nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Pensioners evicted from their home today!!

flynnlives

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9u_rV7VGqw

via http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/04/18/the-eviction-in-killiney-new-video/

quite distressing video towards the end.

Not sure of the details.

There is something rotten in the state of Ireland!!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

lividduck

fishy fishy wrote: »

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??

Wrong, if the tenant has a fixed term lease they are entitled in law to the greater protection of the terms of the lease.

fishy fishy

lividduck wrote: »

Wrong, if the tenant has a fixed term lease they are entitled in law to the greater protection of the terms of the lease.

except for the circumstances listed above.

i refer you to the "notice" times on my post above.

lividduck

fishy fishy wrote: »

except for the circumstances listed above.

i refer you to the "notice" times on my post above.

Those circumstances only apply to a part 4 tenancy, the Act, as I read it, makes it clear that if there is a contract in force (a lease) that provides the tenant with a greater degree of security than the Act does then that contract trumps the Act!

fionny

Christ the tenancy law thing is getting old now.... how many times can the same thing be pasted in!

Hamilcar

token101 wrote: »

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.

Have to agree with you. Too many plonkers spouting the usual drivel about the banks ruining the country. They didn't lend to themselves did they? NO, they lent it to greedy ****ers who over-extended themselves and are now whinging about it. How about taking some personal responsibility? And as for that other classic 'Austerity is not working' So forcing me to live within my means is not working is it? So spending more than I earn is definitely going to work eh! Even without the bailout, without Quinn we're still spending 15 billion more than we take in. Do the maths!

Kosseegan

lividduck wrote: »

Those circumstances only apply to a part 4 tenancy, the Act, as I read it, makes it clear that if there is a contract in force (a lease) that provides the tenant with a greater degree of security than the Act does then that contract trumps the Act!

+1. Sections 58 and 25 of the Act refer. I don't know how many times it takes some people to understand that.
Fishy Fishy has yet to show which sections of the Act he is relying on.

Here is a link to the Act. maybe he dcan point to the provisions he is referring to?

http://www.bailii.org/ie/legis/num_act/2004/0027.html

Grolschevik

lividduck wrote: »

Those circumstances only apply to a part 4 tenancy, the Act, as I read it, makes it clear that if there is a contract in force (a lease) that provides the tenant with a greater degree of security than the Act does then that contract trumps the Act!

Yes. The landlord does have the right to terminate a tenancy for the reasons listed by Fishy Fishy, except when there is a current, valid, fixed-term lease in place.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0027/index.html

33.—A Part 4 tenancy may not be terminated by the landlord save in accordance with section 34

34.—A Part 4 tenancy may be terminated by the landlord—

(a) on one or more of the grounds specified in the Table to this section if—

(i) a notice of termination giving the required period of notice is served by the landlord in respect of the tenancy, and

(ii) that notice of termination cites as the reason for the termination the ground or grounds concerned and, in the case of paragraph 4, 5 or 6 of that Table, contains or is accompanied by the statement referred to in that paragraph,

or

(b) irrespective of whether any of those grounds exist, if—

(i) a notice of termination giving the required period of notice is served by the landlord in respect of the tenancy, and

(ii) that period of notice expires on or after the end of the period of 4 years mentioned in section 28 (2)(a) in relation to the tenancy.

TABLE

Grounds for termination

1. The tenant has failed to comply with any of his or her obligations in relation to the tenancy (whether arising under this Act or otherwise) and, unless the failure provides an excepted basis for termination—

(a) the tenant has been notified of the failure by the landlord and that notification states that the landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy if the failure is not remedied within a reasonable time specified in that notification, and

(b) the tenant does not remedy the failure within that specified time.

2. The dwelling is no longer suitable to the accommodation needs of the tenant and of any persons residing with him or her having regard to the number of bed spaces contained in the dwelling and the size and composition of the occupying household.

3. The landlord intends, within 3 months after the termination of the tenancy under this section, to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer to another, for full consideration, of the whole of his or her interest in the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling.

4. The landlord requires the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling for his or her own occupation or for occupation by a member of his or her family and the notice of termination (the “notice”) contains or is accompanied, in writing, by a statement—

(a) specifying—

(i) the intended occupant's identity and (if not the landlord) his or her relationship to the landlord, and

(ii) the expected duration of that occupation,

and

(b) that the landlord, by virtue of the notice, is required to offer to the tenant a tenancy of the dwelling if the contact details requirement is complied with and the following conditions are satisfied—

(i) the dwelling is vacated by the person referred to in subparagraph (a) within the period of 6 months from expiry of the period of notice required to be given by the notice or, if a dispute in relation to the validity of the notice was referred to the Board under Part 6 for resolution, the final determination of the dispute, and

(ii) the tenancy to which the notice related had not otherwise been validly terminated by virtue of the citation in the notice of the ground specified in paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 6 of this Table.

