Nine tenants evicted from north Dublin property by men in masks and dark clothing

Dempo1

I see GARDA HQ"s statement is a, little incorrect, they claim the "Thugs", sorry bailiff advised local station of pending evictions, they claimed they did not partake in the initial forced entry, they only arrived after a call from a tenant. They further stated the took no part in the eviction but only remained on scene to insure no public order issues.

If course that's completely untrue as the video clearly shows a rather exercised female garda actively engaging with tenants and not in way that showed objectivity, incidentally she was also not wearing a mask.

Whatever way this is spun, the Gardai have serious questions to answer, this is not good enough.

LuasSimon

ACitizenErased wrote: »

I saw the video. The lads in black are wearing jackets with tri-colours on them. Anyone know who they are?

Was this to distinguish themselves from the loyalist eviction gangs used in Rosscommon and elsewhere last year ?

Dempo1

Dempo1 wrote: »

I see GARDA HQ"s statement is a, little incorrect, they claim the "Thugs", sorry bailiff advised local station of pending evictions, they claimed they did not partake in the initial forced entry, they only arrived after a call from a tenant. They further stated the took no part in the eviction but only remained on scene to insure no public order issues.

If course that's completely untrue as the video clearly shows a rather exercised female garda actively engaging with tenants and not in way that showed objectivity, incidentally she was also not wearing a mask.

Whatever way this is spun, the Gardai have serious questions to answer, this is not good enough.

Gardai are just there to keep the peace. The animated Garda was most likely trying to explain this to the agitated tenant.

Dempo1

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Gardai are just there to keep the peace. The animated Garda was most likely trying to explain this to the agitated tenant.

Listen back carefully to her comments on the video, you should be able to hear clearly what she said, she's not wearing a mask, she was essentially agreeing with these thugs actions, not keeping the peace

Dempo1

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

I'd love to see them do this to the squatters in one of the houses in my estate. We'd offer the evictors cake and biscuits.

And here in the Midlands

Dempo1

Dempo1 wrote: »

Listen back carefully to her comments on the video, you should be able to hear clearly what she said, she's not wearing a mask, she was essentially agreeing with these thugs actions, not keeping the peace

I did listen. The agitated tenant wasn’t. There was reference to a previous incident, which was posted on Facebook, like this was. The Garda was upholding the Law. That’s all they can do. They obviously have seen all the relevant paperwork and court decisions. We haven’t. There’s always two sides to a story.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Just because someone is in a house doesn’t make them a tenant.

My daughter had fierce hassle from a neighbouring tenant. Turned out the landlord hadn’t a clue who the fella was.

He wasn’t a tenant at all.

ted1

Dempo1 wrote: »

They certainly excelled at their jobs, what about the criminal damage they stood by and watched occuring)???

What criminal damage ? They were working for the landlord , who hadn’t reported any crime

joeguevara

Deleted User wrote: »

I did listen. The agitated tenant wasn’t. There was reference to a previous incident, which was posted on Facebook, like this was. The Garda was upholding the Law. That’s all they can do. They obviously have seen all the relevant paperwork and court decisions. We haven’t. There’s always two sides to a story.

From what I have read, the new owner went to the Garda station prior to the eviction and showed them all of the paperwork and how it was a legal eviction. The Gardai decided that they were not required as all was in order. They only arrived subsequent to the eviction commencing as a result of a 999 call from the tenant. They were then only there to keep the peace and not to oversee the eviction as what is being published.

silver2020

joeguevara wrote: »

From what I have read, the new owner went to the Garda station prior to the eviction and showed them all of the paperwork and how it was a legal eviction. The Gardai decided that they were not required as all was in order. They only arrived subsequent to the eviction commencing as a result of a 999 call from the tenant. They were then only there to keep the peace and not to oversee the eviction as what is being published.

You'll never get the real and truthful story from the anti-establishment brigade.

Seems this was an overcrowded sub let with tenants who had no written agreements paying cash to someone who no longer owned the property.

They are probably better off out of it

Dempo1

ted1 wrote: »

What criminal damage ? They were working for the landlord , who hadn’t reported any crime

Are you seriously suggesting any landlord instructions his/her agents to break internal doors, toilets and put holes in partition walls, if this did occur, the landlord is as equally thuggish as the individuals engaged in this appalling display of brutality.

joeguevara

Dempo1 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting any landlord instructions his/her agents to break internal doors, toilets and put holes in partition walls, if this did occur, the landlord is as equally thuggish as the individuals engaged in this appalling display of brutality.

