Vacant Homes (www.vacanthomes.ie) and Privacy

Mrs Shuttleworth

Really Interested wrote: »

What proposals are a land grab? This is one councils idea to build a database of vacant houses! There is no law against vacant houses, there is no law or proposed law allowing for the State to take such house, and if there was it would in my opinion be unconstitutional.

Wakey wakey, it's Wednesday.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/government-ponders-increasing-compulsory-purchase-powers-1.3185489

http://www.thejournal.ie/housing-vacant-3544449-Aug2017/

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0814/897193-vacant-homes/

gctest50

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Wakey wakey, it's Wednesday.

....

Tell us again how a

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

......

A CPO isn't worth the paper it's written on.

.....

If what you say is true, there is nothing for anyone to worry about

Really Interested

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Wakey wakey, it's Wednesday.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/government-ponders-increasing-compulsory-purchase-powers-1.3185489

http://www.thejournal.ie/housing-vacant-3544449-Aug2017/

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0814/897193-vacant-homes/

Are any of them bills which will effect any property owners constitutional rights. I for one agree with a unused property tax.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

NIMAN

I find the wording of that website a bit poor.

Basically its getting the public to grass up owners of little used houses because the authorities can't get their problems sorted out.

What next? A website for you to post photos of the unemployed heading on holidays or the pub?

Really Interested

NIMAN wrote: »

I find the wording of that website a bit poor.

Basically its getting the public to grass up owners of little used houses because the authorities can't get their problems sorted out.

What next? A website for you to post photos of the unemployed heading on holidays or the pub?

HAve you made a complaint to Mayo Co Co have you made a complaint to Data Protection and have you made a complaint to Minister for Local Government. All their e-mails are online.

Mrs Shuttleworth

NIMAN wrote: »

I find the wording of that website a bit poor.

Basically its getting the public to grass up owners of little used houses because the authorities can't get their problems sorted out.

What next? A website for you to post photos of the unemployed heading on holidays or the pub?

I reckon we should all rock down to Murphy's gaffe near Grand Canal Dock and start taking pictures of it.

It's legal, apparently.

737max

Hopefully some of these derelict properties are brought back in to use with the stick of the existing derelict property legislation in conjunction with the carrot of some newly available refurbishment grants.

If the County Councils had been interested they would have already used the derelict property legislation to hound owners of derelict property to improve their properties.

GM228

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I reckon we should all rock down to Murphy's gaffe near Grand Canal Dock and start taking pictures of it.

It's legal, apparently.

Great, lets get a mob down to his house and start clicking.

I'll have to add potential harassment (or conspiracy to harass) to the list.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Wrong mate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4506552/Hamburg-confiscates-flats-ease-migrant-housing-crisis.html

The Daily Mail got their info from the Gates Institute.

It says so right there in the article. When the Daily Mail is the most reputable place that picks up your press release, that says a lot.

Mrs Shuttleworth

seamus wrote: »

The Daily Mail got their info from the Gates Institute.

It says so right there in the article. When the Daily Mail is the most reputable place that picks up your press release, that says a lot.

I was waiting for some leftist to say that. Mod deletion. Be nice pls. On this forum pls play the ball rather than the man or woman

Mrs Shuttleworth

GM228 wrote: »

Great, lets get a mob down to his house and start clicking.

I'll have to add potential harassment (or conspiracy to harass) to the list.

Well that's what I highlighted earlier in the thread, that the Gardai might ask questions, but Seamas told me I was wrong, and that in fact taking pictures of a property is perfectly legal.

That includes Minister Murphy's private abode in Gallery Quay.

It can't be one rule for set of people, and another rule for others? Surely not?

GM228

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Well that's what I highlighted earlier in the thread, that the Gardai might ask questions, but Seamas told me I was wrong, and that in fact taking pictures of a property is perfectly legal.

That includes Minister Murphy's private abode in Gallery Quay.

It can't be one rule for set of people, and another rule for others? Surely not?

Taking a photograph of someone's house in itself isn't illegal - as already shown to you in the thread.

You raised your concern in relation to someone taking a picture of a potentially vacant house, they have a reasonable excuse to do so, however reckoning "we should all rock down to Murphy's gaffe near Grand Canal Dock and start taking pictures of it" could be looked upon as a matter of harassment or conspiracy.

You don't like the idea of someone taking photographs of your home, but reckon we all rock down to GCD and do just that!

Really Interested

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Well that's what I highlighted earlier in the thread, that the Gardai might ask questions, but Seamas told me I was wrong, and that in fact taking pictures of a property is perfectly legal.

That includes Minister Murphy's private abode in Gallery Quay.

It can't be one rule for set of people, and another rule for others? Surely not?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/section/10/enacted/en/html#sec10

Mrs Shuttleworth

I completely fail to see what the difference is here.

I see no difference between harassment causing distress or alarm and standing outside a property and taking a picture of it without authorisation on the alleged pretext that it is vacant, and submitting details of that property, and the activity around that property to Mayo County Council, that could result in a property owner receiving legal threats or penalties.

That's why Mayo County Council give you the option of creating an account or leaving your contact details. When the sh$t hits the fan with the property owner, you'll be on the hook legally and the property owner will sue you, and the Council will conveniently wash its hands of you - don't look at us, look at him.

