What was that about in strokestown?

noodleshack

runawaybishop wrote: »

Just a point, they do not need to be licensed.

Well, there's your problem. That said, these days all bailiffs and agents should have a license.

Topgear on Dave

noodleshack wrote: »

Well, there's your problem. That said, these days all bailiffs and agents should have a license.

How would that have changed the situation or the outcome?

runawaybishop

noodleshack wrote: »

Well, there's your problem. That said, these days all bailiffs and agents should have a license.

They may well have a license, but they do not need one. To have an Irish license you need to be resident though, and I can't see many people getting involved in local evictions due to information being shared on Facebook. I would expect the next eviction to feature lads from the continent.

noodleshack

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

How would that have changed the situation or the outcome?

Accountability? If you don't have that you're one step away from lawlessness. And, quite frankly, there seem to be several, separate aspects of that in this incident!

BarryD2

speckled_park wrote: »

This would be a non story if the eviction was handled better.

How do you handle an eviction better in these circumstances? If people are determined to ignore advice to vacate. If you don't want to have the Gardai backing up the sheriff and court system, then who? Maybe the army has a role if you don't like private security firms.

Esel

I would think they are the same crew who removed the bonfires in Belfast and took part in the recent Frederick Street repossession.

Topgear on Dave

noodleshack wrote: »

Accountability? If you don't have that you're one step away from lawlessness. And, quite frankly, there seem to be several, separate aspects of that in this incident!

Accountability? They guy swindled the revenue, didnt pay some of his suppliers and didnt pay the bank back.

Accountability is what he got.

There would have been a long legal process before it got to this stage and the bank would not have wanted it to end like this.

charlie14

noodleshack wrote: »

You stated 'That is something I asked here already, what part did the law/state actually play in this eviction ?'

I have already set out how the letter of law would have have to have been followed. See my previous posts.

If you are after hard facts re this case; you won't get them.

However, to summarise: guy has debt; guy doesn't pay debt for X years. Bank/State/Whoever defaults him; guy still doesn't pay. Now, one or more of these Debts gets sold on. One creditor acquires court order to remove, gives notice to debtor; guy still refuses to move and bailiffs are instructed. Bailiff agents attend and, violá, confrontation.

Does that answer your question?

Not really.
My question was what part did the law/State play in this eviction in relation to giving a court order and Garda protection to a group from outside the state in carrying out this eviction when to carry out the most basic security in pub and night clubs individual Garda vetting and licencing is required of members off the State. As in were these people Garda vetted and licenced.

Also how did the courts issue an order when the State had first call on this property.
Not exactly sure on what he is looking into, but it appears the Minister for Justice is looking for some answers as well.

Ard_MC

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Was the ra really involved?
Pretty sure it was the locals to ensure they could divide the land up among themselves for next to nothin.
Sure the ra brought bales of silage all the way from Belfast to block the road.
Locals spun a great story to be fair!

Dont think you would have to go as far as Belfast to find some Ra representatives.

Topgear on Dave

charlie14 wrote: »

Also how did the courts issue an order when the State had first call on this property.
Not exactly sure on what he is looking into, but it appears the Minister for Justice is looking for some answers as well.

If people were really serious about this we must remember this part.

The revenue has already hit this guy for 400k.

Instead of blaming the banks (we dont control) look at the revenue (we DO control), perhaps this man could be forgiven the 400k vat fraud and given his money back to allow him settle with the bank and keep his house and land.

???

charlie14

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

How would that have changed the situation or the outcome?

It would ensure that we do not end up with some very dodgy and dangerous people do not end up in this business. The prime reason that Garda vetting and licencing of pub and club security staff was established for.

Topgear on Dave

charlie14 wrote: »

It would ensure that we do not end up with some very dodgy and dangerous people do not end up in this business. The prime reason that Garda vetting and licencing of pub and club security staff was established for.

But they would still get evicted.

I have seen people get thrown out of nightclubs more roughly than those folks were treated.

Its a situation entirely of their own making.

charlie14

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

If people were really serious about this we must remember this part.

The revenue has already hit this guy for 400k.

Instead of blaming the banks (we dont control) look at the revenue (we DO control), perhaps this man could be forgiven the 400k vat fraud and given his money back to allow him settle with the bank and keep his house and land.

???

From reports he still owes the revenue 400k does he not ?
If so then haven`t the revenue first call on anything owed.

Topgear on Dave

charlie14 wrote: »

From reports he still owes the revenue 400k does he not ?
If so then haven`t the revenue first call on anything owed.

They probably do, so I expect everybody here supporting this man needs to get on to their TDs today and get revenue to go easy on him. :pac:

charlie14

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

But they would still get evicted.

I have seen people get thrown out of nightclubs more roughly than those folks were treated.

Its a situation entirely of their own making.

I have no problem with legally backed evictions, but I would certainly have a problem with the state giving legal backing to any un-vetted and un-licenced gurrier a collection agency chose to employ to carry it out.

charlie14

runawaybishop wrote: »

They may well have a license, but they do not need one. To have an Irish license you need to be resident though, and I can't see many people getting involved in local evictions due to information being shared on Facebook. I would expect the next eviction to feature lads from the continent.

So is it not making a farce of a licencing system if someone from outside the state can just waltz in without and Garda vetting and still get Garda protection without one ?

Topgear on Dave

runawaybishop wrote: »

They may well have a license, but they do not need one. To have an Irish license you need to be resident though, and I can't see many people getting involved in local evictions due to information being shared on Facebook. I would expect the next eviction to feature lads from the continent.