If they did its not criminal damage which was the question posed. And emotive words such as brutality are unenncessary. Brutality means great physical violence. None of that has been evidenced here.

Witcher

Dempo1 wrote: »

Listen back carefully to her comments on the video, you should be able to hear clearly what she said, she's not wearing a mask, she was essentially agreeing with these thugs actions, not keeping the peace

Gardai are exempt from wearing masks.

Dempo1

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I did listen. The agitated tenant wasn’t. There was reference to a previous incident, which was posted on Facebook, like this was. The Garda was upholding the Law. That’s all they can do. They obviously have seen all the relevant paperwork and court decisions. We haven’t. There’s always two sides to a story.

I suggest you reboot your media player, seems to be skipping the bits where she was engaging (that's being diplomatic) with the tenants.

But more to the pint in hand, let's assume Gardai were acting in good faith and on the whole I genuinely support Gardai, where is the court order permitting this eviction? Bailiffs did not have one, refused to offer one and indeed one can be heard saying he contacted tenant on Facebook, mother of God, is Facebook running our courts service, back to court order or lack of, if one was not produced at the Gardai station initially or even at the eviction,

A. why was this action permitted to proceed

B. Why didn't the Gardai demand evidence of same on the scene and immediately stop the eviction on failure to produced necessary documents.

I will be the first to apologise if it turns out this eviction was legal but even aside from this, there are so many questions as to how this was able to proceed, it is beggar's belief new owners were not aware of tenancies in place and by my estimation some with seven years occupancy would be entitled to more than a FB message and months rather than weeks notice of termination of tenancy.

Witcher

Dempo1 wrote: »

I suggest you reboot your media player, seems to be skipping the bits where she was engaging (that's being diplomatic) with the tenants.

But more to the pint in hand, let's assume Gardai were acting in good faith and on the whole I genuinely support Gardai, where is the court order permitting this eviction? Bailiffs did not have one, refused to offer one and indeed one can be heard saying he contacted tenant on Facebook, mother of God, is Facebook running our courts service, back to court order or lack of, if one was not produced at the Gardai station initially or even at the eviction,

A. why was this action permitted to proceed

B. Why didn't the Gardai demand evidence of same on the scene and immediately stop the eviction on failure to produced necessary documents.

I will be the first to apologise if it turns out this eviction was legal but even aside from this, there are so many questions as to how this was able to proceed, it is beggar's belief new owners were not aware of tenancies in place and by my estimation some with seven years occupancy would be entitled to more than a FB message and months rather than weeks notice of termination of tenancy.

Gardai have no power to stop an eviction, it's a civil matter.

joeguevara

Dempo1 wrote: »

I suggest you reboot your media player, seems to be skipping the bits where she was engaging (that's being diplomatic) with the tenants.

But more to the pint in hand, let's assume Gardai were acting in good faith and on the whole I genuinely support Gardai, where is the court order permitting this eviction? Bailiffs did not have one, refused to offer one and indeed one can be heard saying he contacted tenant on Facebook, mother of God, is Facebook running our courts service, back to court order or lack of, if one was not produced at the Gardai station initially or even at the eviction,

A. why was this action permitted to proceed

B. Why didn't the Gardai demand evidence of same on the scene and immediately stop the eviction on failure to produced necessary documents.

I will be the first to apologise if it turns out this eviction was legal but even aside from this, there are so many questions as to how this was able to proceed, it is beggar's belief new owners were not aware of tenancies in place and by my estimation some with seven years occupancy would be entitled to more than a FB message and months rather than weeks notice of termination of tenancy.

From what was said, eviction notice provided a week previously. You are going by a poorly filmend video and are quesitoning something that happened in reality.

suicide_circus

Stories like Margaret Cash getting traction in the media makes people cynical about about being manipulated by activists and journalists. I'll wait til all the facts come out on this one.

Dempo1

joeguevara wrote: »

From what was said, eviction notice provided a week previously. You are going by a poorly filmend video and are quesitoning something that happened in reality.

Eviction notice on what grounds exactly? If I own a property and purchase it with existing long term tenancy, I have obligations, one being a reasonable period of notice, there has never been any suggestion rent was not being paid.

I again ask were is the court orders approving evictions?

CrankyHaus

Witcher wrote: »

Gardai have no power to stop an eviction, it's a civil matter.

Witcher wrote: »

Gardai have no power to stop an eviction, it's a civil matter.

Surely they have the power to prevent a gang of masked men from breaking into your home though?


That's all an "eviction" is if it isn't made on foot of a Court order.

I'm not saying that's what happened here btw.