5. The landlord intends to substantially refurbish or renovate the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling in a way which requires the dwelling to be vacated for that purpose (and, where planning permission is required for the carrying out of that refurbishment or renovation, that permission has been obtained) and the notice of termination (the “notice”) contains or is accompanied, in writing, by a statement—

(a) specifying the nature of the intended works, and

(b) that the landlord, by virtue of the notice, is required to offer to the tenant a tenancy of the dwelling if the contact details requirement is complied with and the following conditions are satisfied—

(i) the dwelling becomes available for reletting, and

(ii) the tenancy to which the notice related had not otherwise been validly terminated by virtue of the citation in the notice of the ground specified in paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 6 of this Table.

6. The landlord intends to change the use of the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling to some other use (and, where planning permission is required for that change of use, that permission has been obtained) and the notice of termination (the “notice”) contains or is accompanied, in writing, by a statement—

(a) specifying the nature of the intended use, and

(b) that the landlord, by virtue of the notice, is required to offer to the tenant a tenancy of the dwelling if the contact details requirement is complied with and the following conditions are satisfied—

(i) the dwelling becomes available for reletting within the period of 6 months from expiry of the period of notice required to be given by the notice or, if a dispute in relation to the validity of the notice was referred to the Board under Part 6 for resolution, the final determination of the dispute, and

(ii) the tenancy to which the notice related had not otherwise been validly terminated by virtue of the citation in the notice of the ground specified in paragraph 1, 2 or 3 of this Table.

But all of that is subject to this, which essentially means a valid fixed-term lease:

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.

fishy fishy

lividduck wrote: »

Those circumstances only apply to a part 4 tenancy, the Act, as I read it, makes it clear that if there is a contract in force (a lease) that provides the tenant with a greater degree of security than the Act does then that contract trumps the Act!

for the last time, if a family member needs the rented accommodation they have the right to give the tenant notice to get out. The circumstance is written in black and white. :rolleyes:

Grolschevik

fishy fishy wrote: »

for the last time, if a family member needs the rented accommodation they have the right to give the tenant notice to get out. The circumstance is written in black and white. :rolleyes:

See above.

Cedrus

There is a parallel 'tis 'tisn't argument on this thread about whether a landlord can end a tenancy to provide themselves with a home.
As the contracts of the (O)Kellys tenants are not in the public domain and we do not know how long/short/secure/insecure they are it is a fairly pointless sidebar.
Perhaps these landlords are generous or naive and they have have given their tenants copperfastened contracts that could not be exited from over the c~4 years of this debacle.
Personally, I suspect that at least some of their properties have been vacated over the period and relet and that most if not all of the tenants do not have the security of tenure alluded to by some posters.

Kosseegan

fishy fishy wrote: »

for the last time, if a family member needs the rented accommodation they have the right to give the tenant notice to get out. The circumstance is written in black and white. :rolleyes:

Where are you getting that from? CAn you contradict what is written in the Act and not keep repeating what is obviously wrong.

Termination of tenancies restricted to means provided by this Part.
58.—(1) From the relevant date, a tenancy of a dwelling may not be terminated by the landlord or the tenant by means of a notice of forfeiture, a re-entry or any other process or procedure not provided by this Part.

(2) Accordingly, the termination by the landlord or the tenant of—

(a) more beneficial rights referred to in section 26 that the tenant enjoys under a tenancy than those created by Part 4, or

(b) a tenancy to which section 25 applies,

must be effected by means of a notice of termination that complies with this Part.

(3) Each of the following—

(a) a tenancy referred to in subsection (2)(a) (unless it expressly excludes this means of termination),

(b) a tenancy referred to in subsection (2)(b), and

(c) a tenancy of a dwelling created before or after the relevant date in so far as its operation is not affected by Part 4,

shall be construed as including a term enabling its termination by means of a notice of termination that complies with this Part (but, in the case of a tenancy that is for a fixed period, unless it provides otherwise, only where there has been a failure by the party in relation to whom the notice is served to comply with any obligations of the tenancy).

Frank Bullitt

From Mr.Noonan today.

