Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Pensioners evicted from their home today!!

1…457910…40

Comments

  • #182
    coadyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 122 ✭✭coadyd


    i feel for them not a nice thing to happen to nay human
    the problem is the system
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gKX9TWRyfs


  • #183
    philstar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,986 ✭✭✭philstar


    The old fella in the clip says its "reminiscent of an eviction in the 19th century":rolleyes:

    but he's a landlord himself...i reckon he wouldn't hesitate in evicting a tenant if they fell behind in their rent

    (btw - see the size of that bailliff:eek: what a fat bast*rd)


  • #184
    the groutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,096 ✭✭✭✭the groutch


    so the facts are:

    only 1 of them is a penssioner (63 & 71)
    they were given nearly two years notice
    they have multiple other properties, any of which they could have sold to meet repayments.
    they will not be homeless due to above mentioned other properties
    they're still better off financially than 90% of the population


    zero sympathy, total non-story, and stuff like this will probably be rolled out by FG and used as an excuse not to cut pensions.


  • #185
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Don't they have other properties...?


  • #186
    cyrusdvirus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    abouttobebanned wrote: »
    Easy to say that anonymously on the internet. But if we looked a bit closer at your life, would you really be as perfect as you're making yourself out to be?


    Do i live within the laws of the land? Yep. I can tell that because i am not posting from jail, but from the office where i work.

    Do i pay my bills? Yep. I can tell that because i have electricity, telephone, heating oil, internet, and tv service at home.

    Do i owe money? Yep. I can tell that because every month my mortgage gets taken from my account.

    Am i perfect? No. i can tell that because i am human.
    Do i take the piss about not paying my bills? No. I can tell that because i don't have any letters to my door with the words FINAL DEMAND written on them.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    the groutch wrote: »
    they have multiple other properties, any of which they could have sold to meet repayments.
    they will not be homeless due to above mentioned other properties
    they're still better off financially than 90% of the population

    I'm guessing that their other properties were purchased as a retirement fund and are in negative equity with mortgages outstanding. It will be interesting to hear what happens when the full story emerges.


  • #188
    Faolchu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,740 ✭✭✭Faolchu


    abouttobebanned wrote: »
    78 people, and the OP who seem to think that it's ok to physically remove pensioners from their home in this fashion.
    i read it as 79 people that think its ok to remove someone that ignored a court order given 2 years ago, someone that owes 2million euro and has multiple other properties that generate revenue
    abouttobebanned wrote: »
    Removed by a bank who one of the main instigators in the collapse of this country's economy.
    actually they were removed by the ballifs after ignoring a court order for 2 years, the fact that anglo got that order after they presumably failed to pay their mortgage for a long time is irrelevant. teh fat remains a court order was in place, they ignored it and have to suffer for that be the 30 or 60 the rules apply to everyone
    abouttobebanned wrote: »
    Every day we see bloody hypocrites reply to threads on Boards.

    "hi there, i got a threatening letter from the bank today [sic]"

    "Well if you pay your bills on time they won't sent you letters"

    100+ thanks.

    Absolutely sickens me.
    thats 100+ people that think if you enter into a contract and do not keep up your side of the contract that you should be brought to task over it. the bank wont sent threatening letters straight away if you try work with them, if you bury your head in the sand and hope it all blows over then they might send threatening letters.

    the "poor OAP got man handled by the evil bankers" attitude sickens me. this guy was an accountant, that means he was intelligent enough to fully understand the terms of the contract he entered into, if he was idiotic enough to secure his property empire on his family home and then fail to keep up payments then tough **** as far as i'm concerned. hope he enjoys sleeping rough begging for scraps


  • #189
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    If I can't afford something, I do without it. But I'm a bit old-fashioned I suppose.

    If everyone else in this country thought like this, we wouldn't be in such a mess. We have such a culture of instant gratification now its unbelieveable. People have spent their whole adult lives living on credit. I know people who went out of their way to make their wages appear higher than they were in order to get bigger mortgages - the multiples were there for a reason! :eek:


  • #190
    skyhighflyer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,147 ✭✭✭skyhighflyer


    abouttobebanned wrote: »
    That video that was posted about the pensioners being evicted from their home, by the bank that almost single handedly brought the country to its knees.

    You're deluded.

    The reason that Anglo Irish Bank (and many others) was brought to its its knees was exactly because of the gentleman in the video and many others like him.

