Man told he can stay in ghost estate home

Monty Burnz · 15-10-2011 12:03PM

westendgirlie wrote: »

What I mean is that hopefully some day there will be a property market again. And if someone wanted to sell their house the asthetics (sp) of the area would be a better selling point. Am I making sense?

For sure. But there's always this sort of unspoken assumption that high property prices are a good thing. The most successful economy in Europe, Germany, has had a flat or falling property market for 20 years.

Sooopie · 15-10-2011 12:03PM

westendgirlie wrote: »

What I mean is that hopefully some day there will be a property market again. And if someone wanted to sell their house the asthetics (sp) of the area would be a better selling point. Am I making sense?

Looking at a house and finding out that your neighbour is a squatter would have me looking elsewhere personally.

westendgirlie · 15-10-2011 12:06PM

If he starts paying rent to the owner even if that turns out to be Nama then he is a tenant, not a squatter.

Sunnyisland · 15-10-2011 12:07PM

Eleganza wrote: »

Disability benefit is great. No need to turn up to sign on and pretend to be seeking work. No one forcing you to go on any training courses of any description that you have no interest in because you are a shiftless waster.
Entitles you to other social welfare benefits; Would you like a Medical Card? Why thank you.

Eleganza wrote: »

you're the one drawing the inference that my statement applies to all recipients of disability benefit.
I have a close family member with intellectual difficulties who is in receipt of it for genuine reasons.

With the post above cant see how you were not inferring that all recipients are shiftless wasters so yes I did take that inference.

Sooopie · 15-10-2011 12:08PM

westendgirlie wrote: »

If he starts paying rent to the owner even if that turns out to be Nama then he is a tenant, not a squatter.

we'll be paying that

drdeadlift · 15-10-2011 12:10PM

Sooopie wrote: »

we'll be paying that

Would make you think who the real idiots are

Monty Burnz · 15-10-2011 12:12PM

realies wrote: »

With the post above cant see how you were not inferring that all recipients are shiftless wasters so yes I did take that inference.

Point of information: the person speaking implies something. The person listening infers something.

So in this post I might be implying that you are a dumb-ass, whereas you might infer from what I'm saying that I'm an up-himself know-it-all...:pac:

donalg1 · 15-10-2011 12:13PM

westendgirlie wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

What's an election got to do with the council taking over an estate? The council isn't running in the election? And why would they take over a half finished estate so they can pay millions in finishing and maintenance?

Because the council is made up of councillors and I think I am correct in saying that roads, lighting, etc are taken over by the local authority after X amount of years

Its not the councillors that take over estates its the local authority!!!!

They certainly don't and won't take over half built estates they only ever take over estates that need no works done to them. Why should they spend millions finishing what a developer started.

So an election has absolutely nothing to do with taking in charge of an estate.

And even if the local authority does take over an estate they can't do anything with a vacant house in it as they have nothing to do with this

Sunnyisland · 15-10-2011 12:17PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Point of information: the person speaking implies something. The person listening infers something.

So in this post I might be implying that you are a dumb-ass, whereas you might infer from what I'm saying that I'm an up-himself know-it-all...:pac:

Thanks for that monty burnz

15-10-2011 12:17PM

Dotrel wrote: »

Bloody scrounger.

OT (slightly diff scenario). Say I have a house bought and paid for and I decide to take off somewhere for a year and leave the place unoccupied. Does that give the right for some chancer to move in and live there?

I dunno about Ireland but if someone decides to squat in your house in London, it's a nightmare to get them out. There are always stories in the paper about families going on holiday or even to the shops and returning to find their belongings in the front garden and a family living inside their house.

flutered · 15-10-2011 12:24PM

wyndhurst wrote: »

FFS....What a country!
A perfectly able bodied man on a disability payment. Clearly nothing wrong with him after laying floors, painting walls, renovating a house and fathering seven children.
Another example of the abuse of the welfare system.
Now, if he would only use the same ingenuity to go get himself some work and out of our pockets.

and your medical credencials are .........

suicide_circus · 15-10-2011 12:24PM

Lets see....how about I quit my job, despite being fit to work, stop paying my rent and income tax, start abusing drugs, claim disability (i was diagnosed with major depression myself last year), have my rent, medical card, public transport and various other 'entitlements' paid for by the state, get a few young ones up the duff and have the state support them too. Then i'll find an empty property, use my spare state cash to fix it up and then have the courts award me the house for free.
Then when someone posts the story on boards.ie people will say 'fair play to him'....
Can this be right???
I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS!!!

flutered · 15-10-2011 12:27PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

No, probably not, but should we put him out on the street to appease those stupid enough to spend 400k on a 3 bed semi?

