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

kippy

gatecrash wrote: »

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.

I have no proof of anything, I am a keyboard warrior, like yourself.
He stated he was going to meet these two people, this was widely reported.

cyrusdvirus

Thoie wrote: »

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

So he could be giving them a lift in his car to one of their other houses then

cyrusdvirus

kippy wrote: »

I have no proof of anything, I am a keyboard warrior, like yourself.
He stated he was going to meet these two people, this was widely reported.

Fair enough, i was just wondering. Cos if he had met these 2 and pledged support etc, then he's going to end up with a LOT of egg on his face.

Kosseegan

fishy fishy wrote: »

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.

The job of the PRTB is not to give legal advice on the phone. I have been in the PRTB and I have written decisions. You have pointed to no provisions in legislation which support you. On the contrary you are ignoring those which are quoted against you. Whay are you saying " ring the PRTB". A completely unverifiable. I can assure you if a landlord issued a notice of termination during the currency of a fixed term lease trying to end it early and the tenant complained to the PRTB the tenant would win.

This is what the PRTBs own site says
http://public.prtb.ie/DownloadDocs/Termination%20of%20FT.pdf

The leaflet is a general guide only and not an interpretation of the law and does not necessarily make
reference to all relevant provisions.

Fixed Term Tenancies
A landlord can only terminate a fixed term tenancy where there the tenant has been in breach of his or
her obligations.5 Accordingly, a landlord cannot rely on the provisions of Section 34, to terminate a
fixed term tenancy during the fixed term. Following the expiration of the fixed term period however, if
the tenant has exercised his rights under Part 4, to extend his tenure for the remainder of the Part 4
tenancy of 4 years, the landlord can from then on, rely on the provisions of Section 34.
Similarly, a tenant can only terminate a fixed term tenancy where there the landlord has been in
breach of his or her obligations.6 In addition however, where the landlord has refused consent to an
assignment or sub-let, the tenant can also terminate the tenancy, in accordance with Section 186.

Explanatory Note
· Greater Security of Tenure
Landlords and tenants are free to agree as part of the tenancy arrangement, more beneficial
rights in favour of the tenant, than are created by Part 4. This is permitted by Section 26 of the
Act. Accordingly a landlord and a tenant may agree a greater security of tenure in favour of a
tenant. An example of this is where a landlord and tenant agree that the tenancy will be for a
fixed term.

Here is an example of a decision by the PRTB

http://public.prtb.ie/2011%20Disputes/Tribunals%202011/TR59.2011.DR1751.2010/Tribunal%20Report.pdf

"Mr Furlong indicated that the Landlords knew that there
was a fixed term tenancy in existence. However, he said that his agency had relied on part
of the “Quick Guide” to the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 in relation to where it said
that a landlord can break a tenancy where he or she requires the dwelling for their own
use. He did however acknowledge that the Landlords agreed that the manner in which the
tenancy was terminated was incorrect in hindsight but there was no malice intended in

The Tribunal finds that an illegal eviction of the Tenants and their family from the
dwelling took place on the 3rd November 2010 following the service by the
Landlords on the Tenants, on the 7th October 2010, of an invalid Notice of
Termination of a subsisting fixed term tenancy.. The Tenants had entered a one
year fixed term tenancy with the Landlords, through their agent, that commenced
on the 10th July 2010, at a rent of €1,300 per month, and a deposit of €1,300, which
was used by agreement for the final month’s rent. The Landlords were not entitled
to terminate this fixed term tenancy, notwithstanding any advice or information
given to them that they were so entitled.
doing so."

fishy fishy

Kosseegan wrote: »

The job of the PRTB is not to give legal advice on the phone. I have been in the PRTB and I have written decisions. You have pointed to no provisions in legislation which support you. On the contrary you are ignoring those which are quoted against you. Whay are you saying " ring the PRTB". A completely unverifiable. I can assure you if a landlord issued a notice of termination during the currency of a fixed term lease trying to end it early and the tenant complained to the PRTB the tenant would win.

This is what the PRTBs own site says
http://public.prtb.ie/DownloadDocs/Termination%20of%20FT.pdf

The leaflet is a general guide only and not an interpretation of the law and does not necessarily make
reference to all relevant provisions.