Finance Minister Michael Nooan has said that the Government has pledged to keep people in their homes, but not in ”21 different homes”.
“We must distinguish between people who can’t pay and people who won’t pay,” the Minister said, referring to the much-publicised eviction of a couple from their Dublin home this week.
Today Minister Noonan said the much-publicised eviction was “well-designed”.
“We have no pledge to keep people in 21 different homes and we must distinguish between people who can’t pay and people who won’t pay,” he said.

fionny

Gintonious wrote: »

From Mr.Noonan today.

Finally some sensibility from the government

fionny

I wonder will Gilmore back pedal on jumping to their support now... I should think so.

Duckjob

fionny wrote: »

I wonder will Gilmore back pedal on jumping to their support now... I should think so.

Of course he will.

As usual he gave the insipid, "safe to go either way from here" response. By now he's realised there isn't a swell of public sympathy for this couple, so he'll quietly U-turn.

The man stands for nothing, never takes a strong position on anything until his advisors have told him it's politically safe to do so. Then he attacks it with added bluster to cover up the fact that he was late to the party.

It's pathetic.

Frank Bullitt

Regardless of what peoples opinions of the Government is, he is absolutely 110% right.

I do now hope they are on the Late Late tonight to try defend this, not one leg to stand on.

token101

Hamilcar wrote: »

Have to agree with you. Too many plonkers spouting the usual drivel about the banks ruining the country. They didn't lend to themselves did they? NO, they lent it to greedy ****ers who over-extended themselves and are now whinging about it. How about taking some personal responsibility? And as for that other classic 'Austerity is not working' So forcing me to live within my means is not working is it? So spending more than I earn is definitely going to work eh! Even without the bailout, without Quinn we're still spending 15 billion more than we take in. Do the maths!

Well they lent to themselves aswell

But that's beside the point really in this case. Your point is pretty much bang on. Personal responsibility doesn't seem to exist in Ireland. There's always someone else to blame. We spend more tax than we take in. So there's a shortfall. Can't pay the bills? That's the politicians fault. Overextended yourself and got into a mountain of debt? That's the banks' fault. Sure you were just an innocent victim of a government conspiracy. Yeah there's a lot of people who lived within their means and just got very,very unlucky and should be helped and are a lot of the time. But those stories never make the papers. But there's an awful lot aswell, like these people, who borrowed to the hilt to get richer and richer. They gambled and lost. Tough sh*t, that's life. They weren't going to share their wealth with me, so I'll be f***ed if I'm going to take on their debt as a taxpayer. Pay up, or get out of the hosue and hand it back. Simple as.

Galwayguy35

catthinkin wrote: »

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 ?

The guy is an ex accountant, now I dont know the ins and outs of what it takes to become one but I would imagine a good knowledge of figures is a major part of it. I never set foot inside a college door and i was able to calculate what I would be able to pay back when going for my mortgage. The banks have alot to answer for but they didnt tie him to a chair and make him take out a loan against his will.

fishy fishy

Kosseegan wrote: »

Where are you getting that from? CAn you contradict what is written in the Act and not keep repeating what is obviously wrong.

Termination of tenancies restricted to means provided by this Part.
58.—(1) From the relevant date, a tenancy of a dwelling may not be terminated by the landlord or the tenant by means of a notice of forfeiture, a re-entry or any other process or procedure not provided by this Part.

(2) Accordingly, the termination by the landlord or the tenant of—

(a) more beneficial rights referred to in section 26 that the tenant enjoys under a tenancy than those created by Part 4, or

(b) a tenancy to which section 25 applies,

must be effected by means of a notice of termination that complies with this Part.

(3) Each of the following—

(a) a tenancy referred to in subsection (2)(a) (unless it expressly excludes this means of termination),

(b) a tenancy referred to in subsection (2)(b), and

(c) a tenancy of a dwelling created before or after the relevant date in so far as its operation is not affected by Part 4,

shall be construed as including a term enabling its termination by means of a notice of termination that complies with this Part (but, in the case of a tenancy that is for a fixed period, unless it provides otherwise, only where there has been a failure by the party in relation to whom the notice is served to comply with any obligations of the tenancy).

give the ptrb a call and ask them to explain it to you - you seem to be under the illusion that a fixed term lease holder cannot be evicted - they can and they have. Get the ptrb to explain it to you - Im quite bored with it now.

on a more on topic note - I really would sit down at watch the late late show if these two were on it.

cyrusdvirus

And nor do i support the 2 idiots the thread is about, BUT......................

Gilmore agreed to meet 2 constituents. Simple as.

