Update - Lawn ruined by cattle

Ginger83

forgottenhills wrote: »

That fence will keep out the sheep and in combination with the hedge it should be fool proof against cattle.

Is there a drainage ditch (also known as a sheugh in some parts of the country) between the fence and the hedge? It's hard to see from the picture.

If there is a drain there then I'm pretty sure that the law is that he owns the hedge. He may be just a miser who doesn't like to part with his money but if he is a real troublemaker then he could cut down the hedge completely if he sees the fence or your side and take away from the privacy of your garden, exposing you more to farming sights and smells. If there is a drainage ditch on the other side of the hedge (his side) then the hedge belongs to you and he wouldn't be entitled to cut it down. If there is no ditch then I am not sure who owns the hedge.

Rather than falling out with him completely it might be worthwhile to come to some little arrangement once he has paid over the money. For instance you might allow him to cut the high grass in the garden in Spring and roll it for a small refund etc. But only give over the refund after he does a proper job. In that case some honour is saved on all sides and might prevent any future retaliation if he is a bad egg.

Yes it is a drain but never seen water in it.

It is a guy that was renting the land thats liable not the landowner.

patsy_mccabe

OP, that fence won't keep out cattle, only sheep. Put a row of barbed wire on top and it would help big time though.

Ginger83

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

OP, that fence won't keep out cattle, only sheep. Put a row of barbed wire on top and it would help big time though.

Thanks for the advice.

Yes we will do that, its all extra costs on us though.

Rows Grower

Ginger83 wrote: »

Thanks for the advice.

Yes we will do that, its all extra costs on us though.

Yes and the onus is on the owner of the cattle to keep them fenced in, not you.

maidhc

Ginger83 wrote: »

Thanks for the advice.

Yes we will do that, its all extra costs on us though.

It is normally good conveyancing practice to impose a covenant on homeowners to maintain a stock proof fence when it bounds agricultural land. It obviously wasn't done in your case, but still for the benefit of those reading I would say 50% or so of houses build in rural sites have this covenant.

As a matter of practice the sheriff only seizes goods as a matter of last resort. They will give a long time to a any debtor to pay first, whether it is in installments of otherwise. You will normally be waiting a long time, and at times the cuter hoors will point to the tractor on HP, the Floating debenture over the cattle and the car loan on the car. Then you get your lovely Nulla Bona back, and you can proceed with your bankruptcy, but you only get paid once all the secured creditors are paid, and you have given various undertakings to the Court to discharge open ended professional fees and other expenses.

All this is to say; don't be too cocky! It might work, but it might not.

pablo128

maidhc wrote: »

It is normally good conveyancing practice to impose a covenant on homeowners to maintain a stock proof fence when it bounds agricultural land. It obviously wasn't done in your case, but still for the benefit of those reading I would say 50% or so of houses build in rural sites have this covenant.

As a matter of practice the sheriff only seizes goods as a matter of last resort. They will give a long time to a any debtor to pay first, whether it is in installments of otherwise. You will normally be waiting a long time, and at times the cuter hoors will point to the tractor on HP, the Floating debenture over the cattle and the car loan on the car. Then you get your lovely Nulla Bona back, and you can proceed with your bankruptcy, but you only get paid once all the secured creditors are paid, and you have given various undertakings to the Court to discharge open ended professional fees and other expenses.

All this is to say; don't be too cocky! It might work, but it might not.

I wouldn't risk losing my house over a grand. You would want to be some pig headed cnut to let it get that far.

maidhc

pablo128 wrote: »

I wouldn't risk losing my house over a grand. You would want to be some pig headed cnut to let it get that far.

The sheriff isn't empowered to seize a house or lands. That would require the Op registering a judgment mortgage and then getting a well charging order; and then actually getting it sold.

Most people who have a habit of not paying for stuff know this...

