Man told he can stay in ghost estate home

mikemac · 15-10-2011 05:36PM

Custardpi wrote: »

And what will be the realistic outcome of him gtfoing, given both the state of the housing market & the lack of a concrete plan in place to deal with derelict housing? Answer: The house will continue to rot away, attracting rats & further diminishing the quality of life for others on the estate.

Seize the bond from the developer, have the council finish the estate which will create some employment and then reduce the housing list.
List reduced and tenants pay rent to the council.

All better options then demolishing them. This isn't some flood plain in Leitrim, Tullamore is one of the main towns in the midlands and there is a fair size population there

Custardpi wrote: »

his presence is doing no harm whatsoever to the interests of the owner, to whom he has offered to pay rent.

Easy for him to say he'll pay rent, he lives on welfare so it's rent allowance who will be paying. Oh he'll make a contribution to rent allowance but it not much at all.

skelliser · 15-10-2011 05:37PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

My hole.

well there is nothing stopping you or anyone else doing what this guy has done.

And in this case he won. The judge ruled he committed no crime. He cannot be removed from the house for the time being.

If he manages to last the 12 years in the house legally its his under the law.

skelliser · 15-10-2011 05:40PM

Again this situation would not have arisen if NAMA existed.

Thats the real story.

mickydoomsux · 15-10-2011 05:41PM

Custardpi wrote: »

....other than to pander to your hatred of poor people.

He's not "poor". He made a **** choice in his life as regards his drug use and 7 kids and our wooly liberal system has propped him up for years because he is "disabled".

Now he has stolen property and once again the system helps him out by letting him off the hook for his crime. If he ends up paying rent it'll be more money he hasn't earned because he'll get rent allowance.

Do you think it's fair that the 86% or so of the employed workforce should be paying this useless ***** bills because our system is geared to pander to him and other "vunerable", "poor" types rather than people who work for a living?

People complain about bank bailouts without realising that a full third of yearly government spending is on social welfare.

That's in the 10's billions. Every year. Forever. And that spending is slowly growing.

Mike 1972 · 15-10-2011 05:42PM

donalg1 wrote: »

Bottom line is its not his house he's not entitled to be there so he should gtfo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_in_the_manger

Eleganza · 15-10-2011 05:44PM

flutered wrote: »

it is extreamly difficult to draw disability of any type, you have to get doctors, consultants, then social welfare referees to all agree that you are going to recieve it, then one has to present themselves for examination every five to six months.

First learn how to quote properly and secondly understand that disability and illness benefit is where it's at for those who are most intent on not doing a day's hard labour for the remainder of their lives.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/thousands-on-sick-benefit-lsquofit-to-workrsquo-after-medical-checks-2860201.html

Jesus Wept · 15-10-2011 05:44PM

phasers wrote: »

His 29 year old likes to play in the garden?

:-/ I like playing in the garden.

too little too late · 15-10-2011 05:44PM

I don't think any of this is his fault and he is making the most of a crap situation we all are finding ourselves in since the recession started.
Its the social welfare systems fault that he is allowed to claim disability allowance for his 'depression' and the system is so open to fraud, its the governments fault that the housing market failed, its the governments fault that legislation that is so old that it allows "squatters rights". Its not his fault that he was 5 years on the councils housing list - again its the governments fault for the social housing crisis.
Maybe we don't agree with all his motives, but perhaps through no fault of his own he found himself homeless but tonight he sleeps in a home rather than in a hostel or on the streets - where is the moral harm in that ?

mikemac · 15-10-2011 05:47PM

skelliser wrote: »

And in this case he won. The judge ruled he committed no crime. He cannot be removed from the house for the time being.

It doesn't change much. Trespass only changed to a criminal offense in the last decade or so.

A lot of lobbying went on to get it changed from a civil offense to a criminal offense, much of the lobbying from the Irish Farmers Association.
The UK are looking to copy our laws, you saw the trouble the council are having with the travelers in Essex

So just goes back to the old ways which we managed with for decades, the owner launches a civil case and you get him evicted

skelliser wrote: »

If he manages to last the 12 years in the house legally its his under the law.

