Vacant Homes (www.vacanthomes.ie) and Privacy

Mrs Shuttleworth

Victor wrote: »

Plus costs. You can also argue for other amounts.

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.

It won't affect occupied properties.

You're not correct. Thousands of properties in the low to mid range are still in negative equity from 2008.

A property can fall vacant for any reason. Aside from the fact that an owner should be entitled to keep it vacant if they want to.

If an owner can be forced to cash out at any time or incur punitive costs for keep a property vacant, prospective purchasers will be scared off from investing in the market and banks will withhold loan facilities for purchase as there's no guarantee of the loan being repaid on involuntary cash out.

The only purchasers will end up being vulture funds.

Victor

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.

There is a difference between an action (taking a single photo) and an ongoing behaviour (watching and besetting, harrassing).

737max wrote: »

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.

Derelict property is a separate but marginally related matter. We are talking about non-occupied, non-derelict properties.

That said, councils could do a lot more about derelict properties - they tend to only make an issue of dangerous properties.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

You're not correct. Thousands of properties in the low to mid range are still in negative equity from 2008.

Out of 1,500,000+ residential properties.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

A property can fall vacant for any reason. Aside from the fact that an owner should be entitled to keep it vacant if they want to.

Perhaps they should, but in the context of large numbers of homeless people, most people think not.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

The only purchasers will end up being vulture funds.

In the current context, 'vulture funds' have no particular interest in owning property - they buy loans cheaply, try to resolve those loans and thereby make a profit. You may be confusing vulture funds with REITs and other professional landlords.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Victor wrote: »

There is a difference between an action (taking a single photo) and an ongoing behaviour (watching and besetting, harassing.

I would view the taking of photographs of property without consent, surveillance of it and the transmission of information concerning it to Mayo County Council under this scheme where the owner is causing no nuisance to anyone as a straightforward case of watching, besetting and harassment, and an interference with the right to enjoy one's property peacefully (which may involve keeping it vacant).

If I had vacant property and was reported to the Council I would apply to Court to have the identity of the person who reported me disclosed and/or their IP address and I would join them as a defendant along with the Council in any legal action I might choose to take.

All of this is moot as the Banks will unilaterally cease lending for property if Murphy's proposals take hold. No one will get a mortgage at all if the Government could force them out on their ar $e given a certain set of circumstances and particularly in tandem with rent caps.

markpb

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

If I had vacant property and was reported to the Council I would apply to Court to have the identity of the person who reported me disclosed and/or their IP address and I would join them as a defendant along with the Council in any legal action I might choose to take.

Since this the legal discussion forum and not Personal Issues and this thread feels very devoid of any actual legal discussion, perhaps you could suggest what legal action you could reasonably take? What law do you think you could reference when asking a court to force the disclosure of the identity of the person who reported your property? In your answer, it would be good to exclude the phrases "I feel" and "it should be illegal".

Mrs Shuttleworth

markpb wrote: »

Since this the legal discussion forum and not Personal Issues and this thread feels very devoid of any actual legal discussion, perhaps you could suggest what legal action you could reasonably take? What law do you think you could reference when asking a court to force the disclosure of the identity of the person who reported your property? In your answer, it would be good to exclude the phrases "I feel" and "it should be illegal".

Invasion of privacy in tort, under the Constitution, under the ECHR and Data Protection law. Unlawfully besetting and watching and then reporting the information without locus standi to a third party, causing that third party to issue threatening correspondence or initiate legal action without due cause (harassment under the Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act) causing the subject to suffer financial losses, interference with the inviolability of a person's dwelling and the right to own and transfer property under the Constitution.

The Council already knows where all the vacant homes are. The Census told them that as will a cross check of LPT and RTB databases.

The purpose of the site is have random informants act as a buffer in the carrying out of legally questionable activity, in the same way that professional criminals operate. No one person carries out all elements of the crime. If a property owner sues or legally challenges the State under these proposals, if there's an informant on record for the property then the State can hang the informant out to dry financially via the seeking of an indemnity or informing the property owner to sue the informant, that the State acted in good faith on the information provided.