Ginger83

maidhc wrote: »

It is normally good conveyancing practice to impose a covenant on homeowners to maintain a stock proof fence when it bounds agricultural land. It obviously wasn't done in your case, but still for the benefit of those reading I would say 50% or so of houses build in rural sites have this covenant.

As a matter of practice the sheriff only seizes goods as a matter of last resort. They will give a long time to a any debtor to pay first, whether it is in installments of otherwise. You will normally be waiting a long time, and at times the cuter hoors will point to the tractor on HP, the Floating debenture over the cattle and the car loan on the car. Then you get your lovely Nulla Bona back, and you can proceed with your bankruptcy, but you only get paid once all the secured creditors are paid, and you have given various undertakings to the Court to discharge open ended professional fees and other expenses.

All this is to say; don't be too cocky! It might work, but it might not.

There is more than 1 way to skin a cat...

I am a terminally ill wheelchair bound man and our local paper follows my journey with great interest.

One option is to tell my story and we'll have it public knowledge and do a fundraiser

Rows Grower

maidhc wrote: »

The sheriff isn't empowered to seize a house or lands. That would require the Op registering a judgment mortgage and then getting a well charging order; and then actually getting it sold.

Most people who have a habit of not paying for stuff know this...

What makes you think this farmer is in debt?

There are a lot of very wealthy farmers in Ireland and the average dairy farmer in Ireland makes a grand a week.

John Hutton

maidhc wrote: »

It is normally good conveyancing practice to impose a covenant on homeowners to maintain a stock proof fence when it bounds agricultural land. It obviously wasn't done in your case, but still for the benefit of those reading I would say 50% or so of houses build in rural sites have this covenant.

As a matter of practice the sheriff only seizes goods as a matter of last resort. They will give a long time to a any debtor to pay first, whether it is in installments of otherwise. You will normally be waiting a long time, and at times the cuter hoors will point to the tractor on HP, the Floating debenture over the cattle and the car loan on the car. Then you get your lovely Nulla Bona back, and you can proceed with your bankruptcy, but you only get paid once all the secured creditors are paid, and you have given various undertakings to the Court to discharge open ended professional fees and other expenses.

All this is to say; don't be too cocky! It might work, but it might not.

You are confused and incorrect about how bankruptcy works.

Secured creditors retain their rights in bankruptcy, unless they surrender their interest, and the official assignee seeks to get a return for unsecured creditors by liquidating assets and attaching payment orders on income. It's not the case that all secured debts have to be discharged before unsecured get anything.

It's a disaster for a farmer to go bankrupt as it messes up any payments as he would no longer own the land or, the lease for the land, or any animals, any quotas etc. Farmers are somewhat unlucky in this area as the dept have such good records, and the farmer has to supply such detailed applications and accounts, it is easy to identify assets.

It is also an automatic default on any mortgages he has, and the bank, especially BOI, tend to immediately call them in. Should the secured creditor sell the asset and there be a shortfall, this crystallises into an unsecured debt and the creditor can make a claim in the bankruptcy estate the same as any other unsecured creditor.

There is also more to be said about the expenses and professional fees you mention, I won't go into too much detail as the amount the OP is owed is too small for petition the farmer in any case, BUT in a straightforward case such as a farmer with easily identifiable assets the OAs fees are only a few grand and would be taken from the pool of money raised for unsecured creditors or indeed simply taken from unclaimed dividends, there wouldn't be additional costs on the OP.

Should the OP ever petition the farmer and he be named on the court list as such, he would have the money he is owed the next day. Before the law was changed there would be piles of applications before the court for pretty trifling sums which would invariably be struck out when the petitioner got his cash. But it was changed to 20k so that's a more difficult tactic now!

As for the sheriff, he or she will not do anything without you sitting on them. Find out when the farmer plans to send the cattle to the factory, alert the sherrif of same and your concern that the farmer is disposing of assets to avoid paying debt. Might spur him on and at the very least would let the sherrif know that you are looking at things and won't go away.

Although, it will lead to you being ostracised if it leads to assets, particularly animals, being seized.