Nope, by offering to pay rent he has acknowledged he doesn't own it. Even if he stays 12 years it will not be his

Custardpi · 15-10-2011 05:49PM

mikemac wrote: »

Seize the bond from the developer, have the council finish the estate which will create some employment and then reduce the housing list.
List reduced and tenants pay rent to the council.

All better options then demolishing them. This isn't some flood plain in Leitrim, Tullamore is one of the main towns in the midlands and there is a fair size population there

Easy for him to say he'll pay rent, he lives on welfare so it's rent allowance who will be paying. Oh he'll make a contribution to rent allowance but it not much at all.

I said realistic alternative. Given the state of the economy, which Offaly certainly isn't an exception to the money to finish the estate almost certainly isn't there. In the unlikely event that the council do find the money to finish the estate (which would basically mean them paying to carry out work that should have been done by the developer), they may not be able to find buyers for them in any case, given the difficulty in obtaining a mortgage these days.

In the event of the council being in a position to carry out such a plan, whether to sell or rent out the properties they've completed from their own funds, asking Mr Tuohy to vacate becomes a reasonable idea & one which he couldn't in all fairness object too much to. In the absence of such an extremely expensive project being implemented turfing him out serves no practical purpose whatsoever.

donalg1 · 15-10-2011 05:50PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Bottom line is its not his house he's not entitled to be there so he should gtfo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_in_the_manger

I fail to see your point with that one. There is plenty of things I have no need for but that doesn't mean I don't have a right to be annoyed if some scummer decides he wants to steal them.

westendgirlie · 15-10-2011 05:53PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

So some people are screwed by the banks that screwed the country........and others are allowed pick up a home free gratis:eek:.AND THE REST OF US PICK UP THE TAB. A fcuking banana republic if ever there was one.:rolleyes:

What you having a go at me for? I'm not living in it!

Sooopie · 15-10-2011 06:00PM

Custardpi wrote: »

If the owner can find a buyer for the house or someone who wants to rent it privately then the guy should vacate the property, which is clearly an investment property rather than someone's beloved family home. In the absence of such a scenario his presence is not depriving anyone of anything. The work he has done on the house & the maintenance he will no doubt carry out in the future will preserve what little value the house has.

Regardless of your personal feelings about this guy the fact remains that having someone living in & maintaining the house & paying some rent, however small is a far better deal for the owner than the realistic alternative which is letting the asset rot, which was exactly what it was doing prior to this gentleman entering.

erm, where was it stated that he's paying rent????

Mike 1972 · 15-10-2011 06:00PM

donalg1 wrote: »

There is plenty of things I have no need for but that doesn't mean I don't have a right to be annoyed if some scummer decides he wants to steal them.

Weve already established he hasnt stolen anything unless you can demonstrate how he is depriving another of its productive use .

Sooopie · 15-10-2011 06:02PM

stovelid wrote: »

Always got to wonder about people's reactions to these stories. He should pay a nominal rent but the house would be lying empty and falling apart anyway. I can afford a roof over my head so I don't lie awake raging about what others might be getting for free.

CORRECTION

we'll be paying the rent

Custardpi · 15-10-2011 06:03PM

Sooopie wrote: »

erm, where was it stated that he's paying rent????

Read the article ffs: "Solicitor John Hughes explained that his client had been left to his own devices in the house and, as they had recently learned the name of the owner, who is in NAMA, Mr Tuohy would like to pay rent and arrears".

Sooopie · 15-10-2011 06:06PM

too little too late wrote: »

I don't think any of this is his fault and he is making the most of a crap situation we all are finding ourselves in since the recession started.
Its the social welfare systems fault that he is allowed to claim disability allowance for his 'depression' and the system is so open to fraud, its the governments fault that the housing market failed, its the governments fault that legislation that is so old that it allows "squatters rights". Its not his fault that he was 5 years on the councils housing list - again its the governments fault for the social housing crisis.
Maybe we don't agree with all his motives, but perhaps through no fault of his own he found himself homeless but tonight he sleeps in a home rather than in a hostel or on the streets - where is the moral harm in that ?

are you joking? I'm dead certain his "situation" was the exact same before the recession!

