Man told he can stay in ghost estate home

smash · 17-10-2011 04:06PM

donalg1 wrote: »

I said that ages ago they should have the house valued and see what a brand new 3 bed semi d in the area goes for probably in around 120 per week (conservative figure) then deduct at source from his social welfare each week leaving him in the house he so desperately wants and still leaving him with €68 per week to live on, that way he can actually pay for the property and the government saves some money.

But he will also have to pay the arrears he owes for the weekly rent since he has been there paying nothing.

Well if he managed to pay over €2k in the last 4 months to renovate it then he can afford to rent it.

FetchTheGin wrote: »

You can't blame the bloke for exploiting it, like so many others wouldn't?

I don't see how taking a house is exploiting a welfare system.

donalg1 · 17-10-2011 04:08PM

smash wrote: »

Well if he managed to pay over €2k in the last 4 months to renovate it then he can afford to rent it.

I don't see how taking a house is exploiting a welfare system.

Its not its stealing end of story,

He can definitely afford to pay the rent on it.

Although some people will argue against this as he wont be left with any income after he pays his for electricity heating and food and this of course would be unfair!!!

One poster even went as far as to say that he should be left with enough money to enable him to have a decent social life!!!! Still chuckling at that.

foxyboxer · 17-10-2011 04:13PM

Imagine if you'd bought in that estate in the early stages and moved in with the jumbo mortgage. The developer goes 'bust' and can't complete the project........you can see where I'm going with this.

foxyboxer · 17-10-2011 04:13PM

Hey kids! Do drugs! Get free gaff!

:rolleyes:

Orando Broom · 17-10-2011 04:15PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

squatters rights ?

you mean Adverse possession

Thought you had to be resident for at least 12 years and the clock gets reset if you have been told to leave by the owner.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2009/en.act.2009.0027.pdf Page 122

Haven't had a full look at the LAND AND CONVEYANCING LAW REFORM ACT 2009 to see if this has changed

It was Ghost estate, he just had to spend one in night in the house to have it bequeathed to him.

laoch na mona · 17-10-2011 04:18PM

this thread has basically became a bitch about anyone on social welfare
the majority of people on this thread have had comfortable lives and never experienced life at the bottom

smash · 17-10-2011 04:19PM

Orando Broom wrote: »

It was Ghost estate, he just had to spend one in night in the house to have it bequeathed to him.

So if I had a holiday home I used once a year and someone moved in a few days after I left could they claim squatters rights because they'd been there for 11 months? doubt it!

Ghost estate or not, he didn't own it and had no permission to use it.

listermint · 17-10-2011 04:23PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

this thread has basically became a bitch about anyone on social welfare
the majority of people on this thread have had comfortable lives and never experienced life at the bottom

basically what ???

If you actually read most of the posts on it i think youll find most posters are giving out about stealing property / squatting or whatever you want to call it.

So i beg you go back read it again, and then you can come back with you 'social welfare' versus the middle classes tripe.

donalg1 · 17-10-2011 04:25PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

this thread has basically became a bitch about anyone on social welfare
the majority of people on this thread have had comfortable lives and never experienced life at the bottom

How do you know me and everyone else on this thread, this isnt a thread bitching about anyone on social welfare its a thread discussing the scumbag who thinks its ok to break into a house and live thier rent free, and its a thread discussing how idiotic people are to actually applaud him for doing this

Orando Broom · 17-10-2011 04:27PM

smash wrote: »

So if I had a holiday home I used once a year and someone moved in a few days after I left could they claim squatters rights because they'd been there for 11 months? doubt it!

Ghost estate or not, he didn't own it and had no permission to use it.

No, only if it was haunted. If the house was not huanted he can not claim possession after one night.

If there is confusion, I would look at House On Haunted Hill (1999) as evidence of the property requiring a supernatural presence in order to see a transfer of wealth/property after one night.

However in the absence of such a supernatural presence the use of the house must return to the person named on the deed once they have returned or requested the return of the property.

Beverley Hills Cop II (1987) sets the precedence here.

laoch na mona · 17-10-2011 04:28PM

smash wrote: »

Ghost estate or not, he didn't own it and had no permission to use it.

it was in nama he technically owns it

Sooopie · 17-10-2011 04:31PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

it was in nama he technically owns it

How so? He is not a tax payer?

smash · 17-10-2011 04:31PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

it was in nama he technically owns it

How? he doesn't pay tax!

listermint · 17-10-2011 04:32PM

Sooopie wrote: »

How so? He is not a tax payer?

smash wrote: »

How? he doesn't pay tax!