Next time he sends a proxy to contact you tell them that you are stuck for the money and the sheriff has been on to you about seizing assets and has asked you if you have any objection to the sherrif seizing animals. Tell the proxy that you told the sherrif that you have no objection as, in your condition, you need the money but you asked the sherrif to leave it until after the Xmas season until you have a chance to discuss it with other locals/farmers re the value of the animals and how long it would take to sell them. (I.e would the sherrif be better seizing equipment and would he be able to sell that quicker and thus you get the money quicker).

Tell him that you are disgusted it came to this but you need the money and that you are aware the farmer has cash at the moment (he will have received his payments in December!) and that you are due to get back into the sherrif in the coming weeks after you discuss it with locals and would like to call the sherrif off but can only do so if you get the cash.

The farmer will be terrified of being humiliated at the Mart... This is your best bet for getting the money quick.

A few things to bear in mind when dealing with farmers:

1. They have decent piles of cash at certain times of year
2. Never as poor as they say
3. Will always chance their arm when it comes to paying ONE-OFF bills when there's nothing in it for them
4. Massively into keeping up appearances as they secretly hate neighbouring farmers and would loath to lose face in front of them
5. Farmers are emotionally invested in their business, particularly animals and their land. They will cut their nose to spite their face when it comes to these things.

So if you want the money make him afraid that others will think that he will lose his animals or land or make him afraid that this will actually happen. The former is easier!

muirsin

If his cattle visit and eat your hedge it will concentrate his mind as that plant is poisonous if ingested. Then again.............

Rows Grower

John Hutton wrote: »

You are confused and incorrect about how bankruptcy works.

Secured creditors retain their rights in bankruptcy, unless they surrender their interest, and the official assignee seeks to get a return for unsecured creditors by liquidating assets and attaching payment orders on income. It's not the case that all secured debts have to be discharged before unsecured get anything.

It's a disaster for a farmer to go bankrupt as it messes up any payments as he would no longer own the land or, the lease for the land, or any animals, any quotas etc. Farmers are somewhat unlucky in this area as the dept have such good records, and the farmer has to supply such detailed applications and accounts, it is easy to identify assets.

It is also an automatic default on any mortgages he has, and the bank, especially BOI, tend to immediately call them in. Should the secured creditor sell the asset and there be a shortfall, this crystallises into an unsecured debt and the creditor can make a claim in the bankruptcy estate the same as any other unsecured creditor.

There is also more to be said about the expenses and professional fees you mention, I won't go into too much detail as the amount the OP is owed is too small for petition the farmer in any case, BUT in a straightforward case such as a farmer with easily identifiable assets the OAs fees are only a few grand and would be taken from the pool of money raised for unsecured creditors or indeed simply taken from unclaimed dividends, there wouldn't be additional costs on the OP.

Should the OP ever petition the farmer and he be named on the court list as such, he would have the money he is owed the next day. Before the law was changed there would be piles of applications before the court for pretty trifling sums which would invariably be struck out when the petitioner got his cash. But it was changed to 20k so that's a more difficult tactic now!

As for the sheriff, he or she will not do anything without you sitting on them. Find out when the farmer plans to send the cattle to the factory, alert the sherrif of same and your concern that the farmer is disposing of assets to avoid paying debt. Might spur him on and at the very least would let the sherrif know that you are looking at things and won't go away.

Although, it will lead to you being ostracised if it leads to assets, particularly animals, being seized.

Next time he sends a proxy to contact you tell them that you are stuck for the money and the sheriff has been on to you about seizing assets and has asked you if you have any objection to the sherrif seizing animals. Tell the proxy that you told the sherrif that you have no objection as, in your condition, you need the money but you asked the sherrif to leave it until after the Xmas season until you have a chance to discuss it with other locals/farmers re the value of the animals and how long it would take to sell them. (I.e would the sherrif be better seizing equipment and would he be able to sell that quicker and thus you get the money quicker).

