Pensioners evicted from their home today!!

beco2010 · 20-04-2012 12:16PM

can i ask if anyone knows if there tenants were unable to pay there rent or if they lowerd there rent for them. if they did then they have my full sympathy but if not then how can you feal sorry for them

fionny · 20-04-2012 12:17PM

leggo wrote: »

Of course I have, but I'm facing the collective research of a positive hate campaign here determined to destroy the reputation of an elderly couple because they've thrown a bit of a tantrum about being made homeless. I'm one man posting from work, I can't know everything.

So that makes them bastards then yeah?

What makes them gougers and charlatans is the fact that they THINK THEY CAN LIVE IN A 2 MILLION EURO HOUSE WITHOUT PAYING A PENNY FOR IT.

All the while taking in rent for 18 other houses.. that sir is called BULL****.

Duckjob · 20-04-2012 12:18PM

The "begrudging people who are successful" argument is straw-man bullsh*t.

It's not about that. This is about fairness, and the lack of fairness in asking people with less to pay for people with more to keep their "more".

He invested, he got it wrong. Doesn't mean he should be rediculed or reviled, but he needs to man up and face the consequences of his gamble not paying off.

A couple of years ago, I lost what was to me a pretty sizable sum on shares. If things had played out differently I would have made out like a bandit. But I didn't - I lost. It was entirely my decision and it didn't work out.

People need to grow up, take responsibility for their own actions and stop being such babies.

Ghost Buster · 20-04-2012 12:18PM

leggo wrote: »

Of course I have, but I'm facing the collective research of a positive hate campaign here determined to destroy the reputation of an elderly couple because they've thrown a bit of a tantrum about being made homeless. I'm one man posting from work, I can't know everything.

So that makes them bastards then yeah?

Perhaps if you took your time and responded to individual posts addressing the points there in you wouild find this a more satisfying experience. Your scatter shot comments to the effect that we all hate rich people because we are begrudging hate mongers has run its course.

hondasam · 20-04-2012 12:19PM

leggo wrote: »

Huh? Now I could be missing something here (wouldn't be the first time) but how do you know they charge high rents? Obviously it wasn't enough if they couldn't pay the mortgage with a full occupancy?

Such ****e talk, all for the sake of kicking people when they're down. What a horrible, negative little country we are...

The only negative is the Kelly's in negative equity.

Penn · 20-04-2012 12:19PM

jack presley wrote: »

Remember, unless you're a starving, aids inflicted orphan from Uganda, you have no right to complain about anything, ever!

Sorry, but that's a ridiculous statement. Yes, there is always someone in the world worse off than you. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to complain about bad things affecting you. Do you think people have no right to say they're happy unless they just won €650,000,000 in a Mega-Lottery?

fionny · 20-04-2012 12:20PM

Penn wrote: »

Sorry, but that's a ridiculous statement. Yes, there is always someone in the world worse off than you. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to complain about bad things affecting you. Do you think people have no right to say they're happy unless they just won €650,000,000 in a Mega-Lottery?

I think he was being sarcastic? In fact im pretty sure he was.

Penn · 20-04-2012 12:26PM

fionny wrote: »

I think he was being sarcastic? In fact im pretty sure he was.

Ah, you're right.

Err... I mean... So was I....

iguana · 20-04-2012 12:29PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

How would he like to have been evicted I wonder, seeing as they were refusing to leave? Tranquiliser gun? Tazer? Something more 21st century presumably. :rolleyes:

Maybe a 22nd century Star Trek style teleportation?

tiny_penguin · 20-04-2012 12:31PM

leggo wrote: »

Of course I have, but I'm facing the collective research of a positive hate campaign here determined to destroy the reputation of an elderly couple because they've thrown a bit of a tantrum about being made homeless. I'm one man posting from work, I can't know everything.

So that makes them bastards then yeah?

They have chosen to become 'homeless' - they have numerous other properties and 2 years notice to not renew a lease on one of these and move in. The bailiffs didnt show up at their door out of the blue and turf them out.

fionny · 20-04-2012 12:31PM

iguana wrote: »

Maybe a 22nd century Star Trek style teleportation?