If they change it so they need a local licence..... but you can get locals to do it because of social media threats and intimidation, doesn't it really mean the security for farm loans is practically unenforceable .

What conditions will banks put on farm loans if this becomes the standard situation.

Looking at this sh*tshow they will be very wary of getting burned again.

kowtow

charlie14 wrote: »

From reports he still owes the revenue 400k does he not ?
If so then haven`t the revenue first call on anything owed.

The revenue can't get ahead of a properly executed mortgage. If they could, no money would ever be loaned to buy a house because the bank would have to countenance the risk that the borrower might fall foul of tax at some later date.

It's worth bearing in mind that Irish mortgage rates are already a multiple of interest rates in other Euro economies. Competition aside, there are three reasons for this, first - systemic risk in the Irish banking system and heavy national indebtedness, second - the risk that Irish property prices are prone to overheating relative to the true capacity of the economy and finally (which is the relevant point here) that it has proved very difficult to obtain possession of properties given as security for loans.

For what it's worth I think the latter point is probably the least significant driver of our relatively high rates, but it is a factor. These latest events certainly wouldn't make lenders keener.

20silkcut

It’s gas all these people calling for a revolution on Facebook etc. So we rise up against our own Irish government and overthrow it replace it with another Irish government. Ah jaysus

laoch na mona

Suckler wrote: »

Unbelievable comments. It wasn't a football match.

well obviously I dn't mean the banks or their heavies

coolshannagh28

Banks are keen to lend to farming at the minute particularly farmers with good repayment capacity and collateral , locally there is a major push on lending into the poultry sector 500 k to 1 million the rule of thumb ,similar investment is dairying in other areas .
Now if I was a bank with crosswinds ie Brexit , trade wars looming I might be more circumspect as bad loans create bad debt but what do I know . These scenarios end as above.

runawaybishop

charlie14 wrote: »

So is it not making a farce of a licencing system if someone from outside the state can just waltz in without and Garda vetting and still get Garda protection without one ?

No one waltzed in and them being from outside the state means nothing. The law doesn't request a PSA license for repossessions, simple as. The justice minister will likely change that in future but for now you do not need one.

laoch na mona

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

Banks are keen to lend to farming at the minute particularly farmers with good repayment capacity and collateral , locally there is a major push on lending into the poultry sector 500 k to 1 million the rule of thumb ,similar investment is dairying in other areas .
Now if I was a bank with crosswinds ie Brexit , trade wars looming I might be more circumspect as bad loans create bad debt but what do I know . These scenarios end as above.

Either you pay it back or the banks knows they can take it, so either way they win. Its predatory lending

charlie14

kowtow wrote: »

The revenue can't get ahead of a properly executed mortgage. If they could, no money would ever be loaned to buy a house because the bank would have to countenance the risk that the borrower might fall foul of tax at some later date.

That is fair and reasonable, but it is not clear in this case from what I have seen if there was money owed to revenue before a mortgage was granted.
If it was then would the bank not have failed due diligence in granting a mortgage ?

kowtow

charlie14 wrote: »

That is fair and reasonable, but it is not clear in this case from what I have seen if there was money owed to revenue before a mortgage was granted.
If it was then would the bank not have failed due diligence in granting a mortgage ?

That had occurred to me as well, but I suspect there would have to be some clear connivance between the bank and the borrower to deliberately deprive the revenue for the security to be set aside.

In some jurisdictions at least it might be normal for the revenue to register a charge or caution against the deeds which would prevent another lender obtaining a senior and subsequent mortgage. It seems that didn't happen here.

The law governing securities, charges, mortgages etc. is very ancient and very well settled - as it needs to be for commerce to function at all. I'm no expert and from what I remember Irish law is even more complex in this area than other jurisdictions... whilst it might seem helpful to change or even just simplify things at times there are undoubtedly unforeseen consequences in doing so.

rivegauche

laoch na mona wrote: »

Either you pay it back or the banks knows they can take it, so either way they win. Its predatory lending

Predatory lending would apply to consumer lending, not to business lending.
The Seanie's wife defence didn't work in Court for Seanie's wife so why should it apply here?

Or would you prefer for all Farmers to be depicted as gormless impressionable fools and need to be protected not from the banks but from themselves?

laoch na mona

rivegauche wrote: »

Predatory lending would apply to consumer lending, not to business lending.
The Seanie's wife defence didn't work in Court for Seanie's wife so why should it apply here?

Or would you prefer for all Farmers to be depicted as gormless impressionable fools and need to be protected not from the banks but from themselves?

I was reply to coolshannagh28post not refering to this specific case, we know all to well banks where throwing money, and now that evictions are being made easier through new legislation there is a threat banks will happily give loans to people who have little chance of paing back but have high collateral

gctest50

laoch na mona wrote: »

Either you pay it back or the banks knows they can take it, so either way they win. Its predatory lending

Predatory borrowing

By people who know they can't pay it back and will whimper

Keep Sluicing

Cattlepen wrote: »

Is this the man that used to sell hardware around the border?

No. Cork man

rivegauche

laoch na mona wrote: »

I was reply to coolshannagh28post not refering to this specific case, we know all to well banks where throwing money, and now that evictions are being made easier through new legislation there is a threat banks will happily give loans to people who have little chance of paing back but have high collateral

Grow up. Either Farmers are Business persons or they are not and it is up to them to ensure that the debts they take on are sustainable and servicable.
Rock up in the middle ages to the De Medici family without Collateral and see how far you would have got; this is how banking works.