Fixed Term Tenancies
A landlord can only terminate a fixed term tenancy where there the tenant has been in breach of his or
her obligations.5 Accordingly, a landlord cannot rely on the provisions of Section 34, to terminate a
fixed term tenancy during the fixed term. Following the expiration of the fixed term period however, if
the tenant has exercised his rights under Part 4, to extend his tenure for the remainder of the Part 4
tenancy of 4 years, the landlord can from then on, rely on the provisions of Section 34.
Similarly, a tenant can only terminate a fixed term tenancy where there the landlord has been in
breach of his or her obligations.6 In addition however, where the landlord has refused consent to an
assignment or sub-let, the tenant can also terminate the tenancy, in accordance with Section 186.

Explanatory Note
· Greater Security of Tenure
Landlords and tenants are free to agree as part of the tenancy arrangement, more beneficial
rights in favour of the tenant, than are created by Part 4. This is permitted by Section 26 of the
Act. Accordingly a landlord and a tenant may agree a greater security of tenure in favour of a
tenant. An example of this is where a landlord and tenant agree that the tenancy will be for a
fixed term.

Here is an example of a decision by the PRTB

http://public.prtb.ie/2011%20Disputes/Tribunals%202011/TR59.2011.DR1751.2010/Tribunal%20Report.pdf

"Mr Furlong indicated that the Landlords knew that there
was a fixed term tenancy in existence. However, he said that his agency had relied on part
of the “Quick Guide” to the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 in relation to where it said
that a landlord can break a tenancy where he or she requires the dwelling for their own
use. He did however acknowledge that the Landlords agreed that the manner in which the
tenancy was terminated was incorrect in hindsight but there was no malice intended in

The Tribunal finds that an illegal eviction of the Tenants and their family from the
dwelling took place on the 3rd November 2010 following the service by the
Landlords on the Tenants, on the 7th October 2010, of an invalid Notice of
Termination of a subsisting fixed term tenancy.. The Tenants had entered a one
year fixed term tenancy with the Landlords, through their agent, that commenced
on the 10th July 2010, at a rent of €1,300 per month, and a deposit of €1,300, which
was used by agreement for the final month’s rent. The Landlords were not entitled
to terminate this fixed term tenancy, notwithstanding any advice or information
given to them that they were so entitled.
doing so."

kosseegan, ever hear the term "he doth protest too much" I wouldn't read a post that long even if it was fun. You keep entertaining yourself tho, - I will be enjoying my weekend, and evicting all my numbscull fixed term tennants to get my family in there.

:o give the ptrb a call if you get spare time. YOu might be surprised at what you will learn.

Kosseegan

fishy fishy wrote: »

kosseegan, ever hear the term "he doth protest too much" I wouldn't read a post that long even if it was fun. You keep entertaining yourself - I will be enjoying my weekend, and evicting all my numbscull fixed term tennants to get my family in there. :o

You wouldn't read it because it prioves you wrong, completely and utterly. The PRTBs own tribunal even admits its quick guide is wrong. I would love to become your fixed term tenant because I would clean you out.

Muir

Seriously, the whole lease thing doesn't even matter. I mean to be fair they've had 2+ years to sort it, it's unlikely that none of the lease agreements had run up in that time.

Kosseegan

Muir wrote: »

Seriously, the whole lease thing doesn't even matter. I mean to be fair they've had 2+ years to sort it, it's unlikely that none of the lease agreements had run up in that time.

I have no doubt alternative accomodation could have been arranged well in advance of the eviction. The point is that people are being seriously misled by an erroneous interpretation of the law.

sunflower27

Kosseegan wrote: »

The job of the PRTB is not to give legal advice on the phone. I have been in the PRTB and I have written decisions. You have pointed to no provisions in legislation which support you. On the contrary you are ignoring those which are quoted against you. Whay are you saying " ring the PRTB". A completely unverifiable. I can assure you if a landlord issued a notice of termination during the currency of a fixed term lease trying to end it early and the tenant complained to the PRTB the tenant would win.