Very crafty.

Really Interested

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Invasion of privacy in tort, under the Constitution, under the ECHR and Data Protection law. Unlawfully besetting and watching and then reporting the information without locus standi to a third party, causing that third party to issue threatening correspondence or initiate legal action without due cause (harassment under the Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act) causing the subject to suffer financial losses, interference with the inviolability of a person's dwelling and the right to own and transfer property under the Constitution.

The Council already knows where all the vacant homes are. The Census told them that as will a cross check of LPT and RTB databases.

The purpose of the site is have random informants act as a buffer in the carrying out of legally questionable activity, in the same way that professional criminals operate. No one person carries out all elements of the crime. If a property owner sues or legally challenges the State under these proposals, if there's an informant on record for the property then the State can hang the informant out to dry financially via the seeking of an indemnity or informing the property owner to sue the informant, that the State acted in good faith on the information provided.

Very crafty.

The High Court case I posted earlier (The law) actually dealt with many if not all of those issues, funny the Judge never said I feel.

Victor

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

The Council already knows where all the vacant homes are. The Census told them that as will a cross check of LPT and RTB databases.

No, Census data is essentially sealed for 100 years and the council can't breach that. Only aggregated information is published.

Peregrinus

I don't think you have a cause of action known to the law here, Mrs Shuttleworth. What you display to the world is, by definition, not private. If you want your house to look occupied then occupy it, or manage it in a way that makes it appear to be occupied. If, to anyone passing along the road, you house appears unoccupied, the fact that your house appears unoccupied is in no sense private information; it's available to the world. you have no cause of action against somebody who points out to somebody else that your house appears to be unoccupied.

Similarly, photographs of your house as it appears from the street are not an invasion of privacy. If you build or buy a house situated so that it can be seen (and, therefore, photographed) from the street, that does not confer upon you a right to stop people taking photographs in the street. If you want a house that cannot be photographed from a public place, you need to make sure that it cannot be seen from a public place. Screen you house with trees, or build in the middle of a very large property.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think you have a cause of action known to the law here, Mrs Shuttleworth. What you display to the world is, by definition, not private. If you want your house to look occupied then occupy it, or manage it in a way that makes it appear to be occupied. If, to anyone passing along the road, you house appears unoccupied, the fact that your house appears unoccupied is in no sense private information; it's available to the world. you have no cause of action against somebody who points out to somebody else that your house appears to be unoccupied.

Similarly, photographs of your house as it appears from the street are not an invasion of privacy. If you build or buy a house situated so that it can be seen (and, therefore, photographed) from the street, that does not confer upon you a right to stop people taking photographs in the street. If you want a house that cannot be photographed from a public place, you need to make sure that it cannot be seen from a public place. Screen you house with trees, or build in the middle of a very large property.

It's not incumbent on a property owner to make their property appear occupied and in continuous use. Why should a lawful property owner be placed on the back foot and on the defensive and do so?

You are loosely correct on the observation issues but for one element, the party making the report to Mayo County Council wouldn't in most cases have any due personal cause or locus standi to file a report to the Council as the vacant property owner would not be causing a nuisance to them by having the property vacant and it's on that particular point that I am of the opinion that liability arises. Where the building is not an immediate safety risk any such photography and filing of a report with the Council becomes de facto "malicious". It is not a criminal offence to own property and not have it in continuous use yet we are being conditioned by stealth to believe that it is.

I certainly would pursue such an individual (along with the Council) legally if they filed such a report without any cause to do so and it resulted in my suffering material loss on the basis of non-full occupancy alone. Time will tell as no doubt there will be multiple Court actions/applications if these proposals take hold.

