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

Samuel T. Cogley

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Classy.

My position was set out in a previous post. You asked a question and I answered it. You then tried to be smart and failed. What do you then expect? If you want to ask a follow up question I'd have been fine with answering it politely. However if you're going to try and be smart, expect the same in return.

jimgoose

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

If it went over your head I'm not sure how I can help. Maybe try some night classes or something?

You could perhaps mention that the general run of private, freehold land ownership in this part of the world is thus under the Common Law concept of fee simple absolute, but Eminent Domain still applies. This is an old name for compulsory purchase, whereby the State can effectively take any property off anyone for the public good.

ohnonotgmail

jimgoose wrote: »

You could perhaps mention that the general run of private, freehold land ownership in this part of the world is thus under the Common Law concept of fee simple absolute, but Eminent Domain still applies. This is an old name for compulsory purchase, whereby the State can effectively take any property off anyone for the public good.

I'm aware of that. I still dont think it addresses the original point of squatters seemingly having more rights over a property than its legal owner. Unfortunately i will never know what "wisdom" Mr Cogley can impart on the matter.

the_syco

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Yes because someone buying a property is exactly the same scenario as invading another country....

The english did not invade Ireland; they were invited in to help with a small war, saw that there was no opposition, and took power.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I certainly haven't and I live in the countryside

When people died in the past, and no-one claimed their land are you saying that people didn't take over their land after 10 or 15 years?

jimgoose

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm aware of that. I still dont think it addresses the original point of squatters seemingly having more rights over a property than its legal owner. Unfortunately i will never know what wisdom Mr Cogley can impart on the matter.

That was more in the spirit of countering the notion that you can do whatever you like with your private property. You can't. Eminent Domain/CPO is one example of that. Others would be various offences related to eyesores/hazards, and other matters falling under the jurisdiction of the EPA. Some asshole hippy confusing adverse possession with the limitation on the Gardaí's civil powers is indeed a somewhat different matter, and I have great sympathy with the pensioner in the original news article.

Samuel T. Cogley

In addition there are now effectively rent controls in everything but name, another example of not being able to do what one wants. As is the RTA and various other Acts.

I also have nothing but sympathy for the pensioner and indeed many landlords that get stuck with someone in situ not paying rent for months and months.

However it's not a yes/no position to very general questions.

ohnonotgmail

jimgoose wrote: »

That was more in the spirit of countering the notion that you can do whatever you like with your private property. You can't. Eminent Domain/CPO is one example of that. Others would be various offences related to eyesores/hazards, and other matters falling under the jurisdiction of the EPA.

Point taken.

jimgoose wrote: »

Some asshole hippy confusing adverse possession with the limitation on the Gardaí's civil powers is indeed a somewhat different matter, and I have great sympathy with the pensioner in the original news article.

the sooner we criminalise trespass the better. I honestly thought we had done that a couple of years ago.

jimgoose

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

...the sooner we criminalise trespass the better. I honestly thought we had done that a couple of years ago.

I would have thought it already was under Sections 11 and 13 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994, but having said that IANAL!

andekwarhola

Do people honestly think the squatter(s) in this instance are doing this to make some high-minded gesture in solidarity with people affected by the Dublin homelessness crisis or the gentrification of innter-city London? :pac:

ohnonotgmail

jimgoose wrote: »

I would have thought it already was under Sections 11 and 13 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994, but having said that IANAL!

Absent the intent to commit an offence or in a manner likely to cause fear i dont think that applies. Simply being in a building you dont own is not an offence.

jimgoose

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Absent the intent to commit an offence or in a manner likely to cause fear i dont think that applies. Simply being in a building you dont own is not an offence.

I'd have thought changing the locks and marching into a building you don't own could be reasonably seen as causing fear to it's 80-year-old owner. From the article itself:

"The judge said he had continued to cause worry and distress to Kavanagh who was in his eighties and in ill-health. She said Kavanagh’s belongings in the property had been interfered with."

ohnonotgmail

jimgoose wrote: »

I'd have thought changing the locks and marching into a building you don't own could be reasonably seen as causing fear to it's 80-year-old owner. From the article itself:

"The judge said he had continued to cause worry and distress to Kavanagh who was in his eighties and in ill-health. She said Kavanagh’s belongings in the property had been interfered with."

how can you cause fear to somebody who isnt there? Worry and distress are not fear.

skankkuvhima

Surely if you are instructed by the lawful owner of a house (that you are not renting or have not been living in) to leave and you refuse you are committing a crime?

jimgoose

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how can you cause fear to somebody who isnt there? Worry and distress are not fear.

