Strokestown Mod Note in Post #4461

BattleCorp · 17-12-2018 3:57pm

Cupatae wrote: »

Im just glad there is huge support for the people that threw that security firm out, great to see people backing there own over money and scumbag banks. The right thing was done.

As for those that think its black and white and the banks were dead right... it speaks volumes about ye, that ye think its right to get security firms to come down 2 weeks before christmas and drag someone out of there home, theres right and wrong ways to do things and this was by far the dumbest thing ive seen done it got the reaction it deserved.

It was hardly a surprise to the occupants of the house that they were going to be evicted. Below is the process for repossession and eviction in Ireland (taken from AskAboutMoney.com) It's not a speedy process.

The stages are as follows in Ireland for someone who does not engage and wants to stay as long as possible. (Of course, most borrowers engage and get to stay in their homes)
1) A borrower goes into arrears
2) The lender must go through a Mortgage Arrears Resolution Process with them.
3) The lender usually spends a lot of time trying to get the borrower to engage
4) Eventually they write to the borrower telling them that they are not cooperating and that MARP no longer applies
5) The earliest that they can begin the legal process is 3 months after exiting MARP or 8 months after arrears first arose, whichever is the latest. The 8 months is pretty much irrelevant as the banks spend a lot of time trying to get the person to engage.
6) The solicitor writes to the borrower
7) The solicitor issues proceedings
8) The first court date is set - it is automatically adjourned on the first date.
9) The second court date is probably 3 to 6 months later. The borrower shows up and says he now has a job; his joint owner was not served with proceedings; Some step in the CCMA was missed and the case is adjourned for another 6 months. In 85% of cases the borrower does not show up, but the Registrar looks for a reason to adjourn the case e.g. "Check if there is anyone living in the property".
10)The lender might get an order for possession on the third or 4th hearing if the borrower is paying absolutely nothing.
11) A stay will be put on the execution of the repossession order for 6 to 8 months.

Other ways to frustrate the process
1) There is an internal appeals process within the bank
2) Appeal any decision to the Financial Services Ombudsman
3) When you are in the courts process itself, go to a PIP and apply for a PIA.

The cases we have seen recently in the courts where repossession orders were granted with a stay of 8 months, typically had last repayments of 2011. So based on these, it takes about 5 years to repossess a house.

Sean.3516 · 17-12-2018 3:57pm

Cupatae wrote: »

Im just glad there is huge support for the people that threw that security firm out, great to see people backing there own over money and scumbag banks. The right thing was done.

As for those that think its black and white and the banks were dead right... it speaks volumes about ye, that ye think its right to get security firms to come down 2 weeks before christmas and drag someone out of there home, theres right and wrong ways to do things and this was by far the dumbest thing ive seen done it got the reaction it deserved.

What in your opinion was the right way for the bank to handle this? Just let people stay in a home they haven’t paid for? Seriously what is your solution here? Banks have an incentive to turn profits or they fail as institutions. If your not paying your rent you’re fair game to be evicted. Everybody knows this

stevielink · 17-12-2018 3:59pm

amcalester wrote: »

Show me the law that says it's illegal to physically remove someone from a premises.

i don't know of one, equally don't know of a law that says it's legal to do so.
so which is it? If it's legal then the guards were possible right. If it's not legal then the Guards were possibly wrong.

my opinion is that they were wrong. i'd like to know the truth. Should they have intervened? That's why I asked that Garda management make a statement to clarify , because I genuinely don't know

Guy:Incognito · 17-12-2018 3:59pm

Cupatae wrote: »

Im just glad there is huge support for the people that threw that security firm out, great to see people backing there own over money and scumbag banks. The right thing was done.

As for those that think its black and white and the banks were dead right... it speaks volumes about ye, that ye think its right to get security firms to come down 2 weeks before christmas and drag someone out of there home, theres right and wrong ways to do things and this was by far the dumbest thing ive seen done it got the reaction it deserved.

Again with the emotive bull****. If they didn't want to drag it out till 2 weeks before Christmas they could have left anytime between stopping paying the bank and them showing up with a court order to evict them.