This is what the PRTBs own site says
http://public.prtb.ie/DownloadDocs/Termination%20of%20FT.pdf

The leaflet is a general guide only and not an interpretation of the law and does not necessarily make
reference to all relevant provisions.

Fixed Term Tenancies
A landlord can only terminate a fixed term tenancy where there the tenant has been in breach of his or
her obligations.5 Accordingly, a landlord cannot rely on the provisions of Section 34, to terminate a
fixed term tenancy during the fixed term. Following the expiration of the fixed term period however, if
the tenant has exercised his rights under Part 4, to extend his tenure for the remainder of the Part 4
tenancy of 4 years, the landlord can from then on, rely on the provisions of Section 34.
Similarly, a tenant can only terminate a fixed term tenancy where there the landlord has been in
breach of his or her obligations.6 In addition however, where the landlord has refused consent to an
assignment or sub-let, the tenant can also terminate the tenancy, in accordance with Section 186.

Explanatory Note
· Greater Security of Tenure
Landlords and tenants are free to agree as part of the tenancy arrangement, more beneficial
rights in favour of the tenant, than are created by Part 4. This is permitted by Section 26 of the
Act. Accordingly a landlord and a tenant may agree a greater security of tenure in favour of a
tenant. An example of this is where a landlord and tenant agree that the tenancy will be for a
fixed term.

Here is an example of a decision by the PRTB

http://public.prtb.ie/2011%20Disputes/Tribunals%202011/TR59.2011.DR1751.2010/Tribunal%20Report.pdf

"Mr Furlong indicated that the Landlords knew that there
was a fixed term tenancy in existence. However, he said that his agency had relied on part
of the “Quick Guide” to the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 in relation to where it said
that a landlord can break a tenancy where he or she requires the dwelling for their own
use. He did however acknowledge that the Landlords agreed that the manner in which the
tenancy was terminated was incorrect in hindsight but there was no malice intended in

The Tribunal finds that an illegal eviction of the Tenants and their family from the
dwelling took place on the 3rd November 2010 following the service by the
Landlords on the Tenants, on the 7th October 2010, of an invalid Notice of
Termination of a subsisting fixed term tenancy.. The Tenants had entered a one
year fixed term tenancy with the Landlords, through their agent, that commenced
on the 10th July 2010, at a rent of €1,300 per month, and a deposit of €1,300, which
was used by agreement for the final month’s rent. The Landlords were not entitled
to terminate this fixed term tenancy, notwithstanding any advice or information
given to them that they were so entitled.
doing so."

I am enjoying this thread now.... but am skipping these type of posts ^^^^.

Anyone else?

Sorry Kosseegan

Cedrus

sunflower27 wrote: »

I am enjoying this thread now.... but am skipping these type of posts ^^^^.

Anyone else?

......

There is a type of post on boards that is the internet equivalent of a drunk snagging you at a party and muttering incoherently at you until you chew your arm off to escape.

outtagetme

leggo wrote: »

And yet the post I quoted for the reply you have quoted said that if they were a more modest family, they'd have sympathy. Would they not be living in a house they didn't own then? Yep, exact same circumstances. Except the Kelly's were once wealthy.

Debt does not equal wealth. You had better start waking up to that realisation.
The Kelly's are NOT wealthy.....they have been living on fake money for decades.

If I am living at home with my mother, paying her 20% of my paycheque, banking 50% and spending 30% I am a hell of a lot more wealthy than some bloke who has, say, 10 million euros in Equity but owes 15 million euros in mortgage costs, has rental income of 15k a month but also monthly outgoings of 25k.

As the yanks would say, "do the math"

The hypothetical guy in the modest home bought to house his family, not to speculate. The value dropped in the crash...no problem....his circumstances haven't changed....BUT if he lost his job and can't keep up with the payments....again c'est la vie.....HOWEVER he can't flog the house and move elsewhere where he might find work because he's trapped and nobody will buy. So he deserves a bit of sympathy for the plight he's in. If he buries his head in the sand for 4 years until the knock on the door finally comes then he too deserves precious little sympathy.

And spare us the begrudgery "oh how Irish" crap.

