Evictions

Raging_Ninja

garhjw wrote: »

Having watched the videos of the lawful eviction I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. Security used reasonable force in removing the people from the property.

They did a very professional job under difficult circumstances.

I don't believe they are registered with the PSA and are being investigated over that. They certainly didn't have PSA badges on display as required by law, so to an extent they were operating unlawfully.

While the repossession itself was lawful, a court order having been obtained and legal requirements being met, the optics of using a company which is not compliant with the laws of the state are awful.

Seth Brundle

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

I don't believe they are registered with the PSA and are being investigated over that. They certainly didn't have PSA badges on display as required by law, so to an extent they were operating unlawfully.

While the repossession itself was lawful, a court order having been obtained and legal requirements being met, the optics of using a company which is not compliant with the laws of the state are awful.

It is my understanding that as they were operating on behalf of the sheriff they are not subject to the normal security rules, a loophole or grey area if you will.
Maybe you can clarify what law(s) they broke?

eagle eye

If the company doing the eviction were from the Republic of Ireland it wouldn't have been half as bad. It still wouldn't have been pretty but I don't think you'd have had the 5 am attack.

Raging_Ninja

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It is my understanding that as they were operating on behalf of the sheriff they are not subject to the normal security rules, a loophole or grey area if you will.
Maybe you can clarify what law(s) they broke?

You know what, you might be into something there. I'm reading the 2004 act here and it would seem that they may not be regulated by the PSA unless one is willing to stretch some of the definitions beyond the letter of the act. An IT article states the following:

Mr Flanagan said any dispute about the enforcement of a court order is solely a matter for the courts. “Accordingly the persons involved in the execution of the High Court order are not licensable by the Private Security Authority at present.

“My officials are currently examining the law governing this area and I am giving the matter further consideration.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/law-on-how-private-security-firms-carry-out-high-court-orders-to-be-examined-1.3634986?mode=amp

the_syco

eagle eye wrote: »

If the company doing the eviction were from the Republic of Ireland it wouldn't have been half as bad. It still wouldn't have been pretty but I don't think you'd have had the 5 am attack.

If the company came from RoI, the 5am attack still would have happened, and their addresses would appear on the sites who support the farmers tax evasion.

7upfree

the_syco wrote: »

If the company came from RoI, the 5am attack still would have happened, and their addresses would appear on the sites who support the farmers tax evasion.

Tax evasion lol. After ALL thats gone on ion this country? Seriously?

JohnCleary

7upfree wrote: »

Tax evasion lol. After ALL thats gone on ion this country? Seriously?

But he didn't pay tax owed, what's your point? He was convicted for under deceleration of VAT, or did you miss that point?

relax carry on

7upfree wrote: »

Tax evasion lol. After ALL thats gone on ion this country? Seriously?

Whataboutery. The publication records show a vat liability with interest and penalties. The penalty was 100% of the tax meaning there was no chance it was carelessness in anyway. It was a deliberate action with no cooperation. If he had cooperated then the penalty would have been 75%.
The individual in question stole from us all. He has a documented history of not paying his way. Why are people supporting this lad at all? If the anti eviction crowd want to find a poster boy for their cause they would be better off finding someone who had tried their best in every way to meet their debts not this freeloader.

7upfree

JohnCleary wrote: »

But he didn't pay tax owed, what's your point? He was convicted for under deceleration of VAT, or did you miss that point?

What's "under deceleration"?!

Topgear on Dave

7upfree wrote: »

What's "under deceleration"?!

*Under-declaration (of vat)

DubCount

7upfree wrote: »

What's "under deceleration"?!

Most taxes in Ireland are self assessed. The tax payer declares how much tax they owe. Where a tax payer declares less tax than they owe, that's an "under declaration". An under declaration may be accidental or intentional. Where Revenue uncover an under declaration, they charge the tax payer the tax they should have paid, interest to allow for the delay in paying the money, and potentially a penalty. The level of penalty depends on how careless/evasive the taxpayer has been and how they interacted with a Revenue investigation. 100% penalty is the highest possible penalty and means the under declaration was deliberate and the tax payer did not comply with Revenue investigations.

BBFAN

I've had a VAT audit before and they give you EVERY opportunity to admit if you've made false returns or even if you THINK you've made a mistake.

They don't go to the serious penalties unless you deliberately obstruct them in finding the information.

Even if you admit you've deliberately under declared because you were short of cash they'll give you break as long as you pay up.

splinter65

This thread demonstrates that a hefty portion of Irish people don’t want to pay any taxes at all and think that all accommodation should be free of charge. It’s hard to understand how they think that could work but it seems to be something to do with Denis O’Brien and Apple.
I gave up trying to figure it out along time ago.

eagle eye

the_syco wrote:

If the company came from RoI, the 5am attack still would have happened, and their addresses would appear on the sites who support the farmers tax evasion.

Are you one of them? If not how do you know?
I'm of the opinion that the attack happened specifically because of who performed the eviction.

Seth Brundle

eagle eye wrote: »

Are you one of them? If not how do you know?
I'm of the opinion that the attack happened specifically because of who performed the eviction.

Whatever gave you that opinion?

the_syco

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that the attack happened specifically because of who performed the eviction.

I'm of the opinion that the attack happened specifically because everyone involved in the attack also faced evictions, thus attacking the first eviction was to send a message to any other possible evictions.