housing use they can break the lease?

This case has been going on for two years, they've had enough time to come to an agreement on one of the remaining leases with the tenants, so not a shred pity for them at all.

I completely agree. They had no mortgages by the late 80's thanks to inflation not because of any other reason. They then went on a rampage pricing 1st time buyers out of the market.

In my experience very few of these people had any care for the properties. They never helped out at management committees - just did not care as long as the rent was coming in.

I heard a quote for them that they were just buying the properties for their retirement. Who the F needs 18 properties for their retirement!!!

Incredible. Their greed and sense of entitlement make me sick. They expect everyone to feel sorry for them and they expect the tax payer to keep paying for their massive house in killeny.

They symbolise everything wrong with celtic tiger Ireland.

Kristopherus

And then you have the Occupy muppets going out to killiney to "support" them:eek:

Thoie

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's a pity more people don't speak up about this. It is not fair to the people that are genuinely in very deep difficulty through no fault of their own.

What ya think?

63 pages of people mostly in agreement with you: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056610957

NIMAN

Kristopherus wrote: »

And then you have the Occupy muppets going out to killiney to "support" them:eek:

they must have sweet FA to do with their time.

Sometimes these bleeding heart liberals get on your goat, don't they?

battle_hardend

Climber wrote: »

Couldn't they just sell some or all of their investment properties to pay off the loan on the house in Killiney?

They want to have their cake and eat it me thinks. The same sleeven attitude that has this country in ruins.

the stopped paying thier mortgage on their kiliney residence two years ago , the property market was in better shape two years ago than it is now , had they offloaded some of their rental properties in 2009 in order to put their affairs re _ kiliney in order , they wouldnt be in the mess they are in , its clear as daylight that mr kelly wanted the state to cover him until the property market rebounded

jmayo

Thoie wrote: »

63 pages of people mostly in agreement with you: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056610957

I have to say the first real honest response on that thread that highlighted the real story of the kellys got nearly 400 thanks.
That is heartening to see that a lot of us can see these leeching freeloaders for what they really are.

creedp

battle_hardend wrote: »

the stopped paying thier mortgage on their kiliney residence two years ago , the property market was in better shape two years ago than it is now , had they offloaded some of their rental properties in 2009 in order to put their affairs re _ kiliney in order , they wouldnt be in the mess they are in , its clear as daylight that mr kelly wanted the state to cover him until the property market rebounded

This is an example of how a 'debt forgiveness scheme' could go badly wrong. This couple were in arrears on their mortgage, simply weren't in a position to afford the monthly payments. Therefore, the taxpayer would simply have to write off a significant proportion of the debt. Although, this is an extreme e.g. given they have 20 properties, there will be many such examples where people will claim they can't afford their mortgage and let it fall into arrears so as to benefit from the scheme. Even if they don't eventually qualify it will incentivise a lot of people to build up unecessary arrears which will only cause more problems down the line. High time this issue was clarified for once and for all.

Finnbar01

Apparently they've gone on a short holiday to get away from it all.

This couple are an example of the entitlement culture. They expect others to pay for their mistakes/greed.

BFDCH.

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Apparently they've gone on a short holiday to get away from it all.

This couple are an example of the entitlement culture. They expect others to pay for their mistakes/greed.

wrong thread/poster

Finnbar01

BFDCH. wrote: »

wrong thread/poster

Hmm.. come again?

Mr.Micro

creedp wrote: »

This is an example of how a 'debt forgiveness scheme' could go badly wrong. This couple were in arrears on their mortgage, simply weren't in a position to afford the monthly payments. Therefore, the taxpayer would simply have to write off a significant proportion of the debt. Although, this is an extreme e.g. given they have 20 properties, there will be many such examples where people will claim they can't afford their mortgage and let it fall into arrears so as to benefit from the scheme. Even if they don't eventually qualify it will incentivise a lot of people to build up unecessary arrears which will only cause more problems down the line. High time this issue was clarified for once and for all.

Well it has been clarified IMO, they were rightly repossessed. I am sure that they will feel the matter has been clarified. Others with the same mindset, take note. I wonder would the same couple be happy to let their tenants not pay their rents?

Geuze

The IT are reporting today that, as well as the 21 apartmenta bought in Irl, they also bought 13 apartments in London.

NB: some of the 21 seem to have been sold.

They are the 1%.

NIMAN

NIMAN wrote: »

It was shocking viewing, UNTIL I heard their history, and it does appear they were just greedy.

What was shocking about it do you mind me asking?