    Let's look at the background:

    Guy used cheap funds from Anglo to buy up various investment properties in the boom, which loans were then secured on his mansion in Killiney. Property market collapses, loans are called in and the bank enforces against the same property which he willingly mortgaged to the bank when he was looking for funds to buy up investment properties. I'd hazard a guess that the same guy in the video would happily have engaged those same sheriffs to evict one of his own tenants had they failed to pay rent on one of his many investment properties during the good times, but he appears to believe that a different rule applies to him. Is this fair?

    Let's take the analysis a bit further: me, you and the rest of the Irish taxpayer mugs paid some €35 billion to bail out Anglo. Why did Anglo need to be bailed out? Because of reckless lending to the guy in the video and countless others like him who were only too happy to avail of these cheap funds to make themselves richer. These loans were then transferred to NAMA who has a duty to the Irish taxpayer to realise value from these loans. Thus, his loans no longer belong to Anglo, they belong to the Irish taxpayer. As someone on a normal wage paying taxes and charges out the ass while trying to live within my means, I have no interest in subsidising this man's luxury life in Killiney. What happened is what needed to happen: the guy was put out and now the house will be sold in order to pay back the Irish taxpayer at least some of the money they paid bailing out Anglo (as I've already said, because of guys like him).

    I don't even want to start on those who liken this situation to the British evictions of the 19th century. Wake up - we had to go with the begging bowl to the EU and IMF after bailing out the banks. We're not evicting him to pay back out foreign overlords - we're evicting him because we took on his loans that then bankrupted us (rather then him) thus causing the country to seek a bailout. The guy in the video is literally the epitome of why we are in this mess. And yet people feel sympathy for him and feel that he and his wife should be allowed to live in a 6+ bedroom mansion at the taxpayer's expense. The mind boggles.


  • #191
    the groutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,096 ✭✭✭✭the groutch


    smash wrote: »
    I'm guessing that their other properties were purchased as a retirement fund and are in negative equity with mortgages outstanding. It will be interesting to hear what happens when the full story emerges.

    if that's the case, both the bank were very foolish giving mortgages to a man in his 50's (at the time), as was the man himself for taking them.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    blowtorch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 178 ✭✭blowtorch


    + isn't it ironic....... German woman's house repossessed in order to pay back her own country's (Germany) Bank's bets on little auld Ireland.

    - Two years they have had to organize themselves to give back the property.
    Why the surprise and indignation when the day of reckoning arrives?

    On the other hand - what if they defended 'their property' and shot a bailiff or two when they were attacking the door. Would that come under Shatter's new law? (I take it that it would still be deemed as 'their property' until the repossession actually took place)


  • #193
    Tazz T
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,223 ✭✭✭Tazz T


    The old man needs to pay his bills - yes - or face the consequences.

    But the irresponsible banker (who also took part of the risk when lending the money) needs to be held culpable too. They are as much responsible for the mess were in. He should be fired and fined. And if this leads to the banker losing his house as well, well there ya go...

    As for all the people defending the actions of the bailiffs 'doing their job' I truly hope your circumstances lead you to that position one day. In this case, the man has other properties and should lose them to pay the one he's in, but there's plenty of cases where people on the poverty line or who have been giving massive unpayable fines by e-flow for the M50 tolls have their people coming round taking their furniture. In these cases, the law needs to be changed. It's a simple matter or what's right and what's wrong.


  • #194
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    blowtorch wrote: »
    I take it that it would still be deemed as 'their property' until the repossession actually took place

    I'm guessing that since a court order was issued for repossession in 2010 that it's not their property!


  • #195
    abouttobebanned
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,943 ✭✭✭abouttobebanned


    seamus wrote: »
    Sounds like abouttobebanned was too busy getting upset about other people defaulting on their mortgages to actually bother understanding the problems with Sherlock's folly.

    No.

    My problem is with the way these people were treated.

    And my problem with this website is how quick people are to condemn others, as if they themselves are so virtuous. It's hypocrisy, pure and simple.

    By all means, slag me off for my opinion, it's what boards.ie is all about.


  • #196
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    blowtorch wrote: »
    On the other hand - what if they defended 'their property' and shot a bailiff or two when they were attacking the door. Would that come under Shatter's new law? (I take it that it would still be deemed as 'their property' until the repossession actually took place)
    :confused:
    The property was in the ownership of the bank but in the possession of someone else.
    It's not 'their property'.


  • #197
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    abouttobebanned wrote: »
    My problem is with the way these people were treated.

    They were asked to leave repeatedly and they didn't.