Tell him that you are disgusted it came to this but you need the money and that you are aware the farmer has cash at the moment (he will have received his payments in December!) and that you are due to get back into the sherrif in the coming weeks after you discuss it with locals and would like to call the sherrif off but can only do so if you get the cash.

The farmer will be terrified of being humiliated at the Mart... This is your best bet for getting the money quick.

A few things to bear in mind when dealing with farmers:

1. They have decent piles of cash at certain times of year
2. Never as poor as they say
3. Will always chance their arm when it comes to paying ONE-OFF bills when there's nothing in it for them
4. Massively into keeping up appearances as they secretly hate neighbouring farmers and would loath to lose face in front of them
5. Farmers are emotionally invested in their business, particularly animals and their land. They will cut their nose to spite their face when it comes to these things.

So if you want the money make him afraid that others will think that he will lose his animals or land or make him afraid that this will actually happen. The former is easier!

Some handy solicitor, hah, hah.

Ginger83

John Hutton wrote: »

You are confused and incorrect about how bankruptcy works.

Secured creditors retain their rights in bankruptcy, unless they surrender their interest, and the official assignee seeks to get a return for unsecured creditors by liquidating assets and attaching payment orders on income. It's not the case that all secured debts have to be discharged before unsecured get anything.

It's a disaster for a farmer to go bankrupt as it messes up any payments as he would no longer own the land or, the lease for the land, or any animals, any quotas etc. Farmers are somewhat unlucky in this area as the dept have such good records, and the farmer has to supply such detailed applications and accounts, it is easy to identify assets.

It is also an automatic default on any mortgages he has, and the bank, especially BOI, tend to immediately call them in. Should the secured creditor sell the asset and there be a shortfall, this crystallises into an unsecured debt and the creditor can make a claim in the bankruptcy estate the same as any other unsecured creditor.

There is also more to be said about the expenses and professional fees you mention, I won't go into too much detail as the amount the OP is owed is too small for petition the farmer in any case, BUT in a straightforward case such as a farmer with easily identifiable assets the OAs fees are only a few grand and would be taken from the pool of money raised for unsecured creditors or indeed simply taken from unclaimed dividends, there wouldn't be additional costs on the OP.

Should the OP ever petition the farmer and he be named on the court list as such, he would have the money he is owed the next day. Before the law was changed there would be piles of applications before the court for pretty trifling sums which would invariably be struck out when the petitioner got his cash. But it was changed to 20k so that's a more difficult tactic now!

As for the sheriff, he or she will not do anything without you sitting on them. Find out when the farmer plans to send the cattle to the factory, alert the sherrif of same and your concern that the farmer is disposing of assets to avoid paying debt. Might spur him on and at the very least would let the sherrif know that you are looking at things and won't go away.

Although, it will lead to you being ostracised if it leads to assets, particularly animals, being seized.

Next time he sends a proxy to contact you tell them that you are stuck for the money and the sheriff has been on to you about seizing assets and has asked you if you have any objection to the sherrif seizing animals. Tell the proxy that you told the sherrif that you have no objection as, in your condition, you need the money but you asked the sherrif to leave it until after the Xmas season until you have a chance to discuss it with other locals/farmers re the value of the animals and how long it would take to sell them. (I.e would the sherrif be better seizing equipment and would he be able to sell that quicker and thus you get the money quicker).

Tell him that you are disgusted it came to this but you need the money and that you are aware the farmer has cash at the moment (he will have received his payments in December!) and that you are due to get back into the sherrif in the coming weeks after you discuss it with locals and would like to call the sherrif off but can only do so if you get the cash.

The farmer will be terrified of being humiliated at the Mart... This is your best bet for getting the money quick.

A few things to bear in mind when dealing with farmers:

1. They have decent piles of cash at certain times of year
2. Never as poor as they say
3. Will always chance their arm when it comes to paying ONE-OFF bills when there's nothing in it for them
4. Massively into keeping up appearances as they secretly hate neighbouring farmers and would loath to lose face in front of them
5. Farmers are emotionally invested in their business, particularly animals and their land. They will cut their nose to spite their face when it comes to these things.