Double Burned !!!

FetchTheGin · 17-10-2011 04:38PM

smash wrote: »

I don't see how taking a house is exploiting a welfare system.

Many people made reference to his welfare entitlements, that is why I mentioned it in my post.

donalg1 · 17-10-2011 04:39PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

it was in nama he technically owns it

seriously how does he own please clarify that one for me, i be confused now

suicide_circus · 17-10-2011 04:46PM

RayM wrote: »

The general tone of suicide_circus' posts seems somewhat indignant (to say the least).

Me? Indignant? Indignant about some con artist who is a career drainer of the social social welfare system which I and the othe tax payers fund, who sees an empty gaf and goes "yoink!" and then uses tax payers cash to do it up (despite his inability to work) and then is allowed keep said gaf? while I work like a dog and rent in a houseshare? Me? Indignant? YOURE DAMN RIGHT I'M ****IN' INDIGNANT.

Wibbs · 17-10-2011 04:47PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

this thread has basically became a bitch about anyone on social welfare
the majority of people on this thread have had comfortable lives and never experienced life at the bottom

You're kidding right? I'd say a larger than background level chunk of users on this site are jobless at the moment and/or are in receipt of welfare payments. Others are barely hanging on to jobs/houses/loans by the skin of their teeth. I know a fair few around here like that, so claiming an beal bocht as a debating tactic around here(or in many communities in this country at the moment) is not a great tactic IMHO.

Tiocfaidh Armani · 17-10-2011 04:49PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

Me? Indignant? Indignant about some con artist who is a career drainer of the social social welfare system which I and the othe tax payers fund, who sees an empty gaf and goes "yoink!" and then uses tax payers cash to do it up (despite his inability to work) and then is allowed keep said gaf? while I work like a dog and rent in a houseshare? Me? Indignant? YOURE DAMN RIGHT I'M ****IN' INDIGNANT.

While I’m off the opinion he’s doing no harm I can perfectly understand why some would begrudge him it.

donalg1 · 17-10-2011 04:51PM

Wibbs wrote: »

You're kidding right? I'd say a larger than background level chunk of users on this site are jobless at the moment and/or are in receipt of welfare payments. Others are barely hanging on to jobs/houses/loans by the skin of their teeth. I know a fair few around here like that, so claiming an beal bocht as a debating tactic around here(or in many communities in this country at the moment) is not a great tactic IMHO.

I think laoch na mona has left the thread, probably gone to google NAMA.

listermint · 17-10-2011 04:52PM

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

While I’m off the opinion he’s doing no harm I can perfectly understand why some would begrudge him it.

I still dont get why you are coining terms like begrudge?

as if this chap deserves the house or has done anything deserving of someone elses property.

Tiocfaidh Armani · 17-10-2011 04:55PM

listermint wrote: »

I still dont get why you are coining terms like begrudge?

as if this chap deserves the house or has done anything deserving of someone elses property.

It's a NAMA property and nobody is in it, so no actual person owns it. It's not like someone nipped to shops and he jumped in and wouldn't let the owner back in.

He's used the law to his advantage and people begrudge that right. I think that's fair enough but personally I think he's doing no harm.

EI_Flyboy · 17-10-2011 04:57PM

smash wrote: »

Ghost estate or not, he didn't own it and had no permission to use it.

He gave himself permission and now he has the permission of the courts. The law is on his side no matter how much resentment others show him. If he lasts 12 years there without someone exerting provable ownership, the house is his, end of story as the law currently stands. Whine about it all you like but that's how it is and for good reason. Ask yourself how anyone ever gained title to land or property since day dot...? By possession or exerting ownership, simple as that. All those properties are rotting away because whoever is supposed to be responsible for them obviously isn't very responsible at all. So whoever is supposed to own that house, turns out that that ex-junkie on disability is a feck lot more responsible than them.

Our money is tied up in those ghost estates and that investment is going to rot away as surely as the houses. That man is ensuring that at least one of those houses is still going to be worth something in a few years down the line and as such is protecting our investment. NAMA will no doubt auction off that house at a later date so seeing as they're not doing anything about it I guess it's up to whoever buys it to deal with him. Maybe this will make NAMA take care of our investment properly from now on or else it'll just prove how poorly thought out it was after all, what a surprise that will be. Now I'm sorely tempted to claim the two empty and falling apart NAMA properties beside me.

