Update - Lawn ruined by cattle

maidhc

Rows Grower wrote: »

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?

*yawn*

Ginger83

Bass Reeves wrote: »

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

I also have the whole lot on CCTV.

Emmersonn

maidhc wrote: »

*yawn*

Yawn again. Thought you were done

Ginger83

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

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.

Yes we were thinking of making the matter public knowledge and asking the local parish priest if we could do a collection outside mass to help the farmer to pay his bill.

endacl

_Brian wrote: »

That must be recent change.
Wasn’t it the Cavan or Longford Sherriff that was shot a few years back collecting a debt ??

Any word on the deputy?

John Hutton

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 corrected, not mirrored. You were incorrect I'm a stickler on this as you portrayed yourself as informed (professionally!) on these matters so it is important to correct you... Ordinarily I wouldn't bother.

If you are going to put yourself out there as an expert solicitor perhaps you should stick to the areas you practice in? One would hope that these are also the areas you understand.

liosnagceann75

Ginger83 wrote: »

Yes we were thinking of making the matter public knowledge and asking the local parish priest if we could do a collection outside mass to help the farmer to pay his bill.

Are you taking the piss?

whelan2

Ginger83 wrote: »

Yes we were thinking of making the matter public knowledge and asking the local parish priest if we could do a collection outside mass to help the farmer to pay his bill.

Is it not public on here? I would be very surprised if the farmer isn't aware of this thread somehow. It's a very small world

Bass Reeves

maidhc wrote: »

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

Not always true. Unless the convenient is specifically attached to the deeds it is only between the two individuals. Generally it an agreement between two people. It has to be attached to the deeds and burden further owners of the site. As well unless again it is stipulated the covenant has to pass on to indemnify future owners of the farm land. And even after all that as a relative of mine was advised by his solicitor it might still be easier to keep it stock proof yourself.

It is not just the site owner but if cattle exit through the site it is the cattle owner that is in trouble.

endacl

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.

What happens when you run out of cheeks?

Ginger83

liosnagceann75 wrote: »

Are you taking the piss?

No, why?

Ginger83

whelan2 wrote: »

Is it not public on here? I would be very surprised if the farmer isn't aware of this thread somehow. It's a very small world

He's more than welcome to come on here to tell his side

SEPT 23 1989

If I was terminally ill I wouldn't be wasting my limited time on trivial cr@p like this

patsy_mccabe

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

If I was terminally ill I wouldn't be wasting my limited time on trivial cr@p like this

My thoughts exactly.

Ginger83

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

If I was terminally ill I wouldn't be wasting my limited time on trivial cr@p like this

I shouldn't have to

Plumbthedepths

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

If I was terminally ill I wouldn't be wasting my limited time on trivial cr@p like this

If the farmer had any decency they wouldn't put a terminally ill individual through this cr@p to begin with. They would just have sorted the damage caused by their lifestock and saved themselves and the OP needless aggro.

Ginger83

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

If the farmer had any decency they wouldn't put a terminally ill individual through this cr@p to begin with. They would just have sorted the damage caused by their lifestock and saved themselves and the OP needless aggro.

Yes and how will they look if it goes public

banie01

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

If I was terminally ill I wouldn't be wasting my limited time on trivial cr@p like this

One would be surprised at how important small wins are when one is losing the battle for life.

mickdw

Some of the attitude here is crazy. I can only suggest some must be farmers that like to keep more than a few wandering animals.
The op was in the right, had their property damaged, won in court and is now seeking payment by whatever means.
The farmer in this case is an asshole. The ops health shouldnt come into this however if you do consider health, the farmers come out of this looking much worse.
If he had any decency, he would pay the bill asap.

Ginger83

banie01 wrote: »

One would be surprised at how important small wins are when one is losing the battle for life.

Well its more a case of I enjoy using the lawn and hope to use it this summer as it could be my last

US2

Any pictures of the lawn after they destroyed it? Missed the old thread I know its overgrown now.

Fair play Ginger, good to see someone stand up for themselves and not give up.

maidhc

John Hutton wrote: »

You mean corrected, not mirrored. You were incorrect I'm a stickler on this as you portrayed yourself as informed (professionally!) on these matters so it is important to correct you... Ordinarily I wouldn't bother.