People here and expressing begrudgery, they're expressing disgust at this guy's galling sense of entitlement. He bitches about 19th century tactics. What the hell is he on about. If I walked into his house and refused to leave I'm quite certain he'd call the guards and have me physically removed. Can you imagine me crying about 19th century tactics.

Give me peace.

sunflower27

Cedrus wrote: »

There is a type of post on boards that is the internet equivalent of a drunk snagging you at a party and muttering incoherently at you until you chew your arm off to escape.

Ah, they aren't that bad here in fairness....

All the rules and regulations and protocol is irrelevant really as this couple had no intention of ever living by any of it.

They wanted to live in a 5-bedroom mansion without paying for it.

It's outrageous they actually believe they are owed anything at all. I can only imagine the lives they have lived to date with people sucking up their a-holes if they actually for a second thought they were owed the right to live in a mansion and pay deadly squat for it.

It really beggars belief. Deluded beyond belief.

jack presley

WTF?

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/occupy-protestors-pledge-solidarity-with-evicted-couple-548391.html

EDIT - I bet the neighbours are loving a bunch of crusties arriving onto their private estate. I wonder how they got past the gate. Do the Kelly's still have the fob to activate it?

sunflower27

Brutal force my *rse.

If it was that brutal, where are the bruises? Because surely they'd have them on display if they were treated with such brutality.

Enjoy the moment, guys, it ain't gonna last.

dvpower

jack presley wrote: »

WTF?

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/occupy-protestors-pledge-solidarity-with-evicted-couple-548391.html

EDIT - I bet the neighbours are loving a bunch of crusties arriving onto their private estate. I wonder how they got past the gate. Do the Kelly's still have the fob to activate it?

Occupy protester Finbar Markey defended Mr Kelly for taking out a mortgage he later could not afford.

He said the banks were responsible for knowingly creating a credit bubble that would burst.

“That man was just doing what he was told,” said Mr Markey.

“He was doing what was part of our culture.”

ffs - these people are unreal.

Latchy

I think if Abu Qatada knocked on the door tent of this couple offering support they would take it .

outtagetme

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...

You keep coming in with this begrudgery sh!t.

Here's an example. Let's say there are 2 mansions side by side.

I take a walk around mansion A's lovely well appointed rooms and manicured lawns and then meet the owner. I compliment him on his surroundings and he tells me that he started a clothing business, provided training, generous compensation and benefits for what he described as his team of skilled seamstresses of whom he is fiercely proud. He also donated money to the business college where he learned much of his business knowledge and sponsors the local football team. He pays his taxes in full and when he retires he would like to spend time doing charity work and a spot of painting.
I would come away brimming with admiration for such a paragon of virtue, decency and success.

I then walk around mansion B's equally impressive surroundings and likewise compliment the owner. He divulges to me no information regarding his wealth or how he came about his good fortune. I finish my drink that he has kindly offered and depart, admiring the lovely tree lined driveway as I go.
I later find out the mansion B's owner makes his wealth in human trafficking, child prostitution, drug sales, racketeering and a plethora of other criminality.

I needless to say view him as a scumbag of the highest (or is that lowest) order and look forward to the day when he's busted, imprisoned and has all his sh!t confiscated by the Criminal Assets Bureau.

Upon hearing my take on things are you going to call me a begrudger? Probably.

Get real, why don't you.

Doc Ruby

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

You cant just kick people out. Takes time and money which I doubt they have.

You can actually. Needing the house for your own use or that of a relation is a legitimate legal reason for eviction in Ireland. And given they had two years to do it, well, I'm short on sympathy.

hondasam

Are they still camping on the street? it will all be forgotten about next week and the Kelly's will move into a nice house somewhere.
Listening to pat kenny today and these two are just unbelievable, how they expect public sympathy is beyond me.
All the need now is some of the shell to sea protesters to join them and they will be sorted.

gurramok

dvpower wrote: »

ffs - these people are unreal.

I see their strategy. Those lazy bums want a free gaff of the scammer for their 'hard work' of support!

Justice for the individual

micropig wrote: »

How history repeats itself

English landlords kick out the Irish in the 1800s

I don't know the whole story behind this though so makes it hard to judge

Anglo Irish kicks out Irish couple - uncanny!

philstar

nice tent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l2UEV_-Fu4

Justice for the individual

outtagetme wrote: »

You keep coming in with this begrudgery sh!t.

