Man told he can stay in ghost estate home

donalg1 · 16-10-2011 01:25AM

Custardpi wrote: »

Freddie59 wrote: »

More like common sense. It CANNOT be right for ANYONE to occupy a property which does not belong to them - because they feel like it. End of story.

What exactly is right about thousands of properties lying idle due to the idiocy of bankers & developers? Regardless of your moral indignation, what practical harm is caused by him living in a property which nobody else wanted? Allowing ghost estates to rot rather than tackling the issue (whether that be through giving the houses away to people like this gentleman, demolishing them or whatever) is about as far from common sense as it's possible to get. If you have a better practical use to which the house can be put, why not write to the council & NAMA, who I'm sure will welcome your input.

What right does he have to this property?

Custardpi · 16-10-2011 01:30AM

donalg1 wrote: »

What right does he have to this property?

Technically none, but as I've asked before, what practical harm is he doing by living in it? What practical benefit would accrue to the owner & society in general from turfing him out? This is a failed investment property, not someone's home, nobody is being deprived of it's use, as nobody wanted to make use of it prior to his taking possession. If the owner has a better use to put it to, then of course they are entitled to take it back, as I have repeatedly stated. In the absence of that, what practical benefit does letting the house lie idle & rotting away serve?

Mike 1972 · 16-10-2011 01:32AM

donalg1 wrote: »

He broke into a house and last I heard that's illegal regardless of who owns it

No he didnt.

donalg1 · 16-10-2011 01:36AM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

He broke into a house and last I heard that's illegal regardless of who owns it

No he didnt.

And you know this how. I assume someone gave him the keys then.

donalg1 · 16-10-2011 01:37AM

Custardpi wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

What right does he have to this property?

Technically none, but as I've asked before, what practical harm is he doing by living in it? What practical benefit would accrue to the owner & society in general from turfing him out? This is a failed investment property, not someone's home, nobody is being deprived of it's use, as nobody wanted to make use of it prior to his taking possession. If the owner has a better use to put it to, then of course they are entitled to take it back, as I have repeatedly stated. In the absence of that, what practical benefit does letting the house lie idle & rotting away serve?

So he has no right to it then you agree to that well then I think you agree he should leave it?

Mike 1972 · 16-10-2011 01:41AM

donalg1 wrote: »

And you know this how. .

By reading the original article

Beside youre the one who made the assertion so the onus is on you to back it up.

Leaving aside the rich cornfed iorny of you having a go at me about making assumptions and jumping to conclusions regarding the individual under discussion.

Custardpi · 16-10-2011 01:42AM

donalg1 wrote: »

So he has no right to it then you agree to that well then I think you agree he should leave it?

Again I ask (for the umpteenth time) what practical benefit would that serve & what practical harm is he doing in the absence of a better solution for the property being implemented?

donalg1 · 16-10-2011 01:46AM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

And you know this how. .

By reading the original article

Beside youre the one who made the assertion so the onus is on you to back it up.

Leaving aside the rich cornfed iorny of you having a go at me about making assumptions and jumping to conclusions regarding the individual under discussion.

Mr tuohy said he found it unlocked I assume is what you refer to so you base tour evidence on the word of Mr tuohy the reformed drug addict squatter criminal very reliable source there mike forgive me if I don't take his word as Gospel as I'm not that nieve or stupid

donalg1 · 16-10-2011 01:51AM

Custardpi wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

So he has no right to it then you agree to that well then I think you agree he should leave it?

Again I ask (for the umpteenth time) what practical benefit would that serve & what practical harm is he doing in the absence of a better solution for the property being implemented?

Well for a start the guards wouldn't have to call out and waste their time dealing with him the state wouldn't have to waste money prosecuting him practical enough for ya?

Seriously your argument is ridiculous I'm sure his neighbours who bought their house aren't one bit happy having a squatter living next door.

Why if you agree he has no right being there do you think its acceptable for him to he there. I assume you allow people to squat in your house.

Custardpi · 16-10-2011 01:57AM

donalg1 wrote: »

Well for a start the guards wouldn't have to call out and waste their time dealing with him the state wouldn't have to waste money prosecuting him practical enough for ya?

Seriously your argument is ridiculous I'm sure his neighbours who bought their house aren't one bit happy having a squatter living next door.

Why if you agree he has no right being there do you think its acceptable for him to he there. I assume you allow people to squat in your house.

My house isn't an idle investment property that I have left idle & unmaintained for a long period of time. I live in it & make practical use of it, it's my home. If I was rich enough to own another property I'd be sure to make better use of it than the NAMAed developer has of this house. The guards won't have to call out any more unless the owner has a better use to put the property to, in which case he should of course vacate. The judge has ruled that in the meantime he can stay in the property.

senorwipesalot · 16-10-2011 02:04AM

throw him out de bollix.fcucks sake im paying for him.im sick of that siht.

donalg1 · 16-10-2011 02:04AM

Custardpi wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Well for a start the guards wouldn't have to call out and waste their time dealing with him the state wouldn't have to waste money prosecuting him practical enough for ya?