I thought we already established this, its simple you put a €50 / €200 euro note on a fishing line place it in sight of the tenants and as they go for it you reel it in... then the person you had situated behind the tree rushes in and locks the doors. simples and humane :P

prinz · 20-04-2012 12:31PM

leggo wrote: »

Such ****e talk, all for the sake of kicking people when they're down. What a horrible, negative little country we are...

For some reason this makes me think of Ger Killally and his wife trying to argue in the Commercial Court that they needed €4,000 per week for living and household expenses in Edenderry.:pac: You'd have to be horrible and negative not to agree with Ger sure, weren't they down at the time the poor dears.

leggo · 20-04-2012 12:34PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Perhaps if you took your time and responded to individual posts addressing the points there in you wouild find this a more satisfying experience. Your scatter shot comments to the effect that we all hate rich people because we are begrudging hate mongers has run its course.

Yeah tbh that's grand, I'm annoying people posting on this instead of working on this stage. I'll just leave on this:

There wouldn't have been a problem with reaction in my eyes had people said "ah that's awful to see, but at the end of the day, you live by the sword etc" That'd pretty much echo my own thoughts on this.

Where there's a problem for me, and when this campaign becomes malicious and unsettling, is the constant pictures painted: these people are all of a sudden greedy, scum, deserved what they got etc etc. People are taking joy in their misery and projecting their own frustrations and grievances on these people with very little basis.

It's the Internet, it's to be expected, it doesn't make it right though. And it saddens me to be honest, if these people were your parents you wouldn't feel the same. That's what we're becoming though: let's just all turn on each other while the Anglo bailiffs rough people up to pay back unsecured bondholders. It's a horrible state of affairs.

Ghost Buster · 20-04-2012 12:35PM

iguana wrote: »

Maybe a 22nd century Star Trek style teleportation?

Gords Gords!!! Doooo something !! Theyre transpooorting an elderly gentelman!!

Ghost Buster · 20-04-2012 12:37PM

leggo wrote: »

Yeah tbh that's grand, I'm annoying people posting on this instead of working on this stage. I'll just leave on this:

There wouldn't have been a problem with reaction in my eyes had people said "ah that's awful to see, but at the end of the day, you live by the sword etc" That'd pretty much echo my own thoughts on this.

Where there's a problem for me, and when this campaign becomes malicious and unsettling, is the constant pictures painted: these people are all of a sudden greedy, scum, deserved what they got etc etc. People are taking pain in their misery and projecting their own frustrations and grievances on these people with very little basis.

It's the Internet, it's to be expected, it doesn't make it right though. And it saddens me to be honest, if these people were your parents you wouldn't feel the same. That's what we're becoming though: let's just all turn on each other while the Anglo bailiffs rough people up to pay back unsecured bondholders. It's a horrible state of affairs.

Why didnt you say so in the first place....... directly to those saying such rather than what seemed to be thinly veiled trolling

iguana · 20-04-2012 12:39PM

Leggo, considering the fact that anyone with no debts and a fiver in their pocket is richer than the Kellys by quite a bit. And considering the fact that we know from numerous polls done over the last few years that quite a high percentage of boardsies not only have no debts but have reasonably substantial savings and as such are an awful lot wealthier than the Kellys how they hell can they be begrudging the wealth of a man with a lot less wealth than them? Stop using words you don't understand the meaning of.

panama · 20-04-2012 12:46PM

Paparazzo wrote: »

Ah yes, it's only "begrudgery". The reason the property bubble existed is because of clowns like Mr Kelly buying 18 properties. Now he wants to live in a house he doesn't even own for free, and because we don't agree, we're begrudgers. :rolleyes:
QUOTE]

+1

fishy fishy · 20-04-2012 12:56PM

leggo wrote: »

Huh? Now I could be missing something here (wouldn't be the first time) but how do you know they charge high rents? Obviously it wasn't enough if they couldn't pay the mortgage with a full occupancy?

Such ****e talk, all for the sake of kicking people when they're down. What a horrible, negative little country we are...

leggo, your credibility on this thread is going the same way as the two people you are defending on here......plummeting rapidly.

Kosseegan · 20-04-2012 01:10PM

fishy fishy wrote: »

not in the case of a family member wanting the property - admit you made a mistake and move on.

When can my landlord evict me?
Your landlord must have a legal reason to do so and it must be listed in the Residential Tenancies Act.
Your landlord can evict you for any one of the following reasons:
You don’t pay your rent, or you frequently pay your rent late.
You or your guest do something illegal in your unit or building.
You cause excessive damage to the apartment or building.
You or your guest unreasonably disturb the landlord or other tenants in the building.
You have too many people living in the unit. In this case, “too many” means a number that is against health, safety or housing standards.
You lied about your income when you applied to rent the unit.
The owner or a member of the owner’s family wants to move into your apartment. In this case, “family” means spouse, child, parent, spouse’s child, spouse’s parent or a caregiver for any of them.
The owner will destroy the building, make extensive repairs that require the unit to be empty, or change the unit so that it is no longer used as housing.

Residential Tenancies Act 2004

S25.
Greater security of tenure not affected.

26.—Nothing in this Part operates to derogate from any rights the tenant enjoys for the time being (by reason of the tenancy concerned) that are more beneficial for the tenant than those created by this Part.

If there is a fixed term lease it provides greater security of tenure than Part 4. what you have quoted above is an extract from a Citzens Advice site which itself is a summary of the legislation. You are making the mistake of relying on secondary sources rather than relying on the basic legislation.

fishy fishy · 20-04-2012 01:23PM

Kosseegan wrote: »

Residential Tenancies Act 2004

S25.
Greater security of tenure not affected.

26.—Nothing in this Part operates to derogate from any rights the tenant enjoys for the time being (by reason of the tenancy concerned) that are more beneficial for the tenant than those created by this Part.

If there is a fixed term lease it provides greater security of tenure than Part 4. what you have quoted above is an extract from a Citzens Advice site which itself is a summary of the legislation. You are making the mistake of relying on secondary sources rather than relying on the basic legislation.

no, what I have quoted has come directly from the PRTB - a legal company set up specifically for landlord/tenant issues. Look it up. not sure if this is the original poster on this disguised as someone else, either way what is listed on the PTRB is true.

Dave! · 20-04-2012 01:27PM

leggo wrote: »

Yeah tbh that's grand, I'm annoying people posting on this instead of working on this stage. I'll just leave on this:

There wouldn't have been a problem with reaction in my eyes had people said "ah that's awful to see, but at the end of the day, you live by the sword etc" That'd pretty much echo my own thoughts on this.

Where there's a problem for me, and when this campaign becomes malicious and unsettling, is the constant pictures painted: these people are all of a sudden greedy, scum, deserved what they got etc etc. People are taking joy in their misery and projecting their own frustrations and grievances on these people with very little basis.

It's the Internet, it's to be expected, it doesn't make it right though. And it saddens me to be honest, if these people were your parents you wouldn't feel the same. That's what we're becoming though: let's just all turn on each other while the Anglo bailiffs rough people up to pay back unsecured bondholders. It's a horrible state of affairs.

People are responding to the sheer arrogance, dishonesty and sense of entitlement that is emanating from this couple. There is NO justification for the crap they're coming out with, and for their actions.

If they were quietly evicted and just tried to deal with it with a bit of humility and pride then most people would probably still have little sympathy for them (given that they brought it on themselves, and they still have 18 properties they can live in), but I doubt there'd be much schadenfraude on display.

That the goons have the cheek to refuse to leave, stick up a tent, get on the radio and compare the situation to the 19th century, claim they're sticking up for the common man, and mention Ghandi... elicits a more extreme reaction to their plight.

Kosseegan · 20-04-2012 01:30PM

fishy fishy wrote: »

no, what I have quoted has come directly from the PRTB - a legal company set up specifically for landlord/tenant issues. Look it up. not sure if this is the original poster on this disguised as someone else, either way what is listed on the PTRB is true.

