Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Pat Kenny - A squatter?

  • 16-04-2008 10:37AM
    #1
    kmick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,375 ✭✭✭


    So the court case is settled and Pat has stumped up for some land he originally did not own but claimed squatters rights.

    'The Kennys claimed they used it as a nature reserve for foxes and badgers and owned the land by virtue of adverse possession or "squatters' rights".'

    Why did he not just buy the land originally and save himself all the hassle and legal fees?


«1

Comments

  • #2
    zuchum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 500 ✭✭✭zuchum


    'cause the stupid plank thought he could get it for free..


  • #3
    Sherifu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,727 ✭✭✭✭Sherifu


    Cause he's a dick. Simple really.


  • #4
    smashey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,676 ✭✭✭✭smashey


    Damn, I thought this thread was about Asian toilets.


  • #5
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Does it not equally imply that the other guy was a money grabber?

    But more to the point who gives a ****e :)


  • #6
    Sherifu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,727 ✭✭✭✭Sherifu


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Does it not equally imply that the other guy was a money grabber?
    For wanting to keep his land? :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    I think it just implies that the other guy felt the land was his rather than the Kennys'.


  • #8
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,044 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    smashey wrote: »
    Damn, I thought this thread was about Asian toilets.

    Wow really and here I tought you being a fitness mod you would have tought it was about 'lifts'. ;)


  • #9
    Ay Cee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭Ay Cee


    Was it established who actually DID own the bit of land? Or was it looking like the neighbour owned it and he thought he'd better paying for it now instead of going the whole way with the case?


  • #10
    BigglesMcGee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭BigglesMcGee


    My Parents have a piece of land that is too much of a pain to keep tidy. They have let the neighbour use it for free for the last few years for their sheep and not even thought about getting access to it.

    Well no things have chnged. They are going to have to collect rent or kick the neighbour off now. And they dont really want to do either. The neighbour will feel like my parents think they are potential Kennys', which is not what my parents think at all, but now need to protect themselves.

    If Kenny can one day put a gate up and decide the land is his after the neighbour let him use it in good faith for years then there is somthing wrong with the law.

    Kenny is just a bare faced scumbag.


  • #11
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Dudess wrote: »
    I think it just implies that the other guy felt the land was his rather than the Kennys'.

    Which it would have if it went to court and he won ;).

    Seriously thought know it was his land, isn't the whole law pretty stupid though?


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Sherifu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,727 ✭✭✭✭Sherifu


    Ay Cee wrote: »
    Was it established who actually DID own the bit of land? Or was it looking like the neighbour owned it and he thought he'd better paying for it now instead of going the whole way with the case?
    I would say that will never be decided now. I'd say Kenny could smell the verdict coming though. I hope he payed top dollar for the land.


  • #13
    Zzippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,166 ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Does it not equally imply that the other guy was a money grabber?

    Yeah, some guy wants to claim squatters rights to his land, and he's a money grabber? :rolleyes:

    Plank Kenny had some cheek, fencing off someone else's land and denying him entry, then trying to claim squatter's rights. I hope it cost him a fortune in legal fees...


  • #14
    smashey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,676 ✭✭✭✭smashey


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Wow really and here I tought you being a fitness mod you would have tought it was about 'lifts'. ;)
    Wash your mouth out young lady. :cool:


  • #15
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    BigglesMcGee wrote: »
    My Parents have a piece of land that is too much of a pain to keep tidy. They have let the neighbour use it for free for the last few years for their sheep and not even thought about getting access to it.

    Well no things have chnged. They are going to have to collect rent or kick the neighbour off now. And they dont really want to do either. The neighbour will feel like my parents think they are potential Kennys', which is not what my parents think at all, but now need to protect themselves.

    If Kenny can one day put a gate up and decide the land is his after the neighbour let him use it in good faith for years then there is somthing wrong with the law.

    Kenny is just a bare faced scumbag.
    Don't your folks just have to set foot on the land every now and again?


  • #16
    BigglesMcGee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭BigglesMcGee


    dont know exactly but it seems the law doesnt know what its at.

    In my book, if you hold the deeds to land you own it, no matter when you decide to use it.

    Maybe we should all walk into abandoned buildings around dubin and put up a few bird houses in the attic and a few plants every now and then. And then just claim them in a few years.


  • #17
    Al_Fernz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Al_Fernz


    Did anybody see the other guy coming out of court yesterday??? He hobbled out with his two daughters linking his arms - making him look like a poor old man. In reality, the guy knew what he was doing.

    He made Prat Kenny look like the creepy douche that he is.


  • #18
    escobar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 283 ✭✭escobar


    BigglesMcGee wrote: »
    dont know exactly but it seems the law doesnt know what its at.

    In my book, if you hold the deeds to land you own it, no matter when you decide to use it.

    Maybe we should all walk into abandoned buildings around dubin and put up a few bird houses in the attic and a few plants every now and then. And then just claim them in a few years.

    A few years ago a guy did that in Middle Abbey Street. He moved into a house (squatted) and now owns it . A lovely four storey in the centre of town...Strangely he used to go out at night and paint all the chewing gum on the footpaths bright orange..... Wonder if he's any relation of Pat Kenny....


