Man told he can stay in ghost estate home

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

It's not a residential building. He moved into a house that has been collecting mould and probably will never be lived in for a very long time. No harm done to me or anyone.

That's not true. If NAMA sold the plot tomorrow to a new investor what would happen with him?

The fcuker would probably end up with a free house.

Just wanna get my head around this so here is the background.

Mr. Tuohy is in receipt of disability allowance of 188 per week, and living in private rented so is also in receipt of Rent Allowance meaning he is paying approx €24 per week in rent. He is on the housing list and has been on it for five years now. He is a father of seven despite the fact he has no means to support even one child.

Mr. Tuohy decides to leave his private rented due to a problem with the landlord and decided he isnt going to look for another private rented property as €24 per week is too much to pay in rent. So he decides he would rather live rent free instead, so he goes to a housing estate and walks around it until he finds one suitable then proceeds to break into this house and begins squatting in it. Using tax payers money he paints the house and lays a wooden floor all the while collecting his disability payment. The Guards are then called to the house as the neighbours have noticed somebody squatting in it, the case proceeds to court where Mr. Tuohy declares he will pay rent and arrears to the owner knowing full well NAMA are the owners and therefore there is nobody to pay this rent or arrears too.

The stupid judge says he can reside there most likely because a case like this has never been before the courts so no precedence has been set to deal with something like this so the judge decides to make it someone elses problem so does nothing.

Now people say that the Local Authority should buy this house (using tax payers money or a magic pot of gold), should repair this house bringing it up to the required standard (using tax payers money or a magic pot of gold) and let Mr. Tuohy reside there as a social housing tenant. Despite the fact Mr. Tuohy is not eligible for a 3 bed house under the social housing regulations, despite the fact Mr. Tuohy is not next on the list to be offered tenancy, despite the fact Mr. Tuohy has no intention of ever paying rent be it to a landlord or to the local authority he still should get this house.

Mr. Tuohy should be rewarded for withdrawing from society and leeching off the state and breaking the law. He should actually be rewarded with first place on the housing list, with a house he is not eligible for, with a house he is not entitled to?

Is that about the gist of it El_flybot or Magic Sean?

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

I think he should be allowed stay there until an owner is found is my opinion on the matter.

NAMA owns it so GTFO Mr. Tuohy

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

NAMA is not a person though, they aren't living in it.

NAMA owns it so they are entitled to do whatever they like with it, you said he should be allowed stay there until an owner is found well NAMA owns it, so I think you are missing your point here.

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

They are selling it, when someone is found to buy it with a view to living in it I would imagine he has to leave. The property has been heated so it will have less mould and dampness, so the new owners can take Mr Tuohy.

Can take him where, I doubt they will want him given that he is an ex junkie scumbag.

Well hows about this radical idea, Mr. Tuohy can stay there if he buys it?:eek:

I have said previously i dont see a problem with him staying there if he is willing to pay rent for a brand new 3 bed semi in that area, and provided NAMA are willing to become a letting agency!!!!

Noreen1 wrote: »

Why can't NAMA collect rent from him/people on the social housing waiting list, and offset it against the loans that they are meant to maximise returns on?

If this man is able to find a habitable house, and decorate it for 2,000, then there must be similar properties out there that could be finished by tenants,(with the costs offset against rent,) or by unemployed construction workers.
The cost of the raw materials would surely be quickly offset by the saving in rent allowance.

A little bit of creative thinking could save a lot of people from years of misery.

There is no reason, in fact, why single people shouldn't be given one-bed apartments where the couple owning them are stuck in negative equity, and want to start a family, and transfer the couple to a family home.

Fair enough, it would probably take a few new laws - but if NAMA can be set up from scratch, then it can also be amended.

It seems to me to be more cost-effective than bulldozing these properties, in some cases at least.

God knows, there are plenty of people out there in need of housing - and most of them are decent people. It's not the average persons fault that FF made an unqualified mess of the countries finances.

The question is, will red tape be allowed to continue to benefit speculators at the expense of the citizens, or will people be allowed to contribute to cleaning up the mess in a constructive manner?

Somehow, I'm not very hopeful that it will be the latter.

NAMA aren't a letting agency and never will be. People on the housing waiting list pay rent to thier landlords so no need for NAMA to collect it for them.

People in receipt of rent allowance are housed in RAS housing after 18months and taken off the housing list therefore stopping their rent allowance and lowering the numbers on the housing list, plus they pay the same rent they would pay in a social house

farna_boy wrote: »

As I have pointed out, why isn't Mr Tuohy renting? If he can afford to spend €2000 over 4 months on doing up this property, why didn't spend that money on rent? There are 16 properties available in Co. Offaly (all 3 bed) for €500 or less.