  • #198
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    blowtorch wrote: »
    (I take it that it would still be deemed as 'their property' until the repossession actually took place)

    I presume the house had already been repossessed, they were just now being evicted (what right would the bank have to evict them if they hadn't repossessed the house already?).

    abouttobebanned wrote: »
    And my problem with this website is how quick people are to condemn others, as if they themselves are so virtuous. It's hypocrisy, pure and simple.

    If you read the first few pages again you'll notice the division was between people having sympathy and people holding off judgement until the facts were uncovered.

    The facts are uncovered, these people are in the wrong. Legally and ethically.


  • #199
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    abouttobebanned wrote: »
    My problem is with the way these people were treated.
    How would you want them to be treated?


  • #200
    foxyboxer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭foxyboxer


    All I can say is 'Collateral Damage'.

    If you apply for a loan and offer collateral and subsequently can't pay then the bank is obliged to take the collateral, by force if necessary.


  • #201
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    abouttobebanned wrote: »
    And my problem with this website is how quick people are to condemn others, as if they themselves are so virtuous. It's hypocrisy, pure and simple.
    So basically what you're saying is that unless someone is whiter than white, they're not entitled to express an opinion?

    I honour my contracts. If I don't, I will take the consequences. I fail to see how I'm suddenly a hypocrit for expressing that someone else should do the same.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    cyrusdvirus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    skyhighflyer wrote: »
    You're deluded.

    The reason that Anglo Irish Bank (and many others) was brought to its its knees was exactly because of the gentleman in the video and many others like him.

    Let's look at the background:

    Guy used cheap funds from Anglo to buy up various investment properties in the boom, which loans were then secured on his mansion in Killiney. Property market collapses, loans are called in and the bank enforces against the same property which he willingly mortgaged to the bank when he was looking for funds to buy up investment properties. I'd hazard a guess that the same guy in the video would happily have engaged those same sheriffs to evict one of his own tenants had they failed to pay rent on one of his many investment properties during the good times, but he appears to believe that a different rule applies to him. Is this fair?

    Let's take the analysis a bit further: me, you and the rest of the Irish taxpayer mugs paid some €35 billion to bail out Anglo. Why did Anglo need to be bailed out? Because of reckless lending to the guy in the video and countless others like him who were only too happy to avail of these cheap funds to make themselves richer. These loans were then transferred to NAMA who has a duty to the Irish taxpayer to realise value from these loans. Thus, his loans no longer belong to Anglo, they belong to the Irish taxpayer. As someone on a normal wage paying taxes and charges out the ass while trying to live within my means, I have no interest in subsidising this man's luxury life in Killiney. What happened is what needed to happen: the guy was put out and now the house will be sold in order to pay back the Irish taxpayer at least some of the money they paid bailing out Anglo (as I've already said, because of guys like him).

    I don't even want to start on those who liken this situation to the British evictions of the 19th century. Wake up - we had to go with the begging bowl to the EU and IMF after bailing out the banks. We're not evicting him to pay back out foreign overlords - we're evicting him because we took on his loans that then bankrupted us (rather then him) thus causing the country to seek a bailout. The guy in the video is literally the epitome of why we are in this mess. And yet people feel sympathy for him and feel that he and his wife should be allowed to live in a 6+ bedroom mansion at the taxpayer's expense. The mind boggles.


    TOP post


  • #203
    Unrealistic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,387 ✭✭✭Unrealistic


    abouttobebanned wrote: »
    That video that was posted about the pensioners being evicted from their home, by the bank that almost single handedly brought the country to its knees.

    This post received 78 thanks.



    78 people, and the OP who seem to think that it's ok to physically remove pensioners from their home in this fashion. Removed by a bank who one of the main instigators in the collapse of this country's economy.
    They were not evicted 'by the bank that almost single handedly brought the country to its knees' or 'removed by a bank who one of the main instigators in the collapse'. AngloIrish is long gone. The shareholders lost everything and are out of the picture and the people at the top are gone (would be a lot better if they were in jail but that's a separate story). All that remains are the unpaid loans and a new team trying to sort it out on behalf of us citizens/taxpayers who have to pay for this mess. So it's a choice between letting this couple stay rent free in a mansion or taking back the house and selling it. A choice between this couple getting a $2m house for free or a cash strapped state getting $2m that can be used for vital services.

    So yes, it is most certainly OK to physically remove pensioners from their home in this fashion. It is not nice, I got no joy from watching the actual moment when he was manhandled out, but it is OK. It is most definitely OK when you have been given four years to get your act together but you decide to give everyone two fingers instead of dealing with it.