BattleCorp · 17-12-2018 4:00pm

Sean.3516 wrote: »

What in your opinion was the right way for the bank to handle this? Just let people stay in a home they haven’t paid for?

Spot on.

If that's the case, I might as well stop paying my two mortgages. I'm sure the taxpayer will love to be on the hook for another €340k.

Guy:Incognito · 17-12-2018 4:01pm

stevielink wrote: »

i don't know of one, equally don't know of a law that says it's legal to do so.
so which is it? If it's legal then the guards were possible right. If it's not legal then the Guards were possibly wrong.

my opinion is that they were wrong. i'd like to know the truth. Should they have intervened? That's why I asked that Garda management make a statement to clarify , because I genuinely don't know

Go check the statute books for laws if you want your own opinions fact checked. This isnt Irish statute books Google.

stevielink · 17-12-2018 4:01pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What law?

After admitting you're making up as you go along and saying you're open to correction you're now sure every bouncer and security guard in the country is breaking the law throwing people out of premises?

making up as I go along?
I'm not a legal expert. am i expected to know every aspect of everything? Do you know how to perform open heart surgery?

This is a discussion forum. I am discussing this and am open to correction. Of course I am. that's how conversations work, right?

Thatnastyboy · 17-12-2018 4:02pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Spot on.

If that's the case, I might as well stop paying my two mortgages. I'm sure the taxpayer will love to be on the hook for another €340k.

Seems that's what a lot of people are advocating today,

Another great reply on facebook today

"That's it, no more money to these wanker bankers until all the bailout money is repaid in full plus interest"

Guy:Incognito · 17-12-2018 4:02pm

stevielink wrote: »

making up as I go along?
I'm not a legal expert. am i expected to know every aspect of everything? Do you know how to perform open heart surgery?

This is a discussion forum. I am discussing this and am open to correction. Of course I am. that's how conversations work, right?

You're saying they were in the wrong then asking if you're opinion in right and then refusing to accept answers youre given.

Head on down to the library and look it up.

stevielink · 17-12-2018 4:02pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Go check the statute books for laws if you want your own opinions fact checked. This isnt Irish statute books Google.

but my opinion could be right. who's to say yours is right?

gandalf · 17-12-2018 4:02pm

Cupatae wrote: »

Im just glad there is huge support for the people that threw that security firm out, great to see people backing there own over money and scumbag banks. The right thing was done.

As for those that think its black and white and the banks were dead right... it speaks volumes about ye, that ye think its right to get security firms to come down 2 weeks before christmas and drag someone out of there home, theres right and wrong ways to do things and this was by far the dumbest thing ive seen done it got the reaction it deserved.

So you condone violence then to protect a defaulter debtor who has also defrauded the Revenue and therefore us as taxpayers in this country. As someone has posted getting a repossession order is a long drawn out process that typically takes years to deliver.

It's the ilk of this individual that is denying revenue for services that a lot of his defenders on this thread are whinging about being underfunded. It's about time of lot of you actually grew up and joined the real world.

stevielink · 17-12-2018 4:03pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You're saying they were in the wrong then asking if you're opinion in right and then refusing to accept answers youre given.

Head on down to the library and look it up.

what answers have i refused to accept specifically?

amcalester · 17-12-2018 4:04pm

stevielink wrote: »

i don't know of one, equally don't know of a law that says it's legal to do so.
so which is it? If it's legal then the guards were possible right. If it's not legal then the Guards were possibly wrong.

my opinion is that they were wrong. i'd like to know the truth. Should they have intervened? That's why I asked that Garda management make a statement to clarify , because I genuinely don't know

Laws generally don't state what you are allowed do, they state what you are not allowed to do.

Do you really think the Guard would have stood back and watched if they thought someone was actually being assaulted? Before you answer, bear in mind that merely touching someone who doesn't want to be touched does not equate to an assault.

Guy:Incognito · 17-12-2018 4:04pm

stevielink wrote: »

but my opinion could be right. who's to say yours is right?