Seriously your argument is ridiculous I'm sure his neighbours who bought their house aren't one bit happy having a squatter living next door.

Why if you agree he has no right being there do you think its acceptable for him to he there. I assume you allow people to squat in your house.

My house isn't an idle investment property that I have left idle & unmaintained for a long period of time. I live in it & make practical use of it, it's my home. If I was rich enough to own another property I'd be sure to make better use of it than the NAMAed developer has of this house. The guards won't have to call out any more unless the owner has a better use to put the property to, in which case he should of course vacate. The judge has ruled that in the meantime he can stay in the property.

Ffs you just don't get it one post you say he shouldn't be there the next you say he should.

He should be in private rented end of story.

He pays rent to a landlord who then has a tenant which means his house doesn't become unoccupied and derelict and which also means Mr tuohy lives within the law for a change so one house is saved and Mr scumbag has a place to live. And the state doesn't have to waste their time or money dealing with this squatter.

Custardpi · 16-10-2011 02:10AM

donalg1 wrote: »

Ffs you just don't get it one post you say he shouldn't be there the next you say he should.

He should be in private rented end of story.

He pays rent to a landlord who then has a tenant which means his house doesn't become unoccupied and derelict and which also means Mr tuohy lives within the law for a change so one house is saved and Mr scumbag has a place to live. And the state doesn't have to waste their time or money dealing with this squatter.

Where exactly have I contradicted myself? I have clearly stated that in the event of a better use being found for the property he should of course vacate. In the meantime whether he pays rent or not (I personally believe he should btw) what damage is he doing by staying in & maintaining the house to a standard which the judge was impressed by? Again, this is not someone's home, nobody is being deprived of it's use & if the owner (or technically NAMA at this point) feels that they are being deprived of such use they should of course be entitled to take it from him. What's so hard to understand about that?

donalg1 · 16-10-2011 02:16AM

Custardpi wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Ffs you just don't get it one post you say he shouldn't be there the next you say he should.

He should be in private rented end of story.

He pays rent to a landlord who then has a tenant which means his house doesn't become unoccupied and derelict and which also means Mr tuohy lives within the law for a change so one house is saved and Mr scumbag has a place to live. And the state doesn't have to waste their time or money dealing with this squatter.

Where exactly have I contradicted myself? I have clearly stated that in the event of a better use being found for the property he should of course vacate. In the meantime whether he pays rent or not (I personally believe he should btw) what damage is he doing by staying in & maintaining the house to a standard which the judge was impressed by? Again, this is not someone's home, nobody is being deprived of it's use & if the owner (or technically NAMA at this point) feels that they are being deprived of such use they should of course be entitled to take it from him. What's so hard to understand about that?

Its not his house. Its illegal to trespass on someones property what's so hard to understand about that.

Do you know what trespass means.

You say it serves no purpose kicking him out yet I have disproved this countless times and yet you come back with the same argument time and again despite the fact its been shot down more than once

senorwipesalot · 16-10-2011 02:17AM

He is a sponging cnut.Even in the good times where was he?Acting the cnut. Iknow a couple of hundred like him.

Custardpi · 16-10-2011 02:24AM

donalg1 wrote: »

Its not his house. Its illegal to trespass on someones property what's so hard to understand about that.

Do you know what trespass means.

You say it serves no purpose kicking him out yet I have disproved this countless times and yet you come back with the same argument time and again despite the fact its been shot down more than once

You have disproved absolutely nothing, just spouted ideological claptrap while failing to counter my points in any way, shape or fashion. No one was making use of this property, it was nobody's home. If the relevant authorities have a better use to put this property to then of course let them take it back. In the absence of that he is doing no harm a point sensibly arrived at by the judge.

16-10-2011 02:36AM

Custardpi wrote: »

You have disproved absolutely nothing, just spouted ideological claptrap while failing to counter my points in any way, shape or fashion. No one was making use of this property, it was nobody's home. If the relevant authorities have a better use to put this property to then of course let them take it back. In the absence of that he is doing no harm a point sensibly arrived at by the judge.

My neighbor has a car he never uses parked in our estate, by you're reasoning if I can get it started and put it to use then I should be allowed to drive around in it as no one is being hurt by me doing so

take everything · 16-10-2011 02:54AM

What is the owner (developer?) saying about this guy?

sdanseo · 16-10-2011 03:48AM

That OP warmed my heart just a little. There is actually at least one judge in the country with his head screwed on. Fair fúcking play to him and the man concerned.

This is absolutely the way homelessness and housing lists should be sorted. NAMA owns all these homes, they are the property of the state. Absolutely no reason why people with no houses shouldn't be allowed to move into them. Using them as public housing is an absolute no-brainer.

Of couse if NAMA finds someone to buy the houses then they should have to move elsewhere; but only if someone is going to occupy the house legitimately.

Jezzabelle · 16-10-2011 04:04AM

Look, let's face it no one is going to buy half of these **** holes so theoretically speaking, if a man is in need of a home and he is willing to pay good money to rent it (which is what he stated) then I say fair play to him and let him off. I believe this is what should be done with the vast amount of vacant housing available -let's use it for social housing and fit the need that clearly is out there for it at the moment.