  • #19
    kmick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,375 ✭✭✭kmick


    I have heard today the old guy was threatening to build on the squatted land and this is why it all blew up. At the end of the day the old guy probably just wanted some dough so it looks like greed on both sides.


  • #20
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    escobar wrote: »
    A few years ago a guy did that in Middle Abbey Street. He moved into a house (squatted) and now owns it . A lovely four storey in the centre of town...Strangely he used to go out at night and paint all the chewing gum on the footpaths bright orange..... Wonder if he's any relation of Pat Kenny....
    Don't you have to be on the property for 10-15 years or something?


  • #21
    Dennis the Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,358 ✭✭✭Dennis the Stone


    I am pretty sure that I read that Kenny had tried a few times down through the years to buy the land but was refused.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Tago Mago wrote: »
    I am pretty sure that I read that Kenny had tried a few times down through the years to buy the land but was refused.
    I think that was one of the basis for the old fellas arguments. He claimed that since Kenny was trying to buy the land, then he achnowledged that the old guy owned it.


  • #23
    mikemac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,968 ✭✭✭✭mikemac


    BigglesMcGee wrote: »
    My Parents have a piece of land that is too much of a pain to keep tidy. They have let the neighbour use it for free for the last few years for their sheep and not even thought about getting access to it.

    Well no things have chnged. They are going to have to collect rent or kick the neighbour off now. And they dont really want to do either. The neighbour will feel like my parents think they are potential Kennys', which is not what my parents think at all, but now need to protect themselves.

    Get a contract and charge them €1 in rent a year.
    Since your parents don't seem bothered about getting rent it can be a nominal amount but the fact that you are getting rent proves they own it


  • #24
    ferdi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,598 ✭✭✭ferdi


    Pat Kenny: Squatter. An artist's impression.

    see attachment.


  • #25
    niceirishfella
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,538 ✭✭✭niceirishfella


    ferdi wrote: »
    Pat Kenny: Squatter. An artist's impression.

    see attachment.

    Well, he's definately SQUATTING there.........and is the whip for BEATING the BADGERS around his new SCRUB land!??!!!!?!?!?!:D


  • #26
    bottletops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 160 ✭✭bottletops


    ferdi wrote: »
    Pat Kenny: Squatter. An artist's impression.

    see attachment.


    That's ruined lunch for me then


  • #27
    darkman2
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,632 ✭✭✭darkman2


    I wonder what the people in Dalkey think of PK with his 'squatters rights'........this sort of thing has more in common with travellers.


  • #28
    Dennis the Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,358 ✭✭✭Dennis the Stone


    humanji wrote: »
    I think that was one of the basis for the old fellas arguments. He claimed that since Kenny was trying to buy the land, then he achnowledged that the old guy owned it.

    Another thing, that would suggest to me that Kenny would have won, as it seemed the Judge was pressing them to make a settlement because she didn't want to see the Charlton's left without what used to be their land. Plus the fact that he never wanted to sell to the Kennys but now he did, perhaps because he knew he was about to lose it


  • #29
    BigglesMcGee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭BigglesMcGee


    Tago Mago wrote: »
    Another thing, that would suggest to me that Kenny would have won, as it seemed the Judge was pressing them to make a settlement because she didn't want to see the Charlton's left without what used to be their land. Plus the fact that he never wanted to sell to the Kennys but now he did, perhaps because he knew he was about to lose it


    But all the charltons had to say was that they used to go sunbathing down there in the summers and the kids / grand kids used to play there. and only got pissed when kenny but a lock on the gate. That they didnt feel the need to scold Kenny for using the land as they didnt mind them using it either.
    Now both use the land and its very hard to prove they didnt.


  • #30
    escobar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 283 ✭✭escobar


    BigglesMcGee wrote: »
    But all the charltons had to say was that they used to go sunbathing down there in the summers and the kids / grand kids used to play there. and only got pissed when kenny but a lock on the gate. That they didnt feel the need to scold Kenny for using the land as they didnt mind them using it either.
    Now both use the land and its very hard to prove they didnt.

    Yeah definitely think that Kenny would have won the case. He's hardly going to go to court when his name isn't on the deeds and he's no hope of winning. I'd say thet was a ploy by the charltons to get more money...

    If the Charltons also used the land surely squatters rights doesn't apply ...otherwise I might as well walk into my neighbours garden and stick a bird house up for them and help them with their flower bed while i'm at it..


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Dennis the Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,358 ✭✭✭Dennis the Stone


    BigglesMcGee wrote: »
    But all the charltons had to say was that they used to go sunbathing down there in the summers and the kids / grand kids used to play there. and only got pissed when kenny but a lock on the gate. That they didnt feel the need to scold Kenny for using the land as they didnt mind them using it either.
    Now both use the land and its very hard to prove they didnt.


    I never said that Kenny was in the right, I just don't see how it was a successful result for the Charltons, if Kenny's claim for adverse possession was not strong enough then surely Charlton would not be settling now nut instead would press on and be claimed rightful owner?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement