Media: Costs awarded against couple over Dublin eviction

The_Conductor

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/costs-awarded-against-couple-over-dublin-eviction-1.1954633

Tue, Oct 7, 2014, 12:31

First published: Tue, Oct 7, 2014, 11:01

Costs have been awarded against Martin (72) and Violet (62) Coyne, the couple evicted in August by a bank from their home of 15 years in Carpenterstown.

Ms Justice Jacqueline Linnane in the Circuit Civil Court said the couple had failed to comply with orders to vacate the rented house after it had been repossessed by ACC Bank.

Ms Justice Linanne said the Coyles’ refusal to leave their home, having given an undertaking to do so by July, led to extra costs being incurred by the receiver.

She said the couple had also been in contempt of court for failure to comply with and earlier court order to vacate the property, and noted the previous owner had seen his debt to the bank increase because of the delay.

Asking to address the court, Mr Coyle said: “Is it all about costs? Is there no human side?”

Ms Coyle said: “We are most definitely objecting to costs. We have been treated very badly.”

She told the court the couple had been caught up in a financial row between the former owner and his bank which “wasn’t through our own doing”.

She said the couple had lost their home and had been “dehumanised” by the process. She alleged that since their eviction they had discovered some of their possessions were missing from the property.

However, Ms Justice Linnane told the couple that in September 2013 the Private Residential Tenancies Board had determined the couple had to leave the house.

She recalled she had enforced the board’s decision in March 2014 and the decision had then been unsuccessfully appealed to the High Court by the Coyles.

The matter had come back before Judge Linnane in June of this year and the couple “gave a sworn undertaking to the court that you would vacate the property by the 2nd of July, by which time you had not left”, she said.

The Sheriff had then evicted them and Judge Linnane was now dealing with the receiver’s application for its legal costs, she added.

Outside the court, the Coyles told reporters they were now living in Mullingar, which was the nearest place to their former home they could find within their budget and where they found rent allowance was accepted.

They had no family in Mullingar, their relatives and friends being back in Carpenterstown, they said.

Ms Coyle said the system had failed them and they called on the Government to bring in “a new system” to protect householders. There were many, many more people in their position, she added.

Mr Coyle told reporters he had discovered valuable fishing equipment and other property belonging to the couple was missing from the house when they went back to collect their possessions.

He estimated the costs would amount to about €5,000 but it did not matter “if they were a million”, as the couple could not afford to pay them, he said.

The_Conductor

The_Conductor wrote: »

He estimated the costs would amount to about €5,000 but it did not matter “if they were a million”, as the couple could not afford to pay them, he said.

5K?
Really?
I think he is hopelessly unrealistic.
Multiply this 10 fold- and it still won't cover legal costs........

Michael D Not Higgins

The_Conductor wrote: »

5K?
Really?
I think he is hopelessly unrealistic.
Multiply this 10 fold- and it still won't cover legal costs........

Even the year's worth of rent would be more than 5k

Meathlass

The_Conductor wrote: »

Ms Coyle said the system had failed them and they called on the Government to bring in “a new system” to protect householders. There were many, many more people in their position, she added.

They weren't householders though were they. They were tenants who were given proper legal notice to quit the house and refused over a period of at least a year.

They wanted to live beside family with room for their grandchildren. Well, don't we all but unfortunately market rates dictate where we can afford to rent. I'd love to live in an apartment in the city centre near work and socializing but I can't so I commute 3.5 hours a day. Get over it!

Michael D Not Higgins

Seems like the system protected them too much as it took so long to finally get rid of them and award costs.

JimsAlterEgo

maybe the media who made so much out of a non story will pay it for them

MouseTail

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

maybe the media who made so much out of a non story will pay it for them

Maybe Ruth Coppinger will pay it.

Greenmachine

An ugly end to the debacle for everyone. A judgment against the couple that they will never pay. And over a year to resolve the matter in the courts.

Claw Hammer

The costs can be taken from their social welfare on a weekly basis if the receiver pursues them.

foggy_lad

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The costs can be taken from their social welfare on a weekly basis if the receiver pursues them.

ONLY if they agree to that happening, otherwise NO deductions can be made from a basic social welfare payment.

Michael D Not Higgins

foggy_lad wrote: »

ONLY if they agree to that happening, otherwise NO deductions can be made from a basic social welfare payment.

In other words, there's no recourse and they've gotten away with wasting a year of people's time and money.

delahuntv

Before the naysayers start commenting, it should be understood that at the original hear the Coynes AGREED to vacate. It is only the costs of subsequent actions due to their reneging of the agreement that they made and agreed to that they are being landed with.

And, they were originally told the property was to be sold by their landlord in 2012 - before a receiver was appointed, and when similar properties could be rented at a far more reasonable rent that today.

Whilst any cases deserve sympathy, these stubborn people do not as they had opportunity after opportunity given to them and which they stubbornly refused - they even refused a free house because it needed a little work. Laziness to the extreme.

Claw Hammer

foggy_lad wrote: »

ONLY if they agree to that happening, otherwise NO deductions can be made from a basic social welfare payment.

The District Court can order them to pay a certain amount weekly from their Social welfare. If they don't they can be jailed for contempt!

Michael D Not Higgins

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The District Court can order them to pay a certain amount weekly from their Social welfare. If they don't they can be jailed for contempt!

They and the media would love that. OAP hauled to off to prison for non-payment of debt on meagre pension.

Claw Hammer

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

They and the media would love that. OAP hauled to off to prison for non-payment of debt on meagre pension.

At least their housing problems would be over.

foggy_lad

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The District Court can order them to pay a certain amount weekly from their Social welfare. If they don't they can be jailed for contempt!

Nobody not even the state can make deductions from any individuals basic social welfare payment without the consent of the recipient.

lau1247

MouseTail wrote: »

Maybe Ruth Coppinger will pay it.

yeah with your tax money :rolleyes:

Claw Hammer

foggy_lad wrote: »

Nobody not even the state can make deductions from any individuals basic social welfare payment without the consent of the recipient.

The District Court examines the means of anyone before it and can order them to pay whatever amount it deems just that they sghould pay. If their only income is Social Welfare they still have to pay the amount orderd or be held in contempt. The court will not order direct deductions from social welfare but the effect is the same.

foggy_lad

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The District Court examines the means of anyone before it and can order them to pay whatever amount it deems just that they sghould pay. If their only income is Social Welfare they still have to pay the amount orderd or be held in contempt. The court will not order direct deductions from social welfare but the effect is the same.

The court often orders people to pay small amounts(€30) for maintenance orders where the persons are only in receipt of the basic social welfare payment and these people can be jailed for failing to pay this money as they are then in contempt of court.

The court "will not" order direct deductions from any base social welfare payment because it does not have the power to do so.

Frigga_92

The_Conductor wrote: »

Outside the court, the Coyles told reporters they were now living in Mullingar, which was the nearest place to their former home they could find within their budget and where they found rent allowance was accepted.

They had no family in Mullingar, their relatives and friends being back in Carpenterstown, they said.

You'd swear they had been sent to an internment camp the way they're going on. Taxpayers are still funding their accommodation, sounds pretty great to me. Lets just hope they don't cost us any further long drawn out Court cases in the future by being this stubborn.