So if you want the money make him afraid that others will think that he will lose his animals or land or make him afraid that this will actually happen. The former is easier!

Thank you, great advice.

older by the day

Like the Lord said "turn the other cheek". You could stay fighting with bad neighbours all your life. Stressing yourself and wasting time that could be spent better. Go away and put a few posts and a roll of barbed wire on top of the ditch and forget about. Or maybe you like the stress and arguing.

Ginger83

older by the day wrote: »

Like the Lord said "turn the other cheek". You could stay fighting with bad neighbours all your life. Stressing yourself and wasting time that could be spent better. Go away and put a few posts and a roll of barbed wire on top of the ditch and forget about. Or maybe you like the stress and arguing.

Neighbour? This guy lives miles away.

What stress, the sheriff wont be chasing me

Professor Genius

Ginger83 wrote: »

Neighbour? This guy lives miles away.

What stress, the sheriff wont be chasing me

Nothing worse than an angry Bogger after you. Worse still if the anger is caused by being out of pocket

older by the day

Professor Genius wrote: »

Nothing worse than an angry Bogger after you. Worse still if the anger is caused by being out of pocket

Sher we all know the lads that don't give a ****e. Put up the fence and forget it. Could be worse, he might be spreading pig slurry all around the bounds ditch all summer

Ginger83

Professor Genius wrote: »

Nothing worse than an angry Bogger after you. Worse still if the anger is caused by being out of pocket

I'm half dub

Up Donegal

I'm no legal expert but seeing that a lot of comments here referred to the sheriffs, I wonder if they operate in a similar way to the English sheriffs?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01q1j5d

Ginger83

older by the day wrote: »

Sher we all know the lads that don't give a ****e. Put up the fence and forget it. Could be worse, he might be spreading pig slurry all around the bounds ditch all summer

Have fence up, just the bill now

Up Donegal

Bass Reeves wrote: »

That is only if you have nothing. Sheriff will collect. This is why OP has been approached but it too late. If they fail to pay sheriff he will take whatever he need to settle account. Cattle, Machinery, cars, TV's, baled silage. As well all costs to to with collection will be added to bill.

A 15k tractor could be taken and sold for 5-6k and it might just cover compensation for lawn and costs incurred by sheriff

I watch the BBC show 'The Sheriffs are Coming' and they say that most things are sold at auction for around 1/5 of their actual value.

mr.stonewall

Having read over the past few pages of posts and one thing that has irked me is that there is two sides to every story and this thread we have only got one. We know from your side that he's a bit of cowboy, but no one here knows what goes on in his yard. Remember there is no winners in this situation and if it drags out much longer it will be remembered in the community for a long time. There has been contact iniated via proxy. I would say that keep that line of communication open as I feel it will help sort the situation quicker now.

Just on a side note have you a road gate to your site and if coloured ponies wandered in would you have taken the same action with there owners.

Ginger83

mr.stonewall wrote: »

Having read over the past few pages of posts and one thing that has irked me is that there is two sides to every story and this thread we have only got one. We know from your side that he's a bit of cowboy, but no one here knows what goes on in his yard. Remember there is no winners in this situation and if it drags out much longer it will be remembered in the community for a long time. There has been contact iniated via proxy. I would say that keep that line of communication open as I feel it will help sort the situation quicker now.

Just on a side note have you a road gate to your site and if coloured ponies wandered in would you have taken the same action with there owners.

Well the man had every chance to dispute it in court but didn't.

Would that not be my fault for leaving gates open

Plumbthedepths

mr.stonewall wrote: »

Having read over the past few pages of posts and one thing that has irked me is that there is two sides to every story and this thread we have only got one. We know from your side that he's a bit of cowboy, but no one here knows what goes on in his yard. Remember there is no winners in this situation and if it drags out much longer it will be remembered in the community for a long time. There has been contact iniated via proxy. I would say that keep that line of communication open as I feel it will help sort the situation quicker now.