My opinion is that every bar, club and shop in the country is legally entity to throw people out of their premises as they do every day of the week.

You're the one saying it's illegal, so go check it.

Which is more likely?

gandalf · 17-12-2018 4:04pm

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

Seems that's what a lot of people are advocating today,

Another great reply on facebook today

"That's it, no more money to these wanker bankers until all the bailout money is repaid in full plus interest"

The irony is the Belgian taxpayers bailed out KBC bank :rolleyes:

Gimme A Pound · 17-12-2018 4:05pm

stevielink wrote: »

but my opinion could be right. who's to say yours is right?

Opinion doesn't come into it - it's either a fact or it isn't. Opinions are subjective views.

Billcarson · 17-12-2018 4:06pm

Cupatae wrote: »

Im just glad there is huge support for the people that threw that security firm out, great to see people backing there own over money and scumbag banks. The right thing was done.

As for those that think its black and white and the banks were dead right... it speaks volumes about ye, that ye think its right to get security firms to come down 2 weeks before christmas and drag someone out of there home, theres right and wrong ways to do things and this was by far the dumbest thing ive seen done it got the reaction it deserved.

Your wasting your time in talking to most in this thread. They are a disgrace to this country with their pro establishment bs. We are supposed to keep our heads down and bow and smile to our masters . They can't get it into their heads that people are unhappy with the way this country is run. Granted i don't have all the answers myself but anything has to be better then keeping the status quo. But sure fg and ff have been doing so well this last nearly hundred yrs. What happened in roscommon disgusted many but this thread is full of know it alls who are afraid of any change.

SoupyNorman · 17-12-2018 4:06pm

gandalf wrote: »

Nope it was KBC apparently he also owes them or whoever bought their loan a pile of cash as well. Given the heavy mob they employed it's probably not an insubstantial figure.

I believe KBC sold the loan to vulture fund. More probable the vulture fund is responsible and or has direct links to these dodgy eviction gurriers. Whether these eviction companies are North or South they still have few qualms on using violence as when they have an active eviction order they are pretty much free to use any means required which is why the Guards stood idly by.

Also, the evicted party has a shady damn past and owes a million or more to banks and revenue.

Is it right that the violence was used to evict, no. Was is right that violence was used in retaliation, no. Is it right for a person who does not repay their debts to enjoy items for which they don’t pay, no.

stevielink · 17-12-2018 4:07pm

amcalester wrote: »

Laws generally don't state what you are allowed do, they state what you are not allowed to do.

Do you really think the Guard would have stood back and watched if they thought someone was actually being assaulted? Before you answer, bear in mind that merely touching someone who doesn't want to be touched does not equate to an assault.

The people at the scene claim the person was assaulted. That's what I have to go on. No one has come out to say he wasn't assaulted. I would just like Garda management to clarify. I don't see that as being a problem.

stevielink · 17-12-2018 4:08pm

Kendra Dazzling Nail wrote: »

Opinion doesn't come into it - it's either a fact or it isn't. Opinions are subjective views.

exactly which is why i would love if garda management simply clarified. It's not too much to ask, though I realise it won't happen.

Cupatae · 17-12-2018 4:08pm

gandalf wrote: »

So you condone violence then to protect a defaulter debtor who has also defrauded the Revenue and therefore us as taxpayers in this country. As someone has posted getting a repossession order is a long drawn out process that typically takes years to deliver.

It's the ilk of this individual that is denying revenue for services that a lot of his defenders on this thread are whinging about being underfunded. It's about time of lot of you actually grew up and joined the real world.

They used voilence first and by the looks of it enjoyed it the lad that said he was "British" seemed to be fairly smug..

All i know is i could never condone throwing someone by force from there home, 2 weeks before Christmas, let alone older people..

Ya I guess there is something wrong with my ilk of people!

Thatnastyboy · 17-12-2018 4:09pm

gandalf wrote: »

The irony is the Belgian taxpayers bailed out KBC bank :rolleyes:

Facts have no place in the discussions of today sir.

