Man told he can stay in ghost estate home

Sure its grand, these boys have it all figured out, the entire working population quits their jobs, goes on dole and squats in empty nama houses. Financal crisis over, utopia achieved - simples!

MagicSean wrote: »

It's not too hard to imagine where he got the money. He was on disability and he was effectively homeless. Not particularly hard to save money when all you have to spend money on is food.

I dislike scroungers as much as anyone. But this guy is trying to get his life back in order after making mistakes. So what if he gets some help from the social? That's what it's for. And I'm sure the developer or NAMA will be delighted to get rent from a write off property, no matter who is paying for it.

I fail to see exactly who is losing out in this whole situation.

How?

Did he get a job to help provide for his 7 kids?

Custardpi wrote: »

Sooopie wrote: »

Well if your problem is with who's paying the rent then why not let him live rent free? From the owner's perspective, having a caretaker living in & maintaining an otherwise declining asset is a net benefit to which the addition of rent from the local authority would be an added bonus.

As I've stated repeatedly, in the event of a comprehensive, cost-benefit analysed resolution to the house's future being capable of implementation, whether that be demolition, sale by private treaty or rent to private tenants,etc, the relevant authorities would be quite justified in requesting Mr Tuohy to vacate the premises. In the absence of such a scenario turfing him out will have only one possible outcome (apart from the warm, fuzzy feeling it might give you): the house continues to decay into nothing, serving no purpose or benefit.

we're paying the rent

Sooopie wrote: »

by squatting in a house?

great plan, sure if we all took his lead, we'd be laughing, wouldn't we?

easy as to take up residence in a house we didnt pay for, and do it up with our hand outs off the state

he's got the right idea alright, i subscribe to his newsletter

We wouldn't be laughing, but if people in this country had regarded housing as a need, rather than a get rich quick scheme as many did during the celtic tiger then we wouldn't be in quite as big a hole as we're in, would we? The fact remains that you have offered no realistic alternative which would benefit both the owner & society more than letting this guy live in a house which nobody wanted & thus maintaining a declining asset. All you have done is spout irrational bile & hatred.

Even if he were to pay nothing (& he has indeed offered to pay money & arrears from his entitlements for a disability) towards the cost of the house that is only because the house isn't worth much, otherwise it would have been sold. Now that's no doubt a kick in the teeth to those who paid loolah money for their house in the boom but kicking the guy out in the current climate will do damn-all to improve their situation.

Custardpi wrote: »

We wouldn't be laughing, but if people in this country had regarded housing as a need, rather than a get rich quick scheme as many did during the celtic tiger then we wouldn't be in quite as big a hole as we're in, would we? The fact remains that you have offered no realistic alternative which would benefit both the owner & society more than letting this guy live in a house which nobody wanted & thus maintaining a declining asset. All you have done is spout irrational bile & hatred.

Even if he were to pay nothing (& he has indeed offered to pay money & arrears from his entitlements for a disability) towards the cost of the house that is only because the house isn't worth much, otherwise it would have been sold. Now that's no doubt a kick in the teeth to those who paid loolah money for their house in the boom but kicking the guy out in the current climate will do damn-all to improve their situation.

I'm sorry, but what realistic alternative do others have, who are at risk of being homeless after loosing their jobs, who can't afford their mortgages, who can't afford to feed their children, who have worked hard all their lives, paid their taxes and contributed to society, who now find themselves in servere hardship and difficulity?

My concern and loyalty lie with those. Not some scrounger, who has 7 kids and has had his hand out, and who now, thinks he's intitled to take something that does not belong to him.

Sooopie wrote: »

I'm sorry, but what realistic alternative do others have, who are at risk of being homeless after loosing their jobs, who can't afford their mortgages, who can't afford to feed their children, who have worked hard all their lives, paid their taxes and contributed to society, who now find themselves in servere hardship and difficulity?

My concern and loyalty lie with those. Not some scrounger, who has 7 kids and has had his hand out, and who now, thinks he's intitled to take something that does not belong to him.

I agree that those people should of course be prioritised, but how exactly will kicking the guy out now help those people? As I've said repeatedly if the relevant authorities have a practical solution to the house's future which is better from the point of view of both society & the owner than the one which will result from turfing him out given current circumstances (ie the property rotting) then Mr Tuohy should vacate the premises. In the absence of such a solution turfing him out serves no purpose other than to satisfy an ideological urge.

rubadub wrote: »

How come there are still "squatters rights", why have they not been abolished, seems like some outdated law. The government/councils have been caught out before by these bizarre "rights", I think they have do pay a fortune to some homeless guy claiming ground near the N11 before.
Just change or update the laws so the taxpayer/government cannot be screwed, or am I missing something here?


Its like him being let off stealing a BMW, since he gave it a bit of a wash, new hubcaps and polished up the leather seats.

Yeah, because a BMW is comparable to the worthless piles of decaying bricks which are the emblems of our economic lunacy. FFS!:rolleyes:

ThinkAboutIt wrote: »

LOL. You couldnt have made up a better story to troll Boards.ie!

16 pages now.. :pac:

Thats unbelievable. So basically, if you're down in luck, broke at the time, but find an empty un-used house, take it. daylight robbery in my opinion. Changed my mind on the revising the education system here in this Ireland, we're raising a bunch of morons.

Whats so brilliantly wonderful about a person who scammed the system because of a riddiculous law?

I may come across as a complete heartless person here, but everyone should have to pay rent/morgage and as for waiting lists, its life. Everyone has to get in line for things. Dont see why people should and others shouldnt.

Going to be an influx of people squatting on land/housing they "believe" is not in use. Riddiculous decision in my opinion. But the law is the law, would have made more sense to fix him up with proper social welfare benefits until he could get back on his feet.