Just on a side note have you a road gate to your site and if coloured ponies wandered in would you have taken the same action with there owners.

Are you attempting to blame the OP for the situation? I read the first thread and now this one. The farmer was given multiple opportunities to remedy the damage his animals caused. He ignored his obligations, the only one at fault here is the farmer. As for the piebalds surely whataboutery?

Ginger83

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Are you attempting to blame the OP for the situation? I read the first thread and now this one. The farmer was given multiple opportunities to remedy the damage his animals caused. He ignored his obligations, the only one at fault here is the farmer. As for the piebalds surely whataboutery?

I have just checked my email.

The 14 days given to pay the court is up with no reply.

Plumbthedepths

Ginger83 wrote: »

I have just checked my email.

The 14 days given to pay the court is up with no reply.

Time to up the ante, I live in a rural area and as already suggested farmers/ rural people like to keep up a certain public appearance. I have had an issue with a person in my locality, was quickly sorted when I stated it would become public knowledge if it were not remedied. The matter was resolved quickly and importantly quietly.

Base price

Ginger83 wrote: »

I'm half dub

What do you mean by that?

Bass Reeves

mr.stonewall wrote: »

Having read over the past few pages of posts and one thing that has irked me is that there is two sides to every story and this thread we have only got one. We know from your side that he's a bit of cowboy, but no one here knows what goes on in his yard. Remember there is no winners in this situation and if it drags out much longer it will be remembered in the community for a long time. There has been contact iniated via proxy. I would say that keep that line of communication open as I feel it will help sort the situation quicker now.

Just on a side note have you a road gate to your site and if coloured ponies wandered in would you have taken the same action with there owners.

I hate this sh!the. Ya there is no witness's. OP has got a court judgement. He has been to court and won his case. The farmer had time to engage and chose not to. We have all had out fill over the years with cattle breaking in.

Lads are on about covenants as well. Generally Covenants are not part of the deeds. They only cover the first buyer if the site and even at that the person who signs the covenant. After that onus again rests back with the farmer/stock owner. How expensive is it to put a row of stakes with a single strand of electrical fence wire around a site.

OP has right on his side he has proven his case in court. The farmer has a choice pay up or let the sheriff collect. He made his bed he can lie on it

maidhc

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Lads are on about covenants as well. Generally Covenants are not part of the deeds. They only cover the first buyer if the site and even at that the person who signs the covenant.

That's not correct. A covenant runs with the land. Don't make stuff up.

To the poster above who said I don't understand backruptcy law I think his response actually mirrored my own post, ie that it is not a runner and a idea to be confined to the dustbin. But I dont practice in bankruptcy law, and you will note my post didnt elaborate on it. A secured creditor will trump the unsecured creditors though...


On a practical level if a person is owed money by a farmer and has an order often the most elegant and quickest way is to get a garnishee order directed to the coop and dept. You are directing payment of the milk cheque and/or bps. This is what most contractors, oil companies and even the frs ultimately do.

Anyway I'm done here. I think the OP should get legal advice ultimately.

Rows Grower

maidhc wrote: »

That's not correct. A covenant runs with the land. Don't make stuff up.

To the poster above who said I don't understand backruptcy law I think his response actually mirrored my own post, ie that it is not a runner and a idea to be confined to the dustbin. But I dont practice in bankruptcy law, and you will note my post didnt elaborate on it. A secured creditor will trump the unsecured creditors though...


On a practical level if a person is owed money by a farmer and has an order often the most elegant and quickest way is to get a garnishee order directed to the coop and dept. You are directing payment of the milk cheque and/or bps. This is what most contractors, oil companies and even the frs ultimately do.

Anyway I'm done here. I think the OP should get legal advice ultimately.

You mean along the lines of "In this country if you don't want to pay you don't really have to" and "I am a solicitor"?

That kind of made up stuff?