Sooopie · 15-10-2011 06:08PM

Custardpi wrote: »

Read the article ffs: "Solicitor John Hughes explained that his client had been left to his own devices in the house and, as they had recently learned the name of the owner, who is in NAMA, Mr Tuohy would like to pay rent and arrears".

:rolleyes:

donalg1 · 15-10-2011 06:10PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

There is plenty of things I have no need for but that doesn't mean I don't have a right to be annoyed if some scummer decides he wants to steal them.

Weve already established he hasnt stolen anything unless you can demonstrate how he is depriving another of its productive use .

Oh have we now.

He stole a house ffs.

Sooopie · 15-10-2011 06:10PM

Custardpi wrote: »

Read the article ffs: "Solicitor John Hughes explained that his client had been left to his own devices in the house and, as they had recently learned the name of the owner, who is in NAMA, Mr Tuohy would like to pay rent and arrears".

I would like to end world poverty

Doesn't mean I will though does it?????

stovelid · 15-10-2011 06:11PM

Sooopie wrote: »

CORRECTION

we'll be paying the rent

So what?

Are you single-handed playing it yourself?

mickydoomsux · 15-10-2011 06:12PM

Sooopie wrote: »

I would like to end world poverty

Doesn't mean I will though does it?????

You already have

Saying you want to do something and actually doing it are the same thing now.

Custardpi · 15-10-2011 06:12PM

Sooopie wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Wow, what a crushing rebuttal of my arguments there. Answering with a single smilie is without a doubt proof of the greatest of intellects. Truly I am in awe at the wisdom & insightfulness of your analysis.

mickydoomsux · 15-10-2011 06:13PM

stovelid wrote: »

So what?

Are you single-handed paying it yourself?

By that logic you can't be annoyed by bank bailouts because you're not single-handedly paying them yourself.

Sooopie · 15-10-2011 06:13PM

Custardpi wrote: »

Wow, what a crushing rebuttal of my arguments there. Answering with a single smilie is without a doubt proof of the greatest of intellects. Truly I am in awe at the wisdom & insightfulness of your analysis.

jog on

you stated that he was paying rent

however, in your quote it was he would like to

not exactly the same thing now is it?

Sooopie · 15-10-2011 06:15PM

stovelid wrote: »

So what?

Are you single-handed playing it yourself?

might as well be the amount i'm down every month

Mike 1972 · 15-10-2011 06:16PM

donalg1 wrote: »

He stole a house ffs.

No he didnt

a person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it.

Unless you can show us an "owner" who is being "deprived" of the property in question it might be a good idea to desist from defaming this good gentleman.

Custardpi · 15-10-2011 06:20PM

Sooopie wrote: »

jog on

you stated that he was paying rent

however, in your quote it was he would like to

not exactly the same thing now is it?

Where exactly in my posts did I state that he was currently paying rent? If you read my posts (I apologise if their content is a tad above your reading level) it's clear that I'm talking of two hypothetical scenarios going forward, one in which he lives in a property which is (& would no doubt continue thus in his absence) rotting away, the other in which he is turfed out to no practical benefit.

Sooopie · 15-10-2011 06:29PM

Custardpi wrote: »

If the owner can find a buyer for the house or someone who wants to rent it privately then the guy should vacate the property, which is clearly an investment property rather than someone's beloved family home. In the absence of such a scenario his presence is not depriving anyone of anything. The work he has done on the house & the maintenance he will no doubt carry out in the future will preserve what little value the house has.

Regardless of your personal feelings about this guy the fact remains that having someone living in & maintaining the house & paying some rent, however small is a far better deal for the owner than the realistic alternative which is letting the asset rot, which was exactly what it was doing prior to this gentleman entering.

here you are, custard pie, paying some rent,

15-10-2011 06:29PM

Custardpi wrote: »

Read the article ffs: "Solicitor John Hughes explained that his client had been left to his own devices in the house and, as they had recently learned the name of the owner, who is in NAMA, Mr Tuohy would like to begin claiming rent allowance in order to pay rent and arrears".

That's what the solicitor meant to say.

Man told he can stay in ghost estate home

Comments