Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Squatters who 'broke into' pensioner's home ordered to vacate premises by Wednesday

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,194 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    222233 wrote: »
    Squatters rights shouldn't exist in the first place END OF.

    If you didn't pay for it or have NO CLAIM to it then you shouldn't be on anyones property, nothing should be free, if I own a vacant commercial building and want to leave it vacant, than so should be my right. All the laws in this country are in favour of societal menaces.

    Well in that scenario it would be easy to argue that someone selfishly leaving a building vacant while people go homeless is the greater societal menace.


  • Options
    #33
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,194 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    More leftie spiel.

    A property that a person owns is theirs to do with what they wish and the likes of you and you're "common good" have no right to tell them otherwise.

    Like the way England owned Ireland that time?


  • Options
    #34
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    FTA69 wrote: »
    Grand. So what if I bought a house next door to you and started piling my rubbish 30 foot high out the back and blaring music until 3am every night. Would that be ok with you? It's my gaff after all.

    That's completely different, you're causing anti social problems.
    But it is your house and there would be nothing anyone could do, except for bringing you to the district courts under environment law


  • Options
    #35
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,159 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Galway might want to read a bit of Law or study the Consitution.

    The reality is if a piece of infrastructure eg road, new water pipe to Dublin is going through your house, the Govn't can CPO it and knock it. That is how much it is ONLY your business.


  • Options
    #36
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    When I retire, i intend to live overseas for the majority of the year. At the moment, i would also intend to leave a property in Dublin, for my use when i come back.
    Would anyone seriously think squatters moving into my property would be in the right?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    FTA69
    Registered Users Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    bubblypop wrote: »
    That's completely different, you're causing anti social problems.
    But it is your house and there would be nothing anyone could do, except for bringing you to the district courts under environment law

    What and you don't think having a load of vacant properties in a community causes problems? Or that having empty tower blocks owned by Chinese and Russian millionaires surrounded by people paying fortunes in rent or unable to get housing causes problems? Go on away out of it.

    Also I'm fully aware that storing rubbish and blaring music is negative; the point I'm getting at is there is such a thing as a common good and to dismiss it is ridiculous.


  • Options
    #38
    Sam Kade
    Registered Users Posts: 12,313 ✭✭✭✭Sam Kade


    FTA69 wrote: »
    What and you don't think having a load of vacant properties in a community causes problems? Or that having empty tower blocks owned by Chinese and Russian millionaires surrounded by people paying fortunes in rent or unable to get housing causes problems? Go on away out of it.

    Also I'm fully aware that storing rubbish and blaring music is negative; the point I'm getting at is there is such a thing as a common good and to dismiss it is ridiculous.
    So if you went on a foreign holiday for a month and you had squatters in your home when you came back you'd think they had every right to take it over?


  • Options
    #39
    222233
    Registered Users Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭222233


    pickarooney wrote: »
    Well in that scenario it would be easy to argue that someone selfishly leaving a building vacant while people go homeless is the greater societal menace.

    Perhaps there are many reasons why someone would leave a building vacant? Maybe you shouldn't assume they are selfish.

    Not everyone WANTS to profit from their buildings, tenants might be too much hassle for someone. That person MAY want to move into THEIR building one day or perhaps keep if for family without risking it being destroyed by those in the rental market.

    Maybe the property is not suitable to be let due to legal, aesthetic or construction reasons. Maybe that person is planning on renovating. Maybe that person is not available to make decisions about that property. Maybe the person purchased the property as a project or to move into at a later stage. Maybe the property was inherited and the person does not want to let it for sentimental reasons.

    There is plenty of property out there, people just need to accept that they can't always live 5 mins from their ma, or accept that if they wish to rent they may have to commute to work or possibly move out into the country somewhere.


  • Options
    #40
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Sam Kade wrote: »
    So if you went on a foreign holiday for a month and you had squatters in your home when you came back you'd think they had every right to take it over?

    I don't think it applies to that kind of thing.

    But let's say you were a developer and you developed a ghost estate in the middle of, say, Longford, and you had no intention of finishing it and you left it go derelict.
    If a homeless person moved in what's the harm? The property gets used, it makes no difference to the developer and it takes someone off the housing list at least for a while. Win-Win.