A very practical example: the house next door to me is vacant. I am aware of the reason why. Its vacancy has caused me to suffer no damage. If I report the owner to the Council and the owner is hit with penalties or a CPO down the line, the Council when challenged would say they were responding to a complaint. As I would have no basis for making such a complaint in terms of nuisance, safety or personal loss, the only explanation is the temporary pleasure of being a snitch, and that's not going to stand up in Court. The owner would have every right to pursue me as a co-defendant along the Council. The Council knows well what's it's doing and anyone who files a report make sure you have deep pockets.

Peregrinus

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

It's not incumbent on a property owner to make their property appear occupied and in continuous use. Why should a lawful property owner be placed on the back foot and on the defensive and do so?

There's no onus on you to do so. You only need to so so if it bothers you that your house appears vacant.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

You are loosely correct on the observation issues but for one element, the party making the report to Mayo County Council wouldn't in most cases have any due personal cause or locus standi to file a report to the Council as the vacant property owner would not be causing a nuisance to them by having the property vacant. I certainly would pursue such an individual (along with the Council) legally if they filed such a report and it resulted in my suffering material loss. Time will tell as no doubt there will be multiple Court actions/applications if these proposals take hold.

Why would they need any "due personal cause" or "locus standi" to talk about what they saw, what anybody can see, while travelling along the road? They need locus standi to take court proceedings against you, Mrs S; they don't need locus standi to say that your house looks to be empty and unused.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's no onus on you to do so. You only need to so so if it bothers you that your house appears vacant.


Why would they need any "due personal cause" or "locus standi" to talk about what they saw, what anybody can see, while travelling along the road? They need locus standi to take court proceedings against you, Mrs S; they don't need locus standi to say that your house looks to be empty and unused.

Because the alleged vacancy wouldn't be affecting them and as such there is no basis for filing a report.

Peregrinus

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Because the alleged vacancy wouldn't be affecting them and as such there is no basis for filing a report.

So? What an actress wears to an awards ceremony or who she is dating or which reality show TV is attempting to burnish her image in doesn't affect most of us in any way whatsoever, and yet there is a vast publishing industry devoted to reporting information about these topics.

Your house is not a top secret defence installation in the Soviet Union, photographs and discussion of which are forbidden. Nobody needs a "basis" for telling the council, or anyone else, that your house seems to be empty, and if you sue them for talking about it without a "basis", well, it's judgment for the defendant, with costs.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Peregrinus wrote: »

So? What an actress wears to an awards ceremony or who she is dating or which reality show TV is attempting to burnish her image in doesn't affect most of us in any way whatsoever, and yet there is a vast publishing industry devoted to reporting information about these topics.

Your house is not a top secret defence installation in the Soviet Union, photographs and discussion of which are forbidden. Nobody needs a "basis" for telling the council, or anyone else, that your house seems to be empty, and if you sue them for talking about it without a "basis", well, it's judgment for the defendant, with costs.

Looks like I've touched a raw nerve here.

Peregrinus

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Looks like I've touched a raw nerve here.

Not really. You're talking nonsense, and I'm happy to point that out, but it doesn't bother me greatly.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not really. You're talking nonsense, and I'm happy to point that out, but it doesn't bother me greatly.

Anyone who takes photographs and files a report with the Council where no nuisance is being caused is leaving themselves open to proceedings being brought against them or joined to other proceedings at a later date.

Peregrinus

Anyone can take proceedings. Whether they can succeed in those proceedings is another matter. I'm still seeing no cause of action here. As I said before, if you take those proceedings, as far as I can make out they will be dismissed with costs against you. The silver lining in this cloud is that they will be dismissed at an early stage as disclosing no cause of action, so the award of costs will not be that high.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Peregrinus wrote: »

Anyone can take proceedings. Whether they can succeed in those proceedings is another matter. I'm still seeing no cause of action here. As I said before, if you take those proceedings, as far as I can make out they will be dismissed with costs against you. The silver lining in this cloud is that they will be dismissed at an early stage as disclosing no cause of action, so the award of costs will not be that high.

I appreciate you are unhappy with what I have highlighted, but there is a cause of action as I see it. We'll have to agree to disagree on how a Court would view such a claim. Some posters on here seem to want to cast iron answers on legal questions, which no lawyer would ever do in a consultation.

I'm going to write to the Data Protection Commissioner and suggest that the anonymity provision on the website be removed. Property owners have a right to know who filed a report about them.

Peregrinus

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I appreciate you are unhappy with what I have highlighted, but there is a cause of action as I see it . . .

I'm afraid this is just wishful thinking.

It's not a question of my demanding a cast-iron answer; it's a question of whether you can point to a duty, recognised by law, which would be breached by someone reporting that your property appeared to be unoccupied. If you can't get past that hurdle, your action fails; we don't even have to open the question of whether you can point to any loss caused to you by the breach.

markpb

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Invasion of privacy in tort, under the Constitution, under the ECHR and Data Protection law. Unlawfully besetting and watching and then reporting the information without locus standi to a third party, causing that third party to issue threatening correspondence or initiate legal action without due cause (harassment under the Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act) causing the subject to suffer financial losses, interference with the inviolability of a person's dwelling and the right to own and transfer property under the Constitution.

I'm not legally trained so maybe I'm very wrong but none of what you said sounds like reasonable cause for damages to me.

Invasion of privacy

The front of your property visible from a public place is inherently not private. If someone was taking photos of the rear or inside of your property, that would be a different story. Also you wouldn't be able to claim that it's the privacy of your home that's being breached, only the privacy of a (possibly) empty property.

Unlawfully besetting and watching

I don't think the law is on your side here:

For the purpose of this section attending at or near the premises or place where a person resides, works, carries on business or happens to be, or the approach to such premises or place, in order merely to obtain or communicate information, shall not be deemed a watching or besetting within the meaning of subsection (l) (d).

Someone filing a report of a vacant property to the local authority could well argue that they were obtaining information.

Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

The key word here is persistently.

A person who, with a view to compel another to abstain from doing or to do any act which that other has a lawful right to do or to abstain from doing, wrongfully and without lawful authority—
watches or besets the premises or other place where that other resides, works or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such premises or place

This one is very specific. It's only watching and besetting if I'm trying to stop someone doing something that they're legally allowed to do or get them to do something they're not legally allowed to do. Unless taking a photo of your house is illegal, the council aren't compelling anyone to do anything illegal so it's not watching or besetting.

interference with the inviolability of a person's dwelling

If it's vacant, it's not your dwelling. If it's not vacant, you'd have to prove that by taking a photo of your property, they're caused you harm in some way.

I'm not convinced.

GM228

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I appreciate you are unhappy with what I have highlighted, but there is a cause of action as I see it.

And what is the cause?

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Property owners have a right to know who filed a report about them.

Where is such a right stated?

evolving_doors

gctest50 wrote: »

Carbon emissions - we are supposed to be reducing them

And there is no point in covering land with concrete if there are hundreds of thousands of houses vacant

Where are these hundreds of thousands of vacant houses.
Anyway it's not as if you're going to allocate a surplus of renters in cork or Dublin over to vacant properties in the rest of ireland.

Are you seriously saying that the govt. is gong to do a CPO on all these?
This initiative is a very cheap low cost smoke screen during the silly season to get everyone rilled up about the wrong thing. It will amount to nothing.

markpb

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Where are these hundreds of thousands of vacant houses.
Anyway it's not as if you're going to allocate a surplus of renters in cork or Dublin over to vacant properties in the rest of ireland.

It's a myth that all the empty houses are in Leitrim:

Some 31,000 units are vacant in Dublin city alone of which almost 6,000 have been empty for five years or more. In Galway city, there are more than 2,800 of which 700 are empty since at least 2011, and in Cork city there are almost 4,300, with almost 1,200 empty for more than 60 months. Much of the housing demand identified by the Housing Agency could be met by renovating or upgrading vacant properties in these cities.

[...]