BattleCorp · 17-12-2018 4:09pm

Billcarson wrote: »

Your wasting your time in talking to most in this thread. They are a disgrace to this country with their pro establishment bs. We are supposed to keep our heads down and bow and smile to our masters . They can't get it into their heads that people are unhappy with the way this country is run. Granted i don't have all the answers myself but anything has to be better then keeping the status quo. But sure fg and ff have been doing so well this last nearly hundred yrs. What happened in roscommon disgusted many but this thread is full of know it alls who are afraid of any change.

Billcarson everybody.

He reckons that bills don't have to be paid. Mortgages don't have to be paid.

He doesn't have all the answers but sure he knows he is right.

17-12-2018 4:09pm

Billcarson wrote: »

anything has to be better then keeping the status quo.

OK.

Guy:Incognito · 17-12-2018 4:09pm

Billcarson wrote: »

Your wasting your time in talking to most in this thread. They are a disgrace to this country with their pro establishment bs. We are supposed to keep our heads down and bow and smile to our masters . They can't get it into their heads that people are unhappy with the way this country is run. Granted i don't have all the answers myself but anything has to be better then keeping the status quo. But sure fg and ff have been doing so well this last nearly hundred yrs. What happened in roscommon disgusted many but this thread is full of know it alls who are afraid of any change.

You really are talking some ****.

What has a man not paying his tax, his loans or his bills to a local company got to do with how the country is run and why is making him out to be some sort of hero a good thing?

The status quo? The principle of pay back people you borrow from is a basic part of a functioning society.

fryup · 17-12-2018 4:10pm

SoupyNorman wrote: »

Is it right for a person who does not repay their debts to enjoy items for which they don’t pay, no.

and therein lies the crux of the matter,

but try telling that to those SF knuckleheads

stevielink · 17-12-2018 4:10pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

My opinion is that every bar, club and shop in the country is legally entity to throw people out of their premises as they do every day of the week.

You're the one saying it's illegal, so go check it.

Which is more likely?

i think you're missing the point entirely.
this wasnt a bar or a club or whatever.
it was in the front lawn of a house beside the gate, 2 feet from 2 Guards who I believe should have intervened. I would love to know whether their management believed they should have intervened.

edit: and yes i do believe a bar owner should have the right to remove someone from their bar. but does the law say they are aloowed to do so? Would a civil and or criminal case go in their favour if it came to that?

Guy:Incognito · 17-12-2018 4:11pm

Cupatae wrote: »

They used voilence first and by the looks of it enjoyed it the lad that said he was "British" seemed to be fairly smug..

All i know is i could never condone throwing someone by force from there home, 2 weeks before Christmas, let alone older people..

Ya I guess there is something wrong with my ilk of people!

Violence first? So the first these people knew of any issue with their loan was last week when the bank arrived at their door with a court order?

Geuze · 17-12-2018 4:12pm

Billcarson wrote: »

Your wasting your time in talking to most in this thread. They are a disgrace to this country with their pro establishment bs. We are supposed to keep our heads down and bow and smile to our masters . They can't get it into their heads that people are unhappy with the way this country is run. Granted i don't have all the answers myself but anything has to be better then keeping the status quo. But sure fg and ff have been doing so well this last nearly hundred yrs. What happened in roscommon disgusted many but this thread is full of know it alls who are afraid of any change.

I am unhappy with the way things are run.

I am not afraid of change, I want change.

I want tax evaders dealt with swiftly, and if that means seizing their assets against their will, I want that to happen.

I want all arrears cases dealt with within 24 months.

I don't want 7 years to pass until assets are repossessed.

Thatnastyboy · 17-12-2018 4:12pm

Cupatae wrote: »

They used voilence first and by the looks of it enjoyed it the lad that said he was "British" seemed to be fairly smug..

All i know is i could never condone throwing someone by force from there home, 2 weeks before Christmas, let alone older people..

Ya I guess there is something wrong with my ilk of people!

It's also 3 months before Paddys day.

C*nts they are.

Strokestown **Mod Note in Post #4461**

Comments

Strokestown Mod Note in Post #4461