  • Options
    #41
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    222233 wrote: »
    Perhaps there are many reasons why someone would leave a building vacant? Maybe you shouldn't assume they are selfish.

    In the UK back in the 90's (I don't know what its like today), some of the councils used to facilitate squatters.
    They had a stock of empty property, but they didn't have the funds to bring it up to spec, so they didn't mind people squatting in it.

    People squatting had a couple of benefits - occupied property wasn't being used for anti social behaviour and it took some people off the housing list. I know Lambeth Council had a form that squatters could fill in so the council knew that that the place was occupied. When they wanted the place back, they'ed write to the squatters. Generally, the squatters would just move to another place.
    This was on some of the dodgier estates in Lambeth so there was no shortage of places to squat - it's probably a lot different these days.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    ScumLord wrote: »
    I don't really see why there needs to be a court case here. They broke into the house, they don't own it.
    I'm surprised they didn't disappear into a shallow grave up the Wicklow mountains, tbh. The pensioner must not have any kids.


  • Options
    #43
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Darkglasses wrote: »
    Public Liability Insurance would matter, right?

    Sure, probably.
    It's no an ideal situation, but I guess public liability insurance is required whether people are squatting or not.


  • Options
    #44
    andekwarhola
    Registered Users Posts: 4,638 ✭✭✭andekwarhola


    He needs to be kicked up and down the stairs a few times before being escorted off the premises.


  • Options
    #45
    andekwarhola
    Registered Users Posts: 4,638 ✭✭✭andekwarhola


    JupiterKid wrote: »
    Squatting is never justified and this sounds like an awful case but it IS symptomatic of the appalling housing crisis in this country at the moment. People will resort to anything to gain access to a roof over their head.

    One does immediately note that the 'filmmaker' squatter didn't occupy a suburban ghost estate house or corpo gaff in Finglas, rather choosing to express his homelessness desperation vis a vis a nice redbrick within walking distance of town.


  • Options
    #46
    DivingDuck
    Registered Users Posts: 1,396 ✭✭✭DivingDuck


    I understand the argument about common good, but the point remains that individual property rights shouldn't be eroded. That's a dangerous slope.

    I can think of a number of items I'm not currently using (my last phone, my backup computer, the TV in the spare room) but which would absolutely qualify under "theft" if someone decided to "re-purpose" them for someone else's use without my permission. All of these items are worth under a grand. Surely if something's a few hundred thousand times more valuable than that, it should be a worse crime, not no crime?

    Yes, property is a more finite resource which is more "essential" than the likes of old iPhones and computers from 2008, but it still belongs to someone who has earned the right to decide, within reason, how it's used. Instead of penalising those who leave their properties vacant (because, as 222233 pointed out upthread, there can be many reasonable reasons for doing so), maybe incentivise people to do otherwise? Offer rather than punish.


  • Options
    #47
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    FTA69 wrote: »
    What and you don't think having a load of vacant properties in a community causes problems? Or that having empty tower blocks owned by Chinese and Russian millionaires surrounded by people paying fortunes in rent or unable to get housing causes problems? Go on away out of it.

    Also I'm fully aware that storing rubbish and blaring music is negative; the point I'm getting at is there is such a thing as a common good and to dismiss it is ridiculous.

    and what about when I go overseas to live for most of the year? Do you think the home I keep in Dublin should be taken over by people that haven't paid for it?
    Or should I be allowed privacy in my life & my home, to do with as I wish?


  • Options
    #48
    nuckeythompson
    Registered Users Posts: 939 ✭✭✭nuckeythompson


    Just passed by the house, they have the windows covered with sheets and a copy of the star . Not entirely covered. In there now with two other lads smoking and drinking cans. If your reading these Mr Scorsese it was me who punctured the tyres on your cunty hipster bike ya prick


  • Options
    #49
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,506 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    whats stopping you breaking into 'their' house and claiming squatters on the house


  • Options
    #50
    __Alex__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 473 ✭✭__Alex__


    I just can't understand why squatter's rights are a thing anywhere.


  • Options
    #51
    andekwarhola
    Registered Users Posts: 4,638 ✭✭✭andekwarhola


    Phoebas wrote: »
    I don't think it applies to that kind of thing.

    But let's say you were a developer and you developed a ghost estate in the middle of, say, Longford, and you had no intention of finishing it and you left it go derelict.
    If a homeless person moved in what's the harm? The property gets used, it makes no difference to the developer and it takes someone off the housing list at least for a while. Win-Win.