I agree there are plenty of people out there in need of housing, however, Mr Tuohy is not one of these people.

And with rent allowance he'd even pay less than €500 and could have a 3 bed detached bungalow ffs

http://www.daft.ie/searchrental.daft?id=1126178

flutered wrote: »

i believe that at on the start of this thread it is said that this work was carried out with the help of family and friends.

wrong.

"The house had a fitted cherrywood kitchen and bathroom and he painted the walls, put down flooring and dealt with a serious mould problem that developed while the house was vacant for three years.

There were no electrical appliances so he bought his own but said much of the furniture had been donated by family and friends."

donalg1 wrote: »

NAMA aren't a letting agency and never will be. People on the housing waiting list pay rent to thier landlords so no need for NAMA to collect it for them.

Why can NAMA not collect rent, and offset it against loans?

Or have the property owners collect the rent, and pay it to NAMA, if you want?

Where feasible, (ie completed properties, only in need of decoration) - it could maximise the return on loans, reduce the amount spent on rent allowance, and provide people with decent housing. It's a win/win situation, unless you're a private landlord, when you might just have to reduce rents.

Then the question is whether protecting the private landlords is more cost effective for the state, than providing affordable housing, while maximising returns for NAMA.
And whether the social (and electoral) cost is worth it?

Noreen1 wrote: »

Why can NAMA not collect rent, and offset it against loans?

Or have the property owners collect the rent, and pay it to NAMA, if you want?

Where feasible, (ie completed properties, only in need of decoration) - it could maximise the return on loans, reduce the amount spent on rent allowance, and provide people with decent housing. It's a win/win situation, unless you're a private landlord, when you might just have to reduce rents.

Then the question is whether protecting the private landlords is more cost effective for the state, than providing affordable housing, while maximising returns for NAMA.
And whether the social (and electoral) cost is worth it?

These houses are not up to standard so can you please tell me where the money to fix these is going to come from??? So far nobody else has been able to tell me this yet still insist on saying the government should rent these properties to whoever wants to squat in them,

Rubbish. Some of these houses are not up to standard - they would require extensive work to finish, and have been exposed to the elements for too long.

Some of them most certainly are up to standard.

Others would require very little to finish to an acceptable standard.
Why can't unemployed construction workers be provided with the raw materials to finish these houses on a voluntary basis?
Are you seriously saying that private developements weren't of an acceptable standard for social housing? Tenants could paint them themselves. Kitchens etc don't cost that much. If they are installed by people who are already claiming unemployment benefit anyway, then they can be installed for the price of a few weeks rent allowance.

Houses end up finished at cost price. Everyone wins.

eth0 wrote: »

Fair play to Mr. Tuohy, I'd nearly hop in the car and drive to his new ghost estate home to shake his hand and bring him a bottle of brandy if I knew where the feck it was.

I really don't understand this mentality of people up to their eyes in mortgages they bought into themselves who have decided to keep paying them every month scoffing at people who take another option

Here you have a bunch of empty houses, considered sub-standard by many. There have been stories in the past of people desperately trying to get out of these places. So this fella wants to go away and live in one, even spent his own money doing it up so he's clearly not doing any harm in there or making it worse.

But no some seem to think that leaving this fella homeless and keeping those ghost estates empty is essential to keeping their capitalist debt based puppet show alive. These people are clinging on to a failed system, if they are so unhappy paying their mortgage why not try out squatting & refurbishing a ghost estate house themselves? they'll soon find its not all its cracked up to be and would probably run away from it the minute they open the front door.

It would be better if these houses were allocated for free or almost free to people wanting to look after them with the owner coming around to make sure they're not making a mess. Or sold at auction to people who don't have a house and agree to live there for the next 5 years (therefore keeping away any "investors"). Its a shame to see this resource going to waste especially if you can get people willing to improve the property themselves. The real scumbags are the people keeping these houses empty while there's homeless people on the street and the government is either unwilling or unable to sort out this mess so its good to see Mr Tuohy taking some initiative.

He was never homeless.

Sold at auction to people who dont have a house? How can a homeless person afford a house. Dont you think a homeless person who can afford a house would not be homeless????

Living rent free in someone elses house wouldnt be "all its cracked up to be" genius!!!!

Spent his own money doing it up?? No spent tax payers money doing it up.

Its in Church Hill Tullamore, so off with ya.