Like I said, he should not be living there for free, if he's made to pay rent then I don't see a problem.

i a gree with you, as he has offered to pay rent, plus the fact that the house retains some semblanse of value while he inhabits it.

Sooopie · 15-10-2011 12:29PM

flutered wrote: »

i a gree with you, as he has offered to pay rent, plus the fact that the house retains some semblanse of value while he inhabits it.

Isn't he wonderful?

How's he going to pay his rent? Out of his disability payments?

Thats big of him.

suicide_circus · 15-10-2011 12:32PM

Sooopie wrote: »

Isn't he wonderful?

How's he going to pay his rent? Out of his disability payments?

Thats big of him.

Ah no he wont be expected to pay out of his disability, sure he'll get rent allowance for that.

Sooopie · 15-10-2011 12:34PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ah no he wont be expected to pay out of his disability, sure he'll get rent allowance for that.

hope he gets a fuel allowance too, its going to be a cold winter, he'll need to keep his 3 bed gaff nice and cosy.

Mr. Presentable · 15-10-2011 12:39PM

Judge Catherine Staines dismissed the case, saying there was no evidence that he had intended to commit an offence.

Is stealing a house not an offence?

Hmmm, must find brass neck

mickydoomsux · 15-10-2011 12:43PM

I can't actually believe some people are defending this guy.

He essentially stole a house, is creaming the welfare system for everything he can get while pumping out kids and yet people are coming out in his defense?

Oh, the poor dear is "disabled" because he's a drug addict? Boo-****cing-hoo. Nice of him to offer to pay rent with the money he doesn't earn, but only after he got caught.

Laughable stuff really. It's disgraceful that we allow situations like his to even exist in the first place. I genuinely wonder why i bother my arse getting up at 5 in the morning to go to work.

Sooopie · 15-10-2011 12:47PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

I can't actually believe some people are defending this guy.

He essentially stole a house, is creaming the welfare system for everything he can get while pumping out kids and yet people are coming out in his defense?

Oh, the poor dear is "disabled" because he's a drug addict? Boo-****cing-hoo. Nice of him to offer to pay rent with the money he doesn't earn, but only after he got caught.

Laughable stuff really. It's disgraceful that we allow situations like his to even exist in the first place. I genuinely wonder why i bother my arse getting up at 5 in the morning to go to work.

suicide_circus · 15-10-2011 12:53PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

I can't actually believe some people are defending this guy.

He essentially stole a house, is creaming the welfare system for everything he can get while pumping out kids and yet people are coming out in his defense?

Oh, the poor dear is "disabled" because he's a drug addict? Boo-****cing-hoo. Nice of him to offer to pay rent with the money he doesn't earn, but only after he got caught.

Laughable stuff really. It's disgraceful that we allow situations like his to even exist in the first place. I genuinely wonder why i bother my arse getting up at 5 in the morning to go to work.

+1million
As usual, those who contribute nothing and are well up on all their entitlements but none of their responsibilities are handed money, housing, transport, medical care etc on a plate, while those who make the effort and bust their balls every day just to get by are squeezed and fleeced to finance the former. Something is very wrong with this society.

Sonics2k · 15-10-2011 12:55PM

Like any of you wouldn't do the same or similar if you needed to :rolleyes:

Sooopie · 15-10-2011 12:56PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

+1million
As usual, those who contribute nothing and are well up on all their entitlements but none of their responsibilities are handed money, housing, transport, medical care etc on a plate, while those who make the effort and bust their balls every day just to get by are squeezed and fleeced to finance the former. Something is very wrong with this society.

my mam works in grants - you would not believe how clued up these people are, they have it down to a tee - everything they are intitled to they make sure they get, and they're still not happy and want more

Sooopie · 15-10-2011 12:56PM

Sonics2k wrote: »

Like any of you wouldn't do the same or similar if you needed to :rolleyes:

nope, i'm no scumbag leech.