In the cities, among the reasons why so many properties are vacant is due to the "financialisation of housing", experts said, where investors bought expensive homes as an investment. Among the highest vacancy rates in the capital is around Ballsbridge, where 321 homes are vacant, 52 for five or more years.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/revealed-183000-vacant-homes-lying-idle-in-demand-hotspots-nationwide-35710041.html

Really Interested

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I appreciate you are unhappy with what I have highlighted, but there is a cause of action as I see it. We'll have to agree to disagree on how a Court would view such a claim. Some posters on here seem to want to cast iron answers on legal questions, which no lawyer would ever do in a consultation.

I'm going to write to the Data Protection Commissioner and suggest that the anonymity provision on the website be removed. Property owners have a right to know who filed a report about them.

Are you a trained solicitor or barrister, because a number have posted on this thread and all disagree with you. If you feel strongly bring your cases and if you are not successful, then you pay the costs of the other side, if on the other hand you win you have your costs paid and you can tell all the solicitors and barristers on here they are wrong.

evolving_doors

:
Some 31,000 units are vacant in Dublin city alone of which almost 6,000 have been empty for five years or more. In Galway city, there are more than 2,800 of which 700 are empty since at least 2011, and in Cork city there are almost 4,300, with almost 1,200 empty for more than 60 months. Much of the housing demand identified by the Housing Agency could be met by renovating or upgrading vacant properties in these cities.

It's a bit of a lazy analysis at the end as it ignores the issue of taking over someone's property to renovate or upgrade... or if not a CPO them it would have to be tax incentives on a very large scale...
And they haven't signalled anything about this (maybe in the next budget!). At the moment it's just an ad hoc website to make nosy neighbours think they are helping the country.taking out of date Iodine tablets would achieve a better result.

markpb

Gebgbegb wrote: »

It's a bit of a lazy analysis at the end as it ignores the issue of taking over someone's property to renovate or upgrade... or if not a CPO them it would have to be tax incentives on a very large scale.

Did you read the article I linked to? It makes no reference to taking over someones property.

The Government has made efforts to address the vacant homes crisis, including the introduction of the 'Repair and Lease' scheme where property owners are provided with grant aid to renovate properties which are leased back to the State. Some €140m is budgeted out to 2021 for 3,500 units. There is also a €50m 'Buy and Renew' scheme being piloted, where local authorities or housing bodies will purchase the property. Additional funding for both schemes will be made available if demand exceeds proposed budgets.

Victor

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Because the alleged vacancy wouldn't be affecting them and as such there is no basis for filing a report.

Maybe they are homeless.

Maybe they are a local resident and see the vacancy as a risk.

TruthEnforcer

Mod
This was a rant, not Legal Discussion. Removed.

Victor

For someone giving out about councils planning to blame others, your post seems to be all moan and blame.

TruthEnforcer wrote: »

County Council's who have hardly build any social houses in the past 10 years

When there was very little demand for housing until the last 2 years.

but lets come up with a 'Plan' to blame others ...

I'm not sure the objective is to blame. Objective is to ascertain available housing, Mayo has a stable / gfalling population and huge amounts of vacant properties: http://www.mayonews.ie/news/28194-census-figures-reveal-drop-in-mayo-s-population

What right have any Local Authority to determine what you should or should not do with your property ?

Housing Acts.

how many properties are on Mayo County Councils' Derelict list for the last 20 years and they have done nothing about them

Ask them.

How many of their own Social houses are 'vacant'

Ask them.

.. and have they listed these already on the database ?

They are likely to be on a database.

When will Joe Public be allowed to access this database

Ask them.

as I think any householder / owner has a right to know their property is so listed

Owner yes, Joe Public not necessarily.

Pat Mustard

TruthEnforcer,

Boards.ie rules do not allow on-thread commentary on moderation. If you want to discuss moderation, you should send a PM to the moderator in question.

Your post has been removed. You might keep on topic, please.

TruthEnforcer

I see said the blindman .....so no 'disin' the noderators