If you are going to put yourself out there as an expert solicitor perhaps you should stick to the areas you practice in? One would hope that these are also the areas you understand.

I keep getting drawn in... I think the only observation I made on bankruptcy was that it would be a high risk strategy, the secured creditors would get paid first and there was no guarantee the Op would get anything. I also observed that the OP would be potentially incurring an open ended bill for legal costs. I didn't make this up, but would refer to order 76 of the RSC, in particular that a bankruptcy petition must contain:

"an indemnity on the part of the petitioner, indemnifying the Official Assignee as to the Official Assignee's costs, fees and expenses allowed by the Court up to and including the statutory sitting and as to such further costs, fees and expenses of the Official Assignee as the Court may upon the application of the Official Assignee direct,..."

So while I do not practice bankruptcy law, I do have a reasonable idea of what it entails. This is also not a forum for legal discussion, so I think it is fair to take a certain amount of latitude in describing certain legal principles.


Now for the covenants,

Bass Reeves wrote:

Unless the convenient is specifically attached to the deeds it is only between the two individuals.

The common understanding of the concept of a covenant is something that attaches to the property, or as you say, the deeds. The alternative (i.e. a right that does not pass) is a contract. This is not negotiable, and a fact.

Plumbthedepths

maidhc wrote: »

I keep getting drawn in... I think the only observation I made on bankruptcy was that it would be a high risk strategy, the secured creditors would get paid first and there was no guarantee the Op would get anything. I also observed that the OP would be potentially incurring an open ended bill for legal costs. I didn't make this up, but would refer to order 76 of the RSC, in particular that a bankruptcy petition must contain:

"an indemnity on the part of the petitioner, indemnifying the Official Assignee as to the Official Assignee's costs, fees and expenses allowed by the Court up to and including the statutory sitting and as to such further costs, fees and expenses of the Official Assignee as the Court may upon the application of the Official Assignee direct,..."

So while I do not practice bankruptcy law, I do have a reasonable idea of what it entails. This is also not a forum for legal discussion, so I think it is fair to take a certain amount of latitude in describing certain legal principles.


Now for the covenants,



The common understanding of the concept of a covenant is something that attaches to the property, or as you say, the deeds. The alternative (i.e. a right that does not pass) is a contract. This is not negotiable, and a fact.

Back again eh? Eventhough you said you were out. Not sure how you were forced to respond.

Ginger83

US2 wrote: »

Any pictures of the lawn after they destroyed it? Missed the old thread I know its overgrown now.

Fair play Ginger, good to see someone stand up for themselves and not give up.

Sure.....

cows1.jpg

cows2.jpg

imow.jpg

pic 8 cattle.jpg

pic 7 cattle.jpg

Rowley Birkin QC

muirsin wrote: »

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

What the hell is going on in this thread?

Poisoning cattle over a trampled lawn???

Rows Grower

Rowley Birkin QC wrote: »

What the hell is going on in this thread?

Poisoning cattle over a trampled lawn???

Is it yourself?

https://youtu.be/HkuBvL0rCSA?t=83

Ginger83

Rowley Birkin QC wrote: »

What the hell is going on in this thread?

Poisoning cattle over a trampled lawn???

You can't blame an animal for being hungry

Ard_MC

Ginger83 wrote: »

I shouldn't have to

If your terminally ill, I am sorry for your troubles and what that eejit is at.

At the end of the day tho, if your terminally ill would you not be better to live the life you have left as what's the point.

pablo128

Ard_MC wrote: »

If your terminally ill, I am sorry for your troubles and what that eejit is at.

At the end of the day tho, if your terminally ill would you not be better to live the life you have left as what's the point.

He wants to enjoy sitting out in the sun on his manicured landscaped lawn which he paid a lot of money for, and which he previously had repaired at his own expense due to a similar situation with the same farmer, if I'm not mistaken.

Something which he can't do now. He can't even have the grass cut ffs.

Ginger83

Ard_MC wrote: »

If your terminally ill, I am sorry for your troubles and what that eejit is at.

At the end of the day tho, if your terminally ill would you not be better to live the life you have left as what's the point.

Yes i'm trying to enjoy my time left in my garden hence spending 3k on a robot