Also the court found that he has committed no wrong in relation to the law of adverse possession - the law probably needs to be changed in this regard and I suspect this will be dealt with fairly swiftly otherwise chaos will descend in light of the outcome of the case this week.

mikemac · 16-10-2011 04:12AM

I think the judge took sympathy and made an exception, I don't think the law is badly out of shape or needing huge reform

Took a lot of action to get it where it is now

It's not long ago that trespass was only a civil offense
So travellers would enter your land and the only way to move them on was get an injunction from court. This costs thousands in fees so the boyos would offer to move on for slightly less

- extortion.

Or compo culture had landowners terrified

As for this wagon, fell off a cliff and blamed the landowner :rolleyes:

The Irish Supreme Court has clarified the liability of land owners in what might well be a landmark case. Geraldine Weir-Rogers in April 1997 fell off a Donegal cliff and demanded compensation from the land's owners. Her case rested on the argument that by failing to provide any danger warnings, the owner had acted with "reckless disregard".

A huge amount of lobbying by the Irish Farmers Association that got trespass updated to a criminal offense and made it far simpler and the gardaí can take immediate action.

Eviction didn't happen here and the man was lucky, another judge on another day and he could be out of the house

Sooopie · 16-10-2011 04:57AM

donalg1 wrote: »

Well for a start the guards wouldn't have to call out and waste their time dealing with him the state wouldn't have to waste money prosecuting him practical enough for ya?

Seriously your argument is ridiculous I'm sure his neighbours who bought their house aren't one bit happy having a squatter living next door.

Why if you agree he has no right being there do you think its acceptable for him to he there. I assume you allow people to squat in your house.[/QUOTE]

Sooopie · 16-10-2011 05:00AM

Jezzabelle wrote: »

Look, let's face it no one is going to buy half of these **** holes so theoretically speaking, if a man is in need of a home and he is willing to pay good money to rent it (which is what he stated) then I say fair play to him and let him off. I believe this is what should be done with the vast amount of vacant housing available -let's use it for social housing and fit the need that clearly is out there for it at the moment.

Also the court found that he has committed no wrong in relation to the law of adverse possession - the law probably needs to be changed in this regard and I suspect this will be dealt with fairly swiftly otherwise chaos will descend in light of the outcome of the case this week.

You see, he doesn't work, he can't pay rent

Its us, the arSeholes who'll be paying.

jill_valentine · 16-10-2011 05:09AM

I haven't checked the whole thread, but I presume somebody's already explained why we have a provision for Adverse Possession in the first place? Because if somebody has like, there's nothing to be argued.

There's no value in land going fallow or houses rotting apart while the developers "responsible" for them are playing pass the parcel and putting on the poor mouth.

hatrickpatrick · 16-10-2011 05:47AM

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.

I'm going to assume you've never suffered from depression. You might want to experience even a day of it before you belittle how it affects people.

MagicSean · 16-10-2011 08:50AM

donalg1 wrote: »

What practical harm. How about the precedence it's gonna set? Anyone can move into any vacant house they want without fear of consequences. Its not his house he has no right to be there why can't you see this
Why do you think he has a right to this place?

I assume then that all nama properties are being given away on a first come first served basis then? He broke into a house and last I heard that's illegal regardless of who owns it

He didn't break in. It was open. It's only illegal to trespass if you intend to do harm or commit an offence. He has done neither. There are nearly 20000 unoccupied NAMA properties out there. All of them are effectively owned by the state but are empty. At the same time we are spending billions on rent allowance and the like. Do you not see the problem there?

MagicSean · 16-10-2011 08:56AM

donalg1 wrote: »

Its not his house. Its illegal to trespass on someones property what's so hard to understand about that.

Do you know what trespass means.

You say it serves no purpose kicking him out yet I have disproved this countless times and yet you come back with the same argument time and again despite the fact its been shot down more than once

Just out of interest, do you know what trespass means? Section 13 of the Public Order Act 1994 if you'd like to read up on it.

Monty Burnz · 16-10-2011 09:17AM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Demolish them.

That's what you do with derelict property. You don't hand them out to people who can't be arsed to stay within the system that pays their "wages".

This makes no sense. Sell them to the highest bidder. As I said before, I'd take one of these ghost estate houses in a nice area as a holiday home for a few grand. Fair enough, if they remain unoccupied, unsold, and become a blight on the landscape, then demolish them as an absolute last resort. But I'd rather see them given away as artists communes or something first.

Crazy Horse 6 · 16-10-2011 09:28AM

Fair play to him. This is what happens when people see the politicans,the bankers,developers and the elites get away scott free with the destrution of a nation.

Monty Burnz · 16-10-2011 09:34AM

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

Fair play to him. This is what happens when people see the politicans,the bankers,developers and the elites get away scott free with the destrution of a nation.

To be fair, if you've this attitude, you can't complain about the banks or the developers or Fianna Failure either. It's either all wrong or all right.

Man told he can stay in ghost estate home

Comments