What the Minister is encouraging people to do is illegal and anyone who falls for it is an idiot. So base and cod Irish when you think about it.

Really Interested

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I completely fail to see what the difference is here.

I see no difference between harassment causing distress or alarm and standing outside a property and taking a picture of it without authorisation on the alleged pretext that it is vacant, and submitting details of that property, and the activity around that property to Mayo County Council, that could result in a property owner receiving legal threats or penalties.

That's why Mayo County Council give you the option of creating an account or leaving your contact details. When the sh$t hits the fan with the property owner, you'll be on the hook legally and the property owner will sue you, and the Council will conveniently wash its hands of you - don't look at us, look at him.

What the Minister is encouraging people to do is illegal and anyone who falls for it is an idiot. So base and cod Irish when you think about it.

Well then do it and use that defence in court and see if it works, if it does not well just see what happens.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Really Interested wrote: »

Well then do it and use that defence in court and see if it works, if it does not well just see what happens.

Do what? I have no intention of snitching on anyone to Mayo County Council.

Really Interested

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Do what? I have no intention of snitching on anyone to Mayo County Council.

I was talking about "I reckon we should all rock down to Murphy's gaffe near Grand Canal Dock and start taking pictures of it.

It's legal, apparently"

But you knew that did you not.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Really Interested wrote: »

I was talking about "I reckon we should all rock down to Murphy's gaffe near Grand Canal Dock and start taking pictures of it.

It's legal, apparently"

But you knew that did you not.

My point being would the Minister like photographs of his property being taken from the exterior of his premises without consent, and as of itself. Of course he wouldn't. He'd go nuckin futz.

But that's what he's asking citizens to do on each other.

The occupancy or otherwise of the premises, and subjective intent of the photographer, being entirely irrelevant at the moment of image capture, if I correctly interpret the Court judgment that poster Seamus asserts is the basis for the legality of the photography.

Really Interested

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

My point being would the Minister like photographs of his property being taken from the exterior of his premises without consent, and as of itself. Of course he wouldn't. He'd go nuckin futz.

But that's what he's asking citizens to do on each other.

The occupancy or otherwise of the premises, and subjective intent of the photographer, being entirely irrelevant at the moment of image capture, if I correctly interpret the Court judgment that poster Seamus asserts is the basis for the legality of the photography.

And my point is if you believe your own advice then do it and see what happens. Its really that simple.

BTW the minister has to my knowledge said anything about the site in question.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Really Interested wrote: »

And my point is if you believe your own advice then do it and see what happens. Its really that simple.

BTW the minister has to my knowledge said anything about the site in question.

That's poster Seamus's advice, not my advice.

Really Interested

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

That's poster Seamus's advice, not my advice.

Post 98

Originally Posted by NIMAN
I find the wording of that website a bit poor.

Basically its getting the public to grass up owners of little used houses because the authorities can't get their problems sorted out.

What next? A website for you to post photos of the unemployed heading on holidays or the pub?

To which you said:


"I reckon we should all rock down to Murphy's gaffe near Grand Canal Dock and start taking pictures of it.

It's legal, apparently."

Mrs Shuttleworth

Really Interested wrote: »

Post 98

Originally Posted by NIMAN
I find the wording of that website a bit poor.

Basically its getting the public to grass up owners of little used houses because the authorities can't get their problems sorted out.

What next? A website for you to post photos of the unemployed heading on holidays or the pub?

To which you said:


"I reckon we should all rock down to Murphy's gaffe near Grand Canal Dock and start taking pictures of it.

It's legal, apparently."

Please stop being silly and debate the salient points.

Really Interested

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Please stop being silly and debate the salient points.

I am, I have linked to law on the issues, just because you are not happe with the law not my problem.

Victor

Really Interested wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1991/act/31/section/2/enacted/en/html

(2) A person who without lawful excuse damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another—

(a) intending to damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be damaged, and

(b) intending by the damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered,

shall be guilty of an offence.


It would depend if anyone could be hurt.

Isn't it also an offence when used to claim on insurance?

There may also be rights that neighbours have (more civil than criminal), listed building / planning permission issues, environmental and possibly public order issues.

Really Interested

Victor wrote: »

Isn't it also an offence when used to claim on insurance?

There may also be rights that neighbours have (more civil than criminal), planning permission issues, environmental and possibly public order issues.

Yes Section 2 subsection 3

(3) A person who damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another, with intent to defraud shall be guilty of an offence.

It would be interesting if a property was going to be compulsory purchased, should the act apply its possible.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Really Interested

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

http://www.kildare.ie/CountyCouncil/FAQs/ExemptedDevelopmentFAQs/#faq6

"You need planning permission to demolish: a) A habitable house."

I never thought of that angle.

Victor

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

A CPO only pays out on the market value at the time the order is made.

Plus costs. You can also argue for other amounts.

If CPOs were expanded today as Murphy has said it could put thousands of investors into a perilous financial situation as the mortgage sums outstanding would far exceed the compensation paid.

Not necessarily. With the rate of property price growth, the number of vacant properties in negative equity would likely be modest in the overall picture.

These proposals ... will create chaos in the ... property/rental market if implemented.

It won't affect occupied properties.