    Kinda different though as that would be a mutually beneficial arrangement agreed by the owner.

    Some gaff owned by a pensioner (under what circumstances nobody can be sure) is slightly different to that or vast tranches of property owned by a company.

    Was wondering what the insurance situation is if one of the squatters injures themself in the house or something.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    skankkuvhima
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭skankkuvhima


    __Alex__ wrote: »
    I just can't understand why squatter's rights are a thing anywhere.

    Ah to be fair I can understand why they exist. If you have land sitting there for 100 years and no-one claims it (and perhaps no one even knows who owns it) why shouldn't someone be able to use it?

    What I dont understand is how you can break into someones house and live there for 6 months while waiting for some judge to order you to leave.

    Next time my neighbours leave their house, I'm in. It's a lot nicer than my hovel.


  • Options
    #53
    skankkuvhima
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭skankkuvhima


    andekwarhola wrote: »
    Was wondering what the insurance situation is if one of the squatters injures themself in the house or something.

    Guess :rolleyes:

    All of a sudden the real owner is liable and this pensioners house insurance gets hit.


  • Options
    #54
    __Alex__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 473 ✭✭__Alex__


    FTA69 wrote: »
    What and you don't think having a load of vacant properties in a community causes problems? Or that having empty tower blocks owned by Chinese and Russian millionaires surrounded by people paying fortunes in rent or unable to get housing causes problems? Go on away out of it.

    Right... but most people with an extra vacant property aren't these people and don't deserve to be regarded as villains.
    skankkuvhima wrote: »
    Ah to be fair I can understand why they exist. If you have land sitting there for 100 years and no-one claims it (and perhaps no one even knows who owns it) why shouldn't someone be able to use it?

    Use, yes. Own after a certain amount of time? No.


  • Options
    #55
    skankkuvhima
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭skankkuvhima


    __Alex__ wrote: »

    Use, yes. Own after a certain amount of time? No.

    Why not though? If no one claims ownership of, say some land, why shouldn't someone else claim ownership. There exists abandoned land, what should happen to it? No-one own it?


  • Options
    #56
    222233
    Registered Users Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭222233


    skankkuvhima wrote: »
    Why not though? If no one claims ownership of, say some land, why shouldn't someone else claim ownership. There exists abandoned land, what should happen to it? No-one own it?

    Auction it off, proceeds to charity if an owner can't be located after say 100 years...


  • Options
    #57
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    andekwarhola wrote: »
    Kinda different though as that would be a mutually beneficial arrangement agreed by the owner.

    Some gaff owned by a pensioner (under what circumstances nobody can be sure) is slightly different to that or vast tranches of property owned by a company.

    Was wondering what the insurance situation is if one of the squatters injures themself in the house or something.
    Ah yeah - I wouldn't be in favour of someone squatting in some individual's private home.

    That said, there are now large numbers of properties in London bought up and left idle by rich Russians and Chinese who have no intention of ever living in them or even renting them out. It wouldn't exactly break my heart if squatters decided to move in to some of them.


  • Options
    #58
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    Genuinely only checked thread to see if the squatter was anyone I knew...


  • Options
    #59
    __Alex__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 473 ✭✭__Alex__


    skankkuvhima wrote: »
    Why not though? If no one claims ownership of, say some land, why shouldn't someone else claim ownership. There exists abandoned land, what should happen to it? No-one own it?

    I'm talking about land and property where the owner is known.


  • Options
    #60
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    FTA69 wrote: »
    The state taking a percentage of your wages? That's a a mad idea altogether, maybe it just might work! They could call it "tax" after the Latin word "taxare".

    Well imagine you manage to save some of it pay this same tax 3 or times and buy a property. Then the govt take it off you for the common good.

    That's what you are suggesting.

    Is there a reason you think hte private individual has to provide housing for squatters and other people when the govt is the biggest landlord with empty housing and chooses to sell it venture funds than providing housing.

    I don't get it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    skankkuvhima
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭skankkuvhima


    __Alex__ wrote: »
    I just can't understand why squatter's rights are a thing anywhere.
    __Alex__ wrote: »
    I'm talking about land and property where the owner is known.

    You didn't specify that earlier.


Advertisement