What I'd like to know is what happened to the people NAMA paid to take care of those estates to make sure they're safe and don't fall apart...

donalg1 · 17-10-2011 05:01PM

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

He gave himself permission and now he has the permission of the courts. The law is on his side no matter how much resentment others show him. If he lasts 12 years there without someone exerting provable ownership, the house is his, end of story as the law currently stands. Whine about it all you like but that's how it is and for good reason. Ask yourself how anyone ever gained title to land or property since day dot...? By possession or exerting ownership, simple as that. All those properties are rotting away because whoever is supposed to be responsible for them obviously isn't very responsible at all. So whoever is supposed to own that house, turns out that that ex-junkie on disability is a feck lot more responsible than them.

Our money is tied up in those ghost estates and that investment is going to rot away as surely as the houses. That man is ensuring that at least one of those houses is still going to be worth something in a few years down the line and as such is protecting our investment. NAMA will no doubt auction off that house at a later date so seeing as they're not doing anything about it I guess it's up to whoever buys it to deal with him. Maybe this will make NAMA take care of our investment properly from now on or else it'll just prove how poorly thought out it was after all, what a surprise that will be. Now I'm sorely tempted to claim the two empty and falling apart NAMA properties beside me.

What I'd like to know is what happened to the people NAMA paid to take care of those estates to make sure they're safe and don't fall apart...

:eek:

Grumpypants · 17-10-2011 05:02PM

He spent 2 grand in four months doing up the house ! 500 euro a month thats almost the cost of renting a house,

Orando Broom · 17-10-2011 05:03PM

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

He gave himself permission and now he has the permission of the courts. The law is on his side no matter how much resentment others show him. If he lasts 12 years there without someone exerting provable ownership, the house is his, end of story as the law currently stands. Whine about it all you like but that's how it is and for good reason. Ask yourself how anyone ever gained title to land or property since day dot...? By possession or exerting ownership, simple as that. All those properties are rotting away because whoever is supposed to be responsible for them obviously isn't very responsible at all. So whoever is supposed to own that house, turns out that that ex-junkie on disability is a feck lot more responsible than them.

Our money is tied up in those ghost estates and that investment is going to rot away as surely as the houses. That man is ensuring that at least one of those houses is still going to be worth something in a few years down the line and as such is protecting our investment. NAMA will no doubt auction off that house at a later date so seeing as they're not doing anything about it I guess it's up to whoever buys it to deal with him. Maybe this will make NAMA take care of our investment properly from now on or else it'll just prove how poorly thought out it was after all, what a surprise that will be. Now I'm sorely tempted to claim the two empty and falling apart NAMA properties beside me.

What I'd like to know is what happened to the people NAMA paid to take care of those estates to make sure they're safe and don't fall apart...

That land is better being returned to agricultural purpose so at least a taxpayer could start to earn an income off it. Him sitting in one house while fifty rot around him serves no purpose for any side.

drdeadlift · 17-10-2011 05:08PM

Grumpypants wrote: »

He spent 2 grand in four months doing up the house ! 500 euro a month thats almost the cost of renting a house,

No its not

listermint · 17-10-2011 05:09PM

Orando Broom wrote: »

That land is better being returned to agricultural purpose so at least a taxpayer could start to earn an income off it. Him sitting in one house while fifty rot around him serves no purpose for any side.

+100

The whole thing should be demolished along with many others. Leaving them standing as a open house for antisocial activity benefits no one.

There are many estates such as this across the country that should never have been built.

EI_Flyboy · 17-10-2011 05:13PM

Orando Broom wrote: »

That land is better being returned to agricultural purpose so at least a taxpayer could start to earn an income off it. Him sitting in one house while fifty rot around him serves no purpose for any side.

Well there ya go, claim them, rent them out and pay the taxes to the Revenue. Your tax problem solved! That's a lot easier than demolishing them, learning to farm and then farming the land. Unless of course you prefer dogs in mangers!?

EI_Flyboy · 17-10-2011 05:15PM

listermint wrote: »

+100

The whole thing should be demolished along with many others. Leaving them standing as a open house for antisocial activity benefits no one.

There are many estates such as this across the country that should never have been built.

And all those on the housing list...? Demolish those houses and then build more... That makes sense on what level besides begrudgery?

Man told he can stay in ghost estate home

Comments