    EDIT: Should have read to the end of the thread before posting. Skyhighflyer made the same points much more eloquently.


  • #204
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    This is a great post, but I think it will be wasted on those who like simple stories and easy answers.
    skyhighflyer wrote: »
    You're deluded.

    The reason that Anglo Irish Bank (and many others) was brought to its its knees was exactly because of the gentleman in the video and many others like him.

    Let's look at the background:

    Guy used cheap funds from Anglo to buy up various investment properties in the boom, which loans were then secured on his mansion in Killiney. Property market collapses, loans are called in and the bank enforces against the same property which he willingly mortgaged to the bank when he was looking for funds to buy up investment properties. I'd hazard a guess that the same guy in the video would happily have engaged those same sheriffs to evict one of his own tenants had they failed to pay rent on one of his many investment properties during the good times, but he appears to believe that a different rule applies to him. Is this fair?

    Let's take the analysis a bit further: me, you and the rest of the Irish taxpayer mugs paid some €35 billion to bail out Anglo. Why did Anglo need to be bailed out? Because of reckless lending to the guy in the video and countless others like him who were only too happy to avail of these cheap funds to make themselves richer. These loans were then transferred to NAMA who has a duty to the Irish taxpayer to realise value from these loans. Thus, his loans no longer belong to Anglo, they belong to the Irish taxpayer. As someone on a normal wage paying taxes and charges out the ass while trying to live within my means, I have no interest in subsidising this man's luxury life in Killiney. What happened is what needed to happen: the guy was put out and now the house will be sold in order to pay back the Irish taxpayer at least some of the money they paid bailing out Anglo (as I've already said, because of guys like him).

    I don't even want to start on those who liken this situation to the British evictions of the 19th century. Wake up - we had to go with the begging bowl to the EU and IMF after bailing out the banks. We're not evicting him to pay back out foreign overlords - we're evicting him because we took on his loans that then bankrupted us (rather then him) thus causing the country to seek a bailout. The guy in the video is literally the epitome of why we are in this mess. And yet people feel sympathy for him and feel that he and his wife should be allowed to live in a 6+ bedroom mansion at the taxpayer's expense. The mind boggles.


  • #205
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,039 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    Who signed off for giving a 2 million mortgage to a pensioner?


  • #206
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    the groutch wrote: »
    if that's the case, both the bank were very foolish giving mortgages to a man in his 50's (at the time), as was the man himself for taking them.
    How was the loan foolish? The guy guaranteed it with his house.


  • #207
    my friend
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,129 ✭✭✭my friend


    Not only would I throw them from what is not their house I would also level a charge for Garda costs incurred

    How many Gardai? How many hours?

    Irish taxpayer on the hook again.


  • #208
    Chairman Meow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,228 ✭✭✭Chairman Meow


    I feel sorry for them in the sense that its got to be hard for anyone to be evicted from their home, especially older people, but at the same time, as has been said, they has 2 years warning, and own multiple other properties. Surely they couldve sold one, or stopped leasing one and moved into that? So honestly no, i dont really have much sympathy for them.


  • #209
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    blowtorch wrote: »
    On the other hand - what if they defended 'their property' and shot a bailiff or two when they were attacking the door. Would that come under Shatter's new law? (I take it that it would still be deemed as 'their property' until the repossession actually took place)
    It has been Anglo/IBRC's property for the last 2 years. They have just been squatting in it apparently.


  • #210
    cyrusdvirus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    This is a great post, but I think it will be wasted on those who like simple stories and easy answers.

    if those of us who agree with it keep on quoting it then maybe the others will actually gain a bit of understanding.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Duggy747
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,295 ✭✭✭✭Duggy747


    It's not like the bank just appeared out of the blue at their door, dragged them out of the beds and told them to go sleep in a shed.

    They had 2 years to sort this out. Their defiance against the banks got them here, they had multiple properties so they more than likely had options.

    You enter a contract, fail to uphold it then you face the consequences. Rich or poor, young or old, it doesn't matter.

    The man being evicted didn't help matters by acting out, pushing and charging people (what was he going to do with that wheelie bin in front of the Garda?) so I can't see this as an "evil banks come and drag sweet old couple from their quaint little house" thing.

    These were people who rode the wave in the boom years and thought they could ride something like this out.

    As for that comparison to 19th century eviction............disgusting.


Advertisement