The other poster is correct. You are recycling the same mistake made by several posters on this thread.The PRTB is not a legal company for one thing.It is a statutory body. You are misunderstanding what they have posted. . I have been involved in cases at the PRTB and I have seen a termination notice invalidated because it was servwed during the currency of a fixed term agreement. Not everthing posted in the PRTB's FAQ's is correct nor it does not purport to have legal effect. The PRTB have to comply with the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. That specifically provides protection to the holders of fixed term leases.

Unrealistic · 20-04-2012 01:32PM

leggo wrote: »

Can you accurately detail the effort they put into sorting out their affairs please, quoting financial transactions and so on? You seem to know a lot about this case, to comment on it so assuredly in public, this is an exciting breakthrough!

You don't need to know anything specifically about their affairs. All you need to know is that there are currently north of 100,000 houses in Ireland on which banks could legally foreclose but they have not done so. They have only foreclosed on a fraction of 1% of the houses they could have foreclosed on. If you making even a token effort to deal with the bank you will not have your house repossessed (yet, this may change). If a bank singled someone out for repossession when it was being so understanding with everyone else it was because that person was a completely hopeless case or was taking the piss. We know from the Irish Times article today that this couple they were taking the piss rather than being a in a hopeless situation because the land registry shows that, as well as owning multiple properties which are mortgaged and in negative equity, they own some unmortgaged properties that could have been used as the basis of resolving this situation but weren't.

fishy fishy · 20-04-2012 01:43PM

Kosseegan wrote: »

The other poster is correct. You are recycling the same mistake made by several posters on this thread.The PRTB is not a legal company for one thing.It is a statutory body. You are misunderstanding what they have posted. . I have been involved in cases at the PRTB and I have seen a termination notice invalidated because it was servwed during the currency of a fixed term agreement. Not everthing posted in the PRTB's FAQ's is correct nor it does not purport to have legal effect. The PRTB have to comply with the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. That specifically provides protection to the holders of fixed term leases.

kosseegan, I am now convinced you are milk and honey still trying to justify your incorrect information. Here is the fact. you can try to put your own spin all you want but it is a FACT that a landlord can reclaim a property if it is for his family.

The Private Residential Tenancies Board (PRTB) is an organisation set up by the Government of Ireland. Its main role is to provide a dispute resolution service for landlords and tenants. The PRTB is also responsible for tenancy registration and from September 2004 all landlords must register new tenancies with the board. In addition the PRTB will carry out research in order to provide policy advice, guidelines and information on the private rented sector in Ireland.

The Board is now working on a statutory basis, since the introduction of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 (pdf) in July, 2004. For more comprehensive information visit the legislation section on the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government's website.

the reason why the prtb was set up is because the small claims courts around the country were getting bogged down with all the issues regarding tenants and landlords (mostly landlords not paying back security deposits). The PTRB was set up to take this away from the small claims courts - try going into the small claims court with your landlord tenancy issue and you will be referred to the ptrb BY THE COURT.

it is indeed a legal organisation. And again, a landlord DOES have to right to reclaim his property if needed for his family.

You seem to think that because you have "experience" with the PTRB and you have seen a termination revoked, that you understand all the rules and regulations of a tenant/landlord. You may have seen a termination revoked but you did not see if revoked if it was a family member genuinely looking to live in the said property. There are plenty of people that have experience with the PTRB who knows on what terms a tenancy can be revoked. The fact that you also have experience and "saw" something does not mean that you can be wrong in this case. hope that clears it up for you

token101 · 20-04-2012 01:49PM

Couple gets evicted for non payment of a mortgage they signed up for. Harsh and not nice, but that's business and what they signed up for. Comparing themselves to 19th century Ireland? Disgusting witch. Banks ruined the country did they? Single handedly was it? Nothing to do with gobsh1tes like you living far beyond their means and building up unsustainable debts? F*** off you stupid old bat. I don't feel sorry for you anymore.

Kosseegan · 20-04-2012 01:50PM

fishy fishy wrote: »

kosseegan, I am now convinced you are milk and honey still trying to justify your incorrect information. Here is the fact. you can try to put your own spin all you want but it is a FACT that a landlord can reclaim a property if it is for his family.

And again, a landlord DOES have to right to reclaim his property if needed for his family.