Not fear for one's immediate physical safety, no, but fear nevertheless.

ohnonotgmail

skankkuvhima wrote: »

Surely if you are instructed by the lawful owner of a house (that you are not renting or have not been living in) to leave and you refuse you are committing a crime?

unfortunately not, assuming i am reading the public order act correctly. You have to be doing something likely to cause fear and even then it has to a garda that orders you to leave.

ohnonotgmail

jimgoose wrote: »

Not fear for one's immediate physical safety, no, but fear nevertheless.

No idea if the fear they refer to refers to fear for personal safety or a general fear. i suspect it is the former.

skankkuvhima

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

unfortunately not, assuming i am reading the public order act correctly. You have to be doing something likely to cause fear and even then it has to a garda that orders you to leave.

You might start getting nervous at 1 a.m. when you are heading off to bed and some stranger is sitting in your living room refusing to leave?

ohnonotgmail

skankkuvhima wrote: »

You might start getting nervous at 1 a.m. when you are heading off to bed and some stranger is sitting in your living room refusing to leave?

Indeed you would. and that is something that is likely to cause fear. Or cause you to reach for the hurley beside the bed

jimgoose

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No idea if the fear they refer to refers to fear for personal safety or a general fear. i suspect it is the former.

I would expect the spirit and intent of it refers to fear in a person in the house or on the associated land at the time, yes.

ohnonotgmail

jimgoose wrote: »

I would expect the spirit and intent of it refers to fear in a person in the house or on the associated land at the time, yes.

you are probably correctly. except in the OP the pensioner wasn't in the house.

jimgoose

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you are probably correctly. except in the OP the pensioner wasn't in the house.

Oh I know that, different sort of fear.

Galwayguy35

I wonder is it a coincidence that the homeowner happened to be a pensioner, I'm reasonably sure a few lads posting here would agree with me that if we found someone squatting they would be removed fairly lively out of the place.

andekwarhola

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I wonder is it a coincidence that the homeowner happened to be a pensioner, I'm reasonably sure a few lads posting here would agree with me that if we found someone squatting they would be removed fairly lively out of the place.

Would actually be hilarious if a bunch of crusties inadvertently occupied a gaff belonging to a criminal.

Make a funny Love /Hate subplot.

the_syco

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how can you cause fear to somebody who isnt there? Worry and distress are not fear.

Fear that stuff will go missing, and/or sentimental jewellery getting pawned off.

andekwarhola wrote: »

Would actually be hilarious if a bunch of crusties inadvertently occupied a gaff belonging to a criminal.

It wouldn't make the news. It'd just make a hole in the ground.

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I wonder is it a coincidence that the homeowner happened to be a pensioner, I'm reasonably sure a few lads posting here would agree with me that if we found someone squatting they would be removed fairly lively out of the place.

And if the squatter could prove that you hurt them while ejecting them, you could be facing both criminal and civil charges.... At least, that's my understanding of the law. Which is why you need the Gardai to remove them.

Dunno if I'm right tho.. I have this feeling though that it's something like that.

Spanish Eyes

There are very many elderly folks houses lying vacant due to the Fair
Deal..

Isn't it disgraceful that all that stock is just lying idle and rotting away.. three in my road already. The children just said they were not letting them out as the tax is too high, the hassle is too much and the income is taken into account for Fair Deal assessment.

Something wrong right there. But I don't know what the solution is to get them occupied.

They will be squatted in eventually.

Lu Tze

Deleted User wrote: »

And if the squatter could prove that you hurt them while ejecting them, you could be facing both criminal and civil charges.... At least, that's my understanding of the law. Which is why you need the Gardai to remove them.

Dunno if I'm right tho.. I have this feeling though that it's something like that.

What squatter? I've never seen this man before in my life!

Fozzydog3

I have to say the credit union are really on the ball with their ads

skankkuvhima

Fozzydog3 wrote: »

I have to say the credit union are really on the ball with their ads

No need to take out the loan when you can stroll into whatever house you like and live in it rent free for 6 months.

Galwayguy35

Deleted User wrote: »

And if the squatter could prove that you hurt them while ejecting them, you could be facing both criminal and civil charges.... At least, that's my understanding of the law. Which is why you need the Gardai to remove them.

Dunno if I'm right tho.. I have this feeling though that it's something like that.

That would be bloody ridiculous if it's true that the owner could be sued for money, although it wouldn't surprise me if it was.

Sure free legal aid for him no doubt.