Squatters who 'broke into' pensioner's home ordered to vacate premises by Wednesday

skankkuvhima · 27-03-2017 9:12pm

__Alex__ wrote: »

I just can't understand why squatter's rights are a thing anywhere.

Ah to be fair I can understand why they exist. If you have land sitting there for 100 years and no-one claims it (and perhaps no one even knows who owns it) why shouldn't someone be able to use it?

What I dont understand is how you can break into someones house and live there for 6 months while waiting for some judge to order you to leave.

Next time my neighbours leave their house, I'm in. It's a lot nicer than my hovel.

skankkuvhima · 27-03-2017 9:14pm

andekwarhola wrote: »

Was wondering what the insurance situation is if one of the squatters injures themself in the house or something.

Guess :rolleyes:

All of a sudden the real owner is liable and this pensioners house insurance gets hit.

__Alex__ · 27-03-2017 9:31pm

FTA69 wrote: »

What and you don't think having a load of vacant properties in a community causes problems? Or that having empty tower blocks owned by Chinese and Russian millionaires surrounded by people paying fortunes in rent or unable to get housing causes problems? Go on away out of it.

Right... but most people with an extra vacant property aren't these people and don't deserve to be regarded as villains.

skankkuvhima wrote: »

Ah to be fair I can understand why they exist. If you have land sitting there for 100 years and no-one claims it (and perhaps no one even knows who owns it) why shouldn't someone be able to use it?

Use, yes. Own after a certain amount of time? No.

skankkuvhima · 27-03-2017 9:39pm

__Alex__ wrote: »

Use, yes. Own after a certain amount of time? No.

Why not though? If no one claims ownership of, say some land, why shouldn't someone else claim ownership. There exists abandoned land, what should happen to it? No-one own it?

27-03-2017 9:42pm

skankkuvhima wrote: »

Why not though? If no one claims ownership of, say some land, why shouldn't someone else claim ownership. There exists abandoned land, what should happen to it? No-one own it?

Auction it off, proceeds to charity if an owner can't be located after say 100 years...

Phoebas · 27-03-2017 9:42pm

andekwarhola wrote: »

Kinda different though as that would be a mutually beneficial arrangement agreed by the owner.

Some gaff owned by a pensioner (under what circumstances nobody can be sure) is slightly different to that or vast tranches of property owned by a company.

Was wondering what the insurance situation is if one of the squatters injures themself in the house or something.

Ah yeah - I wouldn't be in favour of someone squatting in some individual's private home.

That said, there are now large numbers of properties in London bought up and left idle by rich Russians and Chinese who have no intention of ever living in them or even renting them out. It wouldn't exactly break my heart if squatters decided to move in to some of them.

bodice ripper · 27-03-2017 9:42pm

Genuinely only checked thread to see if the squatter was anyone I knew...

__Alex__ · 27-03-2017 9:48pm

skankkuvhima wrote: »

Why not though? If no one claims ownership of, say some land, why shouldn't someone else claim ownership. There exists abandoned land, what should happen to it? No-one own it?

I'm talking about land and property where the owner is known.

beauf · 27-03-2017 9:53pm

FTA69 wrote: »

The state taking a percentage of your wages? That's a a mad idea altogether, maybe it just might work! They could call it "tax" after the Latin word "taxare".

Well imagine you manage to save some of it pay this same tax 3 or times and buy a property. Then the govt take it off you for the common good.

That's what you are suggesting.

Is there a reason you think hte private individual has to provide housing for squatters and other people when the govt is the biggest landlord with empty housing and chooses to sell it venture funds than providing housing.

I don't get it.

skankkuvhima · 27-03-2017 9:57pm

__Alex__ wrote: »

I just can't understand why squatter's rights are a thing anywhere.

__Alex__ wrote: »

I'm talking about land and property where the owner is known.

You didn't specify that earlier.

beauf · 27-03-2017 10:05pm

222233 wrote: »

Auction it off, proceeds to charity if an owner can't be located after say 100 years...