Here's an example. Let's say there are 2 mansions side by side.

I take a walk around mansion A's lovely well appointed rooms and manicured lawns and then meet the owner. I compliment him on his surroundings and he tells me that he started a clothing business, provided training, generous compensation and benefits for what he described as his team of skilled seamstresses of whom he is fiercely proud. He also donated money to the business college where he learned much of his business knowledge and sponsors the local football team. He pays his taxes in full and when he retires he would like to spend time doing charity work and a spot of painting.
I would come away brimming with admiration for such a paragon of virtue, decency and success.

I then walk around mansion B's equally impressive surroundings and likewise compliment the owner. He divulges to me no information regarding his wealth or how he came about his good fortune. I finish my drink that he has kindly offered and depart, admiring the lovely tree lined driveway as I go.
I later find out the mansion B's owner makes his wealth in human trafficking, child prostitution, drug sales, racketeering and a plethora of other criminality.

I needless to say view him as a scumbag of the highest (or is that lowest) order and look forward to the day when he's busted, imprisoned and has all his sh!t confiscated by the Criminal Assets Bureau.

Upon hearing my take on things are you going to call me a begrudger? Probably.

Get real, why don't you.

In Ireland, the owner of mansion B would get away with it. This has not dawned on some people yet.

Ellis Dee

philstar wrote: »

nice tent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l2UEV_-Fu4

Indeed, but I just wonder what their toilet arrangements are. I bet their fat cat neighbours are wondering the same.:D:D:D

It looks like that "exclusive neighbourhood" is going downhill fast.:rolleyes: Sic transit ---

According to the Irish Times, they own 21 (twenty-one!!) properties.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0420/breaking12.html

outtagetme

philstar wrote: »

nice tent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l2UEV_-Fu4

:pac:

Arseholes. I would imagine that they'd be the first to complain about Travellers and now here they are doing the same thing.

Justice for the individual

outtagetme wrote: »

You keep coming in with this begrudgery sh!t.

Here's an example. Let's say there are 2 mansions side by side.

I take a walk around mansion A's lovely well appointed rooms and manicured lawns and then meet the owner. I compliment him on his surroundings and he tells me that he started a clothing business, provided training, generous compensation and benefits for what he described as his team of skilled seamstresses of whom he is fiercely proud. He also donated money to the business college where he learned much of his business knowledge and sponsors the local football team. He pays his taxes in full and when he retires he would like to spend time doing charity work and a spot of painting.
I would come away brimming with admiration for such a paragon of virtue, decency and success.

I then walk around mansion B's equally impressive surroundings and likewise compliment the owner. He divulges to me no information regarding his wealth or how he came about his good fortune. I finish my drink that he has kindly offered and depart, admiring the lovely tree lined driveway as I go.
I later find out the mansion B's owner makes his wealth in human trafficking, child prostitution, drug sales, racketeering and a plethora of other criminality.

I needless to say view him as a scumbag of the highest (or is that lowest) order and look forward to the day when he's busted, imprisoned and has all his sh!t confiscated by the Criminal Assets Bureau.

Upon hearing my take on things are you going to call me a begrudger? Probably.

Get real, why don't you.

In Ireland, the owner of mansion B would get away with it. This has not dawned on some people yet.

philstar

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Indeed, but I just wonder what their toilet arrangements are. I bet their fat cat neighbours are wondering the same.:D:D:D

i wonder do they actually stay there at night?? doubt it some how

love to pop down there for a gawk and a laugh, might play my car stereo full blast

Atlantis50

Justice for the individual wrote: »

In Ireland, the owner of mansion B would get away with it. This has not dawned on some people yet.

Which is why you must keep copy and pasting this?

sunflower27

How are they allowed to set up the tent on the road?

That image just screams FOOLS to me.

outtagetme

philstar wrote: »

i wonder do they actually stay there at night?? doubt it some how

love to pop down there for a gawk and a laugh, might play my car stereo full blast

Doubt it too. Wouldn't surprise me if they were holed up in some seedy digs like the Gresham or Westbury (on the credit card of course).