First off, I am not milk & honey trying to justify an incorrect statement of the law. I know what the PRTB is. I have been at numerous cases involving landlords and tenants. A landlord cannot issue a valid termination notice during a fixed term tenancy. That is what the legislation says. That is what the PRTB enforce.

You are typing out FACT. It does not change the reality, can you show any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 to justify your position? One that is not negated by the provisions of other sections? No you can't and haven't. You have resorted to typing capitals effectively shouting.

Unrealistic · 20-04-2012 02:05PM

leggo wrote: »

Of course I have, but I'm facing the collective research of a positive hate campaign here determined to destroy the reputation of an elderly couple because they've thrown a bit of a tantrum about being made homeless. I'm one man posting from work, I can't know everything.

So that makes them bastards then yeah?

They haven't thrown a tantrum about being made homeless. They have thrown a tantrum as part of a deliberate campaign to try to get their fellow taxpayers to give them €2,000,000 of free house.

leggo wrote: »

if these people were your parents you wouldn't feel the same. That's what we're becoming though: let's just all turn on each other while the Anglo bailiffs rough people up to pay back unsecured bondholders. It's a horrible state of affairs.

If it were my parents I'd give them a good (metaphorical) kick up the hole, tell them to cop on, and then help them to work out a sustainable path going forward rather than trying to screw people who are in situations a lot tougher than they are.

And, again, these were not Anglo bailiffs, they are officers of the court. And they did not rough anyone up. It is clear from the video that the couple were removed with absolute minimal physical intervention.

philstar · 20-04-2012 02:07PM

mods...can you put a poll to this thread??

do you support them, yes or no

20-04-2012 02:16PM

i feel sorry for them tbh yes they gambled and lost yes they are now making an un holy show of themselves yes they are cupable for the mess they are in BUT the nationwide bank and their advisors should be shot what utter madness to lend someone that kind of money based on a property portfoilio which was also indebted .

I would love to see the financial mechanics which made the lending even possible ?? how did the bank even obtain insurance given the couples age ???

the Banks have never had their mortgage books opened and audited publically i am guareenteeing if they did we would all be horrified at the kind of lending pratices that went on in the good times .
core principles of banking were ignored and twisted in every direction 10 times a person salary was being leant sheer madness .
this is just the tip let the carnage begin
the fact he owed 2 million if he owed 200,00 would there be more sympathy ?

fishy fishy · 20-04-2012 02:18PM

Kosseegan wrote: »

First off, I am not milk & honey trying to justify an incorrect statement of the law. I know what the PRTB is. I have been at numerous cases involving landlords and tenants. A landlord cannot issue a valid termination notice during a fixed term tenancy. That is what the legislation says. That is what the PRTB enforce.

You are typing out FACT. It does not change the reality, can you show any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 to justify your position? One that is not negated by the provisions of other sections? No you can't and haven't. You have resorted to typing capitals effectively shouting.

this is getting quite tiresome. just read below and admit you were wrong - I'm tired trying to explain. in certain circumstances a landlord CAN issue a termination notice. yawn.

A landlord can give 28 days written notice to quit without reason during the first 6 months of a tenancy. If however a tenant becomes entitled to a Part 4 tenancy the landlord can only terminate on one of the grounds specified below:

Where a tenant fails to comply with the obligations of the tenancy
Where the dwelling no longer suits the occupants needs e.g. overcrowding
Where the landlord intends to sell the dwelling within 3 months of the termination of the tenancy
Landlord requires property for their own or family members use
Landlord intends to refurbish the dwelling
Landlord intends to change the business use of the dwelling
There are a number of provisions within this section to prevent a landlord using these grounds merely as an excuse to remove the tenant from the property and rent to someone else.

As well as introducing greater security of tenure for tenants the Act also provides for greater periods of notice that take into account the length of the tenancy. The length of notice a landlord must give under the Act is outlined in the table below.

Notice Period Duration of Tenancy
28 days Less than 6 months
35 days >6 months and <1 year
42 days >1 year and <2 years
56 days >2 years and

years
84 days >3 years and <4 years
112 days >4 years

comprendez??

Pensioners evicted from their home today!!

Comments