As far as i am aware, he did not say he thought it was wrong that they got evicted. He agreed to meet 2 of the people from his constituency, 2 of the people who he was elected to represent.

So to say he should back pedal on his support is a little bit disingenuous. I don't think he actually offered any support, and is just doing what any other politician would do.

Paparazzo

Wonder if the occupy dame street guy will come back on? Does he feel like an idiot for protesting for a guy with almost 20 gaffs?

Galwayguy35

Paparazzo wrote: »

Wonder if the occupy dame street guy will come back on? Does he feel like an idiot for protesting for a guy with almost 20 gaffs?

Maybe he gave them the loan of his tent....

tfitzgerald

It's a sad affair overall. But it seems to me that they did little to pay back the loan . I have very little sympathy for them.

kippy

gatecrash wrote: »

And nor do i support the 2 idiots the thread is about, BUT......................

Gilmore agreed to meet 2 constituents. Simple as.

As far as i am aware, he did not say he thought it was wrong that they got evicted. He agreed to meet 2 of the people from his constituency, 2 of the people who he was elected to represent.

So to say he should back pedal on his support is a little bit disingenuous. I don't think he actually offered any support, and is just doing what any other politician would do.

How many politicians met the residents of Priory hall, and did so within 24 hours of the issue coming to a head?

cyrusdvirus

kippy wrote: »

How many politicians met the residents of Priory hall, and did so within 24 hours of the issue coming to a head?

I don't know. Has Gilmore met these people yet?

Is Priory Hall not in Leo Varadkar's constituency? Why not ask him?

fishy fishy

gatecrash wrote: »

And nor do i support the 2 idiots the thread is about, BUT......................

Gilmore agreed to meet 2 constituents. Simple as.

As far as i am aware, he did not say he thought it was wrong that they got evicted. He agreed to meet 2 of the people from his constituency, 2 of the people who he was elected to represent.

So to say he should back pedal on his support is a little bit disingenuous. I don't think he actually offered any support, and is just doing what any other politician would do.

i think gilmore is a perfect example of a puppet being told what to do - even his "labour party" speech down in Galway last week was most unconvincing. The comment he made to the protesters who had come from all around Ireland to show their dis-satisfaction " i hope they have a nice day" showed him up for the unimaginative, out of touch, person that he is. I notice that he didn't tell these two chancers in their mansion to "have a nice day" when they were having their protest. labour is dead. There is no labour anymore - they will go the same way as the greens did. However gilmore and his cronies will make sure they get their pension first. THIS is why they want the power - for their egos and their pensions. nothing at all to do with the people they claim to represent.

Cedrus

kippy wrote: »

How many politicians met the residents of Priory hall, and did so within 24 hours of the issue coming to a head?

How many Sinn Fein politicians met the residents of Priory hall? That was one bastion of property development excess that wasn't criticised by the guardians of the green left.

kippy

gatecrash wrote: »

I don't know. Has Gilmore met these people yet?

Is Priory Hall not in Leo Varadkar's constituency? Why not ask him?

There are very few people, that elected politicians, particularly those holding ministerial office (or Tanaiste in this instance) who would meet, within 24 hours or a story or crisis (Crisis is the wrong word in this case) breaking, an "ordinary" member of their constituency and that is a simple fact.

cyrusdvirus

kippy wrote: »

There are very few people, that elected politicians, particularly those holding ministerial office (or Tanaiste in this instance) who would meet, within 24 hours or a story or crisis (Crisis is the wrong word in this case) breaking, an "ordinary" member of their constituency and that is a simple fact.

By your reply you have proof that Gilmore has met these 2. Is that the case? Has Gilmore met these 2 yet?

And again, i am not standing up for Gilmore, or this pair.

I think its right that they were evicted, i think its a disgrace that they lived in this property for so long, given they were in arrears as long as they have been.

I just think Gilmore is just doing what any other politician would do.

Thoie

gatecrash wrote: »

And nor do i support the 2 idiots the thread is about, BUT......................

Gilmore agreed to meet 2 constituents. Simple as.

As far as i am aware, he did not say he thought it was wrong that they got evicted. He agreed to meet 2 of the people from his constituency, 2 of the people who he was elected to represent.

So to say he should back pedal on his support is a little bit disingenuous. I don't think he actually offered any support, and is just doing what any other politician would do.

He didn't agree to meet them, he said he was going to contact them himself to see how he could help:
http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2012/0419/ireland/tanaiste-to-contact-evicted-couple-548164.html