Noreen1 · 15-10-2011 12:58PM

Hmm. IMO, this guy is a first class chancer.
He's managed to get himself a nice home, on a mainly occupied estate, for free.

On the other hand - he has also improved the value of the property, therefore doing the taxpayer a (backhanded) favour.

I'm torn. On the one hand, I'd prefer to see empty houses being used for social housing, and generating at least some income, while maintaining them in a decent condition.
On the other hand - why should anyone now bother to actually buy a house?

I think maybe the solution is for a way to be found to maximise the return to the taxpayer for NAMA - such as renting them out as social housing, thus maintaining them in good order, while generating some rental income. If NAMA can be set up, then I don't see why a way can't be found for it to maximise it's return for the taxpayer through rental income. That is (supposedly) its purpose - to maximise the return on loans it has taken over.

It would help a lot of genuine people, for example young couples trapped in negative equity apartments, etc., who are doing their best to pay their mortgage, but have no hope of a decent quality of life for many years to come.

Handing over a house to a squatter, on the other hand, sets a very unwise precedent imo.

westendgirlie · 15-10-2011 12:58PM

Its not the estate that we want taking over it's the roads, street lights, etc that they are meant to look after.

I'm not very good at explaining myself. But the council received all the info they required with regards to reports on sewers, etc. They never bothered to respond so the topcoat of tarmac was never laid. Now the developer has gone bust and the council say that they cannot take over as there is no topcoat! They also say report is now expired! The elected officials in the council were all for helping resolve this matter before the election. Now, go fish.....

drdeadlift · 15-10-2011 01:07PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

+1million
As usual, those who contribute nothing and are well up on all their entitlements but none of their responsibilities are handed money, housing, transport, medical care etc on a plate, while those who make the effort and bust their balls every day just to get by are squeezed and fleeced to finance the former. Something is very wrong with this society.

I agree with you completely!! But this is the society we are happy to live in.We have 400k+ unemployed and growing and still no protest from the people.
Its easier to make a life elsewhere than to try to change this country.I dont have any gripe with this fella(house is right not a luxury) i have a gripe with the people we vote into power,they are on massive unjustified amounts of money & expenses.No persons have been jailed for gross misconduct yet the state bares the blunt.Maybe it will take until we are flat broke on our backs for justice to be served.Its like we are part of an experiment.

drdeadlift · 15-10-2011 01:10PM

westendgirlie wrote: »

Its not the estate that we want taking over it's the roads, street lights, etc that they are meant to look after.

I'm not very good at explaining myself. But the council received all the info they required with regards to reports on sewers, etc. They never bothered to respond so the topcoat of tarmac was never laid. Now the developer has gone bust and the council say that they cannot take over as there is no topcoat! They also say report is now expired! The elected officials in the council were all for helping resolve this matter before the election. Now, go fish.....

Would there a possibility of everyone on the estate funding the tarmac.

donalg1 · 15-10-2011 01:10PM

westendgirlie wrote: »

Its not the estate that we want taking over it's the roads, street lights, etc that they are meant to look after.

I'm not very good at explaining myself. But the council received all the info they required with regards to reports on sewers, etc. They never bothered to respond so the topcoat of tarmac was never laid. Now the developer has gone bust and the council say that they cannot take over as there is no topcoat! They also say report is now expired! The elected officials in the council were all for helping resolve this matter before the election. Now, go fish.....

Well the council won't take it over even if one light in the estate isn't working so they certainly won't do it if there is something like top coat needs to be done. The councillors will know this so will realise there is no point pursuing it with the developer gone now and especially not if there is no bond in place

MagicSean · 15-10-2011 01:12PM

A bit of confusion i think. The judge didn't give him permission to stay there. She simply made it a civil matter instead of a criminal one. The guy even said he would pay rent. Well done to him. He isn't harming anybody. This is what Nama should be doing anyway.

Predalien · 15-10-2011 01:14PM

Isn't he actually saving the state money? If he was in rented accommodation he'd be getting rent allowance, this way he's just taking up a house no one else is going to live in. He may as well stay there until he gets a place on the housing list.

Man told he can stay in ghost estate home

Comments