It goes back to the state I think

27-03-2017 10:07pm

I rent out my home while I'm abroad to pay my mortgage, and while there is demand for places... each time I get a new tenant the place needs to be redone. Paint, damages, etc. Very few tenants I've had have left the place in good nick. Which means my place is vacant for a time while everything is being fixed up. (which depending on some workmen can take quite a long time :rolleyes: )

Vacant buildings can be vacant for lots of other reasons than simply it's empty and not being used.

If Squatters enter my house, that should be breaking and entering. Which, I thought, was a crime. If squatters sit on my front or back garden, that's tresspass, which, I thought, was also a crime.

Utterly bizarre the way, the application of the law has gone. Pay your taxes and obey the laws... and what do you get? Second place to those who break the law.

beauf · 27-03-2017 10:20pm

FTA69 wrote: »

... Or that having empty tower blocks owned by Chinese and Russian millionaires surrounded by people paying fortunes in rent or unable to get housing causes problems?....

I can't afford to live in Monaco. Is there some reason I should be entitled to live there.

Galwayguy35 · 28-03-2017 8:25am

FTA69 wrote: »

Grand. So what if I bought a house next door to you and started piling my rubbish 30 foot high out the back and blaring music until 3am every night. Would that be ok with you? It's my gaff after all.

Weak argument, the subject of the thread is vacant buildings which I'm making the point that it's up to the owner if that's what they want to do with it.

Galwayguy35 · 28-03-2017 8:27am

pickarooney wrote: »

Like the way England owned Ireland that time?

Yes because someone buying a property is exactly the same scenario as invading another country....

Galwayguy35 · 28-03-2017 8:33am

skankkuvhima wrote: »

Why not though? If no one claims ownership of, say some land, why shouldn't someone else claim ownership. There exists abandoned land, what should happen to it? No-one own it?

Have you ever come across land that nobody owns?

I certainly haven't and I live in the countryside, if you live in a city where property is much more expensive you can be sure there is an owner for it.

BrokenArrows · 28-03-2017 8:37am

bubblypop wrote: »

When I retire, i intend to live overseas for the majority of the year. At the moment, i would also intend to leave a property in Dublin, for my use when i come back.
Would anyone seriously think squatters moving into my property would be in the right?

I'd seriously consider renting the house while your away. While its unlikely squatters will take it, it might happen.

Samuel T. Cogley · 28-03-2017 9:15am

This has nothing to do with adverse possession, what is sometimes termed 'squatters rights'. Adverse possession is a necessary process to avoid land values declining. This is about trespass being a civil and not a criminal matter. There is no way that these guys could claim adverse possession of that house even if they stayed there for years as AP is very easily dislodged.

Sam Kade · 28-03-2017 9:28am

Phoebas wrote: »

I don't think it applies to that kind of thing.

But let's say you were a developer and you developed a ghost estate in the middle of, say, Longford, and you had no intention of finishing it and you left it go derelict.
If a homeless person moved in what's the harm? The property gets used, it makes no difference to the developer and it takes someone off the housing list at least for a while. Win-Win.

There was a woman did that same stunt in a housing estate in cork a few years ago, it went to court and the gardaí had to drag her out of the house and rightly so.

Samuel T. Cogley · 28-03-2017 10:29am

bubblypop wrote: »

When I retire, i intend to live overseas for the majority of the year. At the moment, i would also intend to leave a property in Dublin, for my use when i come back.
Would anyone seriously think squatters moving into my property would be in the right?

Homeless person vs. your right to private property. A property you're leaving empty for most of the time it would seem. While I actually don't think it's right it's not as clear cut as you're suggesting.

ohnonotgmail · 28-03-2017 11:06am

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Homeless person vs. your right to private property. A property you're leaving empty for most of the time it would seem. While I actually don't think it's right it's not as clear cut as you're suggesting.

Should people not be free to do with their property as they wish?

FTA69 · 28-03-2017 11:20am

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Weak argument, the subject of the thread is vacant buildings which I'm making the point that it's up to the owner if that's what they want to do with it.

Nah youre the one who brought up the argument that people can do whatever they like with their own gaff and that the common good is a fiction. I pointed out one instance where that wouldn't apply and because it doesn't suit you, you won't address it.

I can guarantee that if you lived on a street and speculators bought up houses on either side of you that they allowed to be vacant, boarded up and the scene of all the problems vacant housing brings then you'd be up in arms about it.

Whether you like to admit it or not; our actions have impacts on other people and communities in general and declaring "it's my property" doesn't change that fact.

Noveight · 28-03-2017 11:24am

Deleted User wrote: »

Pay your taxes and obey the laws... and what do you get? Second place to those who break the law.

I made a similar comment on a thread about a man who was facing jail for shooting a burglar in the arm, I can't recall the particulars.

It's as if their crimes are inevitable and we must go out of our way to accommodate them.

ancapailldorcha · 28-03-2017 11:29am

FTA69 wrote: »

I can guarantee that if you lived on a street and speculators bought up houses on either side of you that they allowed to be vacant, boarded up and the scene of all the problems vacant housing brings then you'd be up in arms about it.

I used to live on such a street in Hove. I was living with the brother of one such speculator at the time. Lovely chap. However, what you're proposing sets a dangerous precedent. These houses are still people's property. Squatters should have no right whatsoever to enter them without the owner's consent. I would fully endorse tax disincentives to this nonsense but it's impossible with both the right and left fully in favour of restricting housing supply which creates these incentives to begin with.

topper75 · 28-03-2017 11:30am

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

20% and 40%.

I'll see your "40%" and raise you USC and PRSI.

Workers - keeping fat cats fat and scroungers fed and housed since the year dot.

Not sure if you can say that nowadays, it could be perceived as populist.

skankkuvhima · 28-03-2017 11:53am

Deleted User wrote: »

If Squatters enter my house, that should be breaking and entering. Which, I thought, was a crime. If squatters sit on my front or back garden, that's tresspass, which, I thought, was also a crime.

I always assumed that if I came home after work and found someone in my house claiming squatters rights that I could grab them by the scruff of the neck and chuck them out. Why on earth couldn't I?

Seems ludicrous that I would have to hire a solicitor and go to court and maybe get my house back in 6 months.

cbreeze · 28-03-2017 12:19pm

This case is very distressing for the elderly owner who is in poor health according to the item in The Journal.

Why can't the 'squatters' go round and camp in the front garden of the Minister for Housing? They would then get all the publicity they can handle and be relocated to a nice warm room with three free meals a day in Mountjoy for as long as they liked, with the added bonus of free medical attention and clothing. Its a no-brainer, surely.

BrokenArrows · 28-03-2017 12:23pm

FTA69 wrote: »

Nah screw that, your actions impact on others and nobody's property rights should supersede the common good. To give an example, what would happen if 25% of houses on a road were owned by speculators were left vacant and as a result the rest of the community had to put up with the dereliction and anti-social behaviour that comes with that? Housing is an important resource and hoarding it in such a fashion to the detriment of everyone else is just plain wrong.

Here in London we have entire apartment blocks that are often left empty, giant money-laundering schemes that facilitate empty homes while the rest of us face a chronic housing crisis. There should be massive tax incentives for vacant properties up to and including seizure of the property.

Squatters taking a vacant property is not a "common good". In most cases squatters are not good law abiding citizens and are a nightmare for neighbours.

If i own a property it should be my right to do with it as i wish without causing harm to my neighbours.

Now based on my above statement i do think the following should apply:

I need to keep the property in good presentable condition. Garden, Windows, rubbish etc.
I believe the government should impose a tax on vacant property which has been vacant for an extended period of time ie. 1 year or more. If i own a property and want to leave it vacant than its my decision and i will pay the tax.
The law should fully protect my right to do what i want with the property and squatters should be removed with force by Gardai immediately upon finding them squatting.

I will say that there have been cases of people squatting in vacant/incomplete houses which have been incomplete for years with no sign of them being completed. In these cases i think squatting can be OK but only on the condition that the property is owned by a company and not an individual and that the squatters should never gain legal ownership.

pickarooney · 28-03-2017 12:57pm

222233 wrote: »

Perhaps there are many reasons why someone would leave a building vacant? Maybe you shouldn't assume they are selfish.

Not everyone WANTS to profit from their buildings, tenants might be too much hassle for someone. That person MAY want to move into THEIR building one day or perhaps keep if for family without risking it being destroyed by those in the rental market.

Maybe the property is not suitable to be let due to legal, aesthetic or construction reasons. Maybe that person is planning on renovating. Maybe that person is not available to make decisions about that property. Maybe the person purchased the property as a project or to move into at a later stage. Maybe the property was inherited and the person does not want to let it for sentimental reasons.

There is plenty of property out there, people just need to accept that they can't always live 5 mins from their ma, or accept that if they wish to rent they may have to commute to work or possibly move out into the country somewhere.

Those are pretty much all dictionary definitions of selfish. You wouldn't last long in court if that's the best you can do.

sbsquarepants · 28-03-2017 1:04pm

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Is Glen Hansard going to throw a concert in the front garden?

Good thinking - they won't be long moving on once he starts up:D

sbsquarepants · 28-03-2017 1:08pm

Herron, who told the court Kavanagh’s belongings had been safely stored,
represented himself with the help of a McKenzie friend.

WTF is a McKenzie friend?

Ri_Nollaig · 28-03-2017 1:30pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

WTF is a McKenzie friend?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKenzie_friend

Never heard of it before either

heroics · 28-03-2017 1:35pm

pickarooney wrote: »

Those are pretty much all dictionary definitions of selfish. You wouldn't last long in court if that's the best you can do.

No that's your definition of selfish.

I pretty much agree with all the reasons that the poster listed as valid for a property being empty.

I have not heard one valid reason why squatters rights is even a thing. If I arrive to my property and someone is squatting I should have the right (since I own it) to get them thrown out there and then without going to court etc.

Its like saying if I park up my car then anyone should just be able to use it.

sbsquarepants · 28-03-2017 1:49pm

It's ridiculous that these tossers have been allowed to stay in that mans house for 6 months!
It makes absolutely no difference if he was living there or it was empty, or if he has 2 houses or 22 houses - they're his no matter how many he has.

I guarantee this "film maker" is a scruffy layabout twat who has barely worked a day in his life but knows all about his "entitlements".
If it was my parents house he was in he'd have seen the error of his ways in 6 hours, not 6 months, and the only entitlement he'd be concerned about is whether or not he's entitled to get his film camera removed form his scruffy work shy hole on the medical card:mad:

Galwayguy35 · 28-03-2017 2:19pm

FTA69 wrote: »

Nah youre the one who brought up the argument that people can do whatever they like with their own gaff and that the common good is a fiction. I pointed out one instance where that wouldn't apply and because it doesn't suit you, you won't address it.

I can guarantee that if you lived on a street and speculators bought up houses on either side of you that they allowed to be vacant, boarded up and the scene of all the problems vacant housing brings then you'd be up in arms about it.

Whether you like to admit it or not; our actions have impacts on other people and communities in general and declaring "it's my property" doesn't change that fact.

What's to address?

You come out with a bullsh1t statement about living next to someone who has rubbish all over their property, now anyone I know who bought a house pays to have rubbish taken away.

The only people who throw their rubbish around the place are travellers and there's no way in hell I'd live next to any of them.

Also don't presume to know what I'd be up in arms over, if buildings were left vacant it's none of my business what the owners do with them.

Samuel T. Cogley · 28-03-2017 2:25pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Should people not be free to do with their property as they wish?

They're not even able to do that now in arguably the most protective state in the world. (Ireland has a double constitution protection on Private property)

Real property ownership has never been absolute.

nuckeythompson · 28-03-2017 2:30pm

sbsquarepants wrote:

I guarantee this "film maker" is a scruffy layabout twat who has barely worked a day in his life but knows all about his "entitlements". If it was my parents house he was in he'd have seen the error of his ways in 6 hours, not 6 months, and the only entitlement he'd be concerned about is whether or not he's entitled to get his film camera removed form his scruffy work shy hole on the medical card

He is a scruff, I'll try get a snap of him later seemingly as he likes cameras. Would I be allowed to post it here?

ohnonotgmail · 28-03-2017 2:30pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

They're not even able to do that now in arguably the most protective state in the world. (Ireland has a double constitution protection on Private property)

Real property ownership has never been absolute.

I'm not sure how that answers my question at all.

Samuel T. Cogley · 28-03-2017 2:38pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm not sure how that answers my question at all.

