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

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

This happened on her watch presumably with her approval

The Lord Mayor of Dublin has pretty much got no power. It's not Gotham.

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.

Tenancy Legislation is not something I know that much about (other than what I know from renting an apartment to tenants) but does the Legislation apply to illegal tennants (im not saying that they are in this case) and for new owners of a property?

Notwithstanding of the above, i think it is appropriate in all cases to make a decision based on all of the facts and not from emotive videos. Saying that, it is terrible what happened to the people and to be on the street is a heartbreaking situation to be in.

joeguevara wrote: »

Tenancy Legislation is not something I know that much about (other than what I know from renting an apartment to tenants) but does the Legislation apply to illegal tennants (im not saying that they are in this case) and for new owners of a property?

Notwithstanding of the above, i think it is appropriate in all cases to make a decision based on all of the facts and not from emotive videos. Saying that, it is terrible what happened to the people and to be on the street is a heartbreaking situation to be in.

It's a bad situation for the tenants alright. The landlord is some piece of work. He did this before a couple of years ago to a young mother, pocketed the rent while not paying the mortgage.

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

But it’s stated above that the new owner brought the paperwork to the Garda station. If they only have the property since June but the paperwork is prior to that, it wouldn’t be their court order?

The new owner would have a right to vacant possession, and there is likely an outstanding court order to vacate the property. It doesn't really matter whether this order was made before or after the sale, the owner can ask the court for the order to be enforced.

The question in the air is what is required on the part of the owner. Does he have to post a sign on the entrance to the property about it? I don't know. Does he have to send the paperwork to the property? Again, I don't know.

This isn't a standard eviction where the tenants need to be handed a valid notice of eviction. If you have squatters, they don't require a notice on the door. You can change the locks one day and throw them out.

Most likely the onus was on the landlord to ensure the property was vacant - i.e. to notify the residents that the property was being taken and that they had to leave.

It's a sh1t sandwich for the residents. They've been taken for a ride by their old landlord and treated like squatters by the new owner because it was assumed that's what they were.

According to Twitter, the Gardai were called by the residents. They attended in order to avoid a fight breaking out, but have no legal power to stop the eviction. Kind of funny to see the outrage that a Garda would say they can't automatically step in to prevent someone from becoming homeless.

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Gardaí should only have a presence to police any public disorder or criminal conduct that may occur but have no role in evictions. From the video, it appears that this was not the case. The Garda can be heard telling the resident that "they had no right anymore to be there".

Aswell as this, Solicitor Gary Daly, who is representing two of the tenants, told TheJournal.ie “there is no legal document circulating which would form the basis for a lawfully authorised eviction. My clients have not been served with one and to best of knowledge gardaí were not in possession of a court order or order of Residential Tenancies Board authorising the eviction of tenants from the property,” he said.

Some of them resident for the previous 8 years. Goldman Sachs, said the fund had sold the property on June 2nd, but was unable to disclose the name of the buyer citing confidentiality reasons. One source said the property had been sold to a Dublin-based company. Two individuals listed as directors of that company did not return requests for comment. Regardless of who owns the property, tenants are still tenants and the sale doesn’t void their rights.

Are you connected to the case or are you only going off media reports?

Firstly the solicitor, only took the case after the video went viral and wouldn't know what documents have been provided and processed. That is the reason the words 'best of knowledge was used'.

Secondly, the Garda only made the statement of 'right to be there' after being repeatedly asked questions by the person. They were only there to ensure that there was no breach of the peace on a request by the people staying there.

With regardless to the last line, if they are illegal tenants they have no rights.

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Gardaí should only have a presence to police any public disorder or criminal conduct that may occur but have no role in evictions. From the video, it appears that this was not the case. The Garda can be heard telling the resident that "they had no right anymore to be there".

Aswell as this, Solicitor Gary Daly, who is representing two of the tenants, told TheJournal.ie “there is no legal document circulating which would form the basis for a lawfully authorised eviction. My clients have not been served with one and to best of knowledge gardaí were not in possession of a court order or order of Residential Tenancies Board authorising the eviction of tenants from the property,” he said.

Some of them resident for the previous 8 years. Goldman Sachs, said the fund had sold the property on June 2nd, but was unable to disclose the name of the buyer citing confidentiality reasons. One source said the property had been sold to a Dublin-based company. Two individuals listed as directors of that company did not return requests for comment. Regardless of who owns the property, tenants are still tenants and the sale doesn’t void their rights.

Also, whats the story with these two big lads? Instead of getting Loyalists down from the North to boot people from homes are they getting them from the Ivory Coast? :P

It was taken by a video app that mirrors the images. That is a tricolour not an ivory coast flag.

seamus wrote: »

Everyone talking about the eviction being done by thugs wearing black uniforms with Irish flags on them, I had pictures in my head of guys in bomber jackets with balaclavas and doc martins.

Honestly, that looks like a uniform for a private security company and not a group of mercenaries. It's a black t-shirt with a small Irish flag on it.

And wearing masks....yeah for fcuking covid, as required by law.

riffmongous wrote: »

Are they required by law? And what's the deal with the sunglasses then, also legally required?

Very sunny yesterday. are they required not to be worn.

Apologies for the 'required by law'. You are right, they are not, only in shops and public transport but for their own protection and anyone they come into contact with (especially if people are shouting at them) then a health and safety risk assessment would require them to be worn.

It seems that the situation is that Mr Ward had assigned the duty of collecting rent to one tenant by way of subletting. Is it a 3-bed property? If individuals units they must be very small to fit 9 people based on the size of the building.

The property doesn't seem to be registered with the RTB and it seems the receiver sold the property several years ago and it was sold again on 8 June 2020. Other people here have said the landlord continues to take rents after the receiver had taken charge of the property. It seems like the "landlord" is a bit of a scumbag who stole the tenant's money and crammed people into a property in poor conditions, the eviction was terrible but people seem to be championing his cause. Is any of the above incorrect? Apologies if so!

chunkylover4 wrote: »

It seems that the situation is that Mr Ward had assigned the duty of collecting rent to one tenant by way of subletting. Is it a 3-bed property? If individuals units they must be very small to fit 9 people based on the size of the building.

The property doesn't seem to be registered with the RTB and it seems the receiver sold the property several years ago and it was sold again on 8 June 2020. Other people here have said the landlord continues to take rents after the receiver had taken charge of the property. It seems like the "landlord" is a bit of a scumbag who stole the tenant's money and crammed people into a property in poor conditions, the eviction was terrible but people seem to be championing his cause. Is any of the above incorrect? Apologies if so!

It would appear that Mr. Ward is no longer the landlord and hasn't been for a long time.