Dempo1

Witcher wrote: »

Gardai are exempt from wearing masks.

Her two other colleagues clearly didn't get the memo, this was an enclosed space, if I recall from last Monday, no one is exempt in this scenario

Witcher

Dempo1 wrote: »

Her two other colleagues clearly didn't get the memo, this was an enclosed space, if I recall from last Monday, no one is exempt in this scenario

Gardai are exempt by law. If some choose to wear them that's their choice, they're not obligated by legislation.

Dempo1

joeguevara wrote: »

If they did its not criminal damage which was the question posed. And emotive words such as brutality are unenncessary. Brutality means great physical violence. None of that has been evidenced here.

Point taken and I take back the word brutality

joeguevara

Dempo1 wrote: »

Her two other colleagues clearly didn't get the memo, this was an enclosed space, if I recall from last Monday, no one is exempt in this scenario

Gardai on duty are exempt.

joeguevara

Dempo1 wrote: »

Eviction notice on what grounds exactly? If I own a property and purchase it with existing long term tenancy, I have obligations, one being a reasonable period of notice, there has never been any suggestion rent was not being paid.

I again ask were is the court orders approving evictions?

I am sure that a lot of information is not provided on a video taken by the people who feel aggrieved. Why would we see a court order on a video.

runawaybishop

Dempo1 wrote: »

Eviction notice on what grounds exactly? If I own a property and purchase it with existing long term tenancy, I have obligations, one being a reasonable period of notice, there has never been any suggestion rent was not being paid.

I again ask were is the court orders approving evictions?

They aren't tenants technically, it's an illegal sublet so they are squatters. The errant landlord was pocketing the rent for a property he no longer owned.

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

From what I have read, the new owner went to the Garda station prior to the eviction and showed them all of the paperwork and how it was a legal eviction. The Gardai decided that they were not required as all was in order. They only arrived subsequent to the eviction commencing as a result of a 999 call from the tenant. They were then only there to keep the peace and not to oversee the eviction as what is being published.

It’s a seriously fast turnaround especially when all evictions were on hold until a couple of weeks ago.

A spokesman for Goldman Sachs, which controls Beltany, said the fund sold the property on June 2nd to an individual.

The purchase was 11 weeks ago (according to The Irish Times). Minimum notice to quit is 28 days after you send it. So that brings us to the end of June. No evictions allowed so you couldn’t start court proceedings for failure to leave then. Would I be correct in saying you couldn’t start court proceedings till 2 weeks ago?

The bailiff said they had their notice 7 days before. So court proceedings were instigated and eviction approved in the first week of August?

I’ve never heard of things going anywhere near this quickly. Lots of landlords that have tenants who won’t pay their rent have to wait 12 months or more to get their property back. Nothing adding up here at all.

Beechwoodspark

Hazel Chu’s dublin

Some fraud she’s turned out to be

TheValeyard

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

It’s a seriously fast turnaround especially when all evictions were on hold until a couple of weeks ago.



The purchase was 11 weeks ago (according to The Irish Times). Minimum notice to quit is 28 days after you send it. So that brings us to the end of June. No evictions allowed so you couldn’t start court proceedings for failure to leave then. Would I be correct in saying you couldn’t start court proceedings till 2 weeks ago?

The bailiff said they had their notice 7 days before. So court proceedings were instigated and eviction approved in the first week of August?

I’ve never heard of things going anywhere near this quickly. Lots of landlords that have tenants who won’t pay their rent have to wait 12 months or more to get their property back. Nothing adding up here at all.

Yeah, I do not see how that was done so quickly. Doesnt make sense. Unless the rich boys get a fast pass in the courts?

KaneToad

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Hazel Chu’s dublin

Some fraud she’s turned out to be

I don't think she is a fraud. I think she is consistent and honest in her views. I don't share her views in most instances.

Fann Linn

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

It’s a seriously fast turnaround especially when all evictions were on hold until a couple of weeks ago.



The purchase was 11 weeks ago (according to The Irish Times). Minimum notice to quit is 28 days after you send it. So that brings us to the end of June. No evictions allowed so you couldn’t start court proceedings for failure to leave then. Would I be correct in saying you couldn’t start court proceedings till 2 weeks ago?

The bailiff said they had their notice 7 days before. So court proceedings were instigated and eviction approved in the first week of August?

I’ve never heard of things going anywhere near this quickly. Lots of landlords that have tenants who won’t pay their rent have to wait 12 months or more to get their property back. Nothing adding up here at all.

Might be worth doing a check on land registry. ie to see who the new owner is. Memo to me: Check same when back in office.