If it went over your head I'm not sure how I can help. Maybe try some night classes or something?

ohnonotgmail · 28-03-2017 2:39pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

If it went over your head I'm not sure how I can help. Maybe try some night classes or something?

Classy.

Samuel T. Cogley · 28-03-2017 2:40pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Classy.

My position was set out in a previous post. You asked a question and I answered it. You then tried to be smart and failed. What do you then expect? If you want to ask a follow up question I'd have been fine with answering it politely. However if you're going to try and be smart, expect the same in return.

jimgoose · 28-03-2017 2:43pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

If it went over your head I'm not sure how I can help. Maybe try some night classes or something?

You could perhaps mention that the general run of private, freehold land ownership in this part of the world is thus under the Common Law concept of fee simple absolute, but Eminent Domain still applies. This is an old name for compulsory purchase, whereby the State can effectively take any property off anyone for the public good.

ohnonotgmail · 28-03-2017 2:46pm

jimgoose wrote: »

You could perhaps mention that the general run of private, freehold land ownership in this part of the world is thus under the Common Law concept of fee simple absolute, but Eminent Domain still applies. This is an old name for compulsory purchase, whereby the State can effectively take any property off anyone for the public good.

I'm aware of that. I still dont think it addresses the original point of squatters seemingly having more rights over a property than its legal owner. Unfortunately i will never know what "wisdom" Mr Cogley can impart on the matter.

the_syco · 28-03-2017 2:51pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Yes because someone buying a property is exactly the same scenario as invading another country....

The english did not invade Ireland; they were invited in to help with a small war, saw that there was no opposition, and took power.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I certainly haven't and I live in the countryside

When people died in the past, and no-one claimed their land are you saying that people didn't take over their land after 10 or 15 years?

jimgoose · 28-03-2017 2:52pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm aware of that. I still dont think it addresses the original point of squatters seemingly having more rights over a property than its legal owner. Unfortunately i will never know what wisdom Mr Cogley can impart on the matter.

That was more in the spirit of countering the notion that you can do whatever you like with your private property. You can't. Eminent Domain/CPO is one example of that. Others would be various offences related to eyesores/hazards, and other matters falling under the jurisdiction of the EPA. Some asshole hippy confusing adverse possession with the limitation on the Gardaí's civil powers is indeed a somewhat different matter, and I have great sympathy with the pensioner in the original news article.

Samuel T. Cogley · 28-03-2017 2:56pm

In addition there are now effectively rent controls in everything but name, another example of not being able to do what one wants. As is the RTA and various other Acts.

I also have nothing but sympathy for the pensioner and indeed many landlords that get stuck with someone in situ not paying rent for months and months.

However it's not a yes/no position to very general questions.

ohnonotgmail · 28-03-2017 2:57pm

jimgoose wrote: »

That was more in the spirit of countering the notion that you can do whatever you like with your private property. You can't. Eminent Domain/CPO is one example of that. Others would be various offences related to eyesores/hazards, and other matters falling under the jurisdiction of the EPA.

Point taken.

jimgoose wrote: »

Some asshole hippy confusing adverse possession with the limitation on the Gardaí's civil powers is indeed a somewhat different matter, and I have great sympathy with the pensioner in the original news article.

the sooner we criminalise trespass the better. I honestly thought we had done that a couple of years ago.

jimgoose · 28-03-2017 3:00pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

...the sooner we criminalise trespass the better. I honestly thought we had done that a couple of years ago.

I would have thought it already was under Sections 11 and 13 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994, but having said that IANAL!

andekwarhola · 28-03-2017 3:01pm

Do people honestly think the squatter(s) in this instance are doing this to make some high-minded gesture in solidarity with people affected by the Dublin homelessness crisis or the gentrification of innter-city London? :pac:

ohnonotgmail · 28-03-2017 3:07pm

jimgoose wrote: »

I would have thought it already was under Sections 11 and 13 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994, but having said that IANAL!

Absent the intent to commit an offence or in a manner likely to cause fear i dont think that applies. Simply being in a building you dont own is not an offence.

Squatters who 'broke into' pensioner's home ordered to vacate premises by Wednesday

Comments