Pensioners evicted from their home today!!

jmayo · 21-04-2012 03:39PM

gatecrash wrote: »

Don't tar all pensioners with the same brush. Not all of them own 21 properties around the country and take the piss like these 2.

Excuse me where did I say tar all pensioners ?

What I am trying to draw attention to is the very fact that not all pensioners are the same.
There is a mindset out there that pensioners are one of these scared cows that can't be touched.

This case goes to show my point.
Hell the thread was started by some poster who tried to pull the heartstrings by labelling the thread title about pensioners being evicted. :mad:

Not all pensioners deserve state handouts nor sympathy.
There are indeed a fair chunk of poor pensioners who may be surviving on state non contributory pension, desperately needing allowances to live and medical card care for medication, and then there are the ones who are not a million miles from the kellys.
FFS technically michael smurfit and tony o'reilly are pensioners, not to mention john hurley, roddy molloy, patrick neary and michael fingelton.

My point is this case once again shows the lunacy of the Irish social welfare system with regard to pensioners much like Michael O'Leary's comments shows the lunacy of the childrens allowance system.

cyrusdvirus · 21-04-2012 04:12PM

jmayo wrote: »

gatecrash wrote: »

Don't tar all pensioners with the same brush. Not all of them own 21 properties around the country and take the piss like these 2.

Excuse me where did I say tar all pensioners ?

What I am trying to draw attention to is the very fact that not all pensioners are the same.
There is a mindset out there that pensioners are one of these scared cows that can't be touched.

This case goes to show my point.
Hell the thread was started by some poster who tried to pull the heartstrings by labelling the thread title about pensioners being evicted. :mad:

Not all pensioners deserve state handouts nor sympathy.
There are indeed a fair chunk of poor pensioners who may be surviving on state non contributory pension, desperately needing allowances to live and medical card care for medication, and then there are the ones who are not a million miles from the kellys.
FFS technically michael smurfit and tony o'reilly are pensioners, not to mention john hurley, roddy molloy, patrick neary and michael fingelton.

My point is this case once again shows the lunacy of the Irish social welfare system with regard to pensioners much like Michael O'Leary's comments shows the lunacy of the childrens allowance system.

Remember folks next time you see a protest to protect pensioners freebees,
you will see people protecting the rights of these freeloaders.

That's where you said it. You weren't specific about whether you meant Michael O Leary, this chap Kelly, or someone like my parents.

That's why I pulled you up on it.

jmayo · 21-04-2012 05:51PM

gatecrash wrote: »

Remember folks next time you see a protest to protect pensioners freebees,
you will see people protecting the rights of these freeloaders.

That's where you said it. You weren't specific about whether you meant Michael O Leary, this chap Kelly, or someone like my parents.

That's why I pulled you up on it.

Please see my reedited comment.

Milk & Honey · 21-04-2012 06:07PM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Only if tenants decide to dispute the eviction.

IF a landlord serves a notice of termination and the tenants don't dispute it and leave voluntarily that is not an eviction. That is a surrender by a tenant. An eviction only occurs when a tenant does not surrender possession despite being obliged to do so. A court order is needed for this.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

That's not what I said at all. I said according to official information a landlord can basically serve up an eviction notice on a whim (ie refurbishment). You may claim they are only guidelines but they are extremely clear guidelines, and not just on that website either, which it appears are now in dispute. Don't think I'm arguing with you on this, apparently you're right, but a bit more investigation would seem to be in order.

A landlord does not serve an eviction notice. He serves a termination notice. A notice of termination is not an eviction.You do not appear to understand the meaning of the word eviction. Eviction is the physical removal of a person from a property and the recovery of possession of the property by a person entitled to do it. It needs a court order.

I am not claiming that guidelines on the website are only guidelines. That is what the PTRB website itself says. The guidelines are wrong or at the very least misleading. Their own board has said that your interpretation is wrong.
A termination notice cannot validly effect a termination during the currency of a fixed term agreement unless there is a breach of condition. It is only during a part 4 tenancy with no lease operative that the landlord can use refurbishment as a ground for issuing a termination notice.

Look at the Residential Tenancies Act itself and see if you can contradict that.

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

Galwayguy35 · 21-04-2012 08:18PM

It was on todays paper that their Rolls Royce strangely went missing this week. Silly people they should have held on to it, it would have been more comfortable than the tent to stay in if they wanted to squat in front of the house.

sunflower27 · 21-04-2012 08:47PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

It was on todays paper that their Rolls Royce strangely went missing this week. Silly people they should have held on to it, it would have been more comfortable than the tent to stay in if they wanted to squat in front of the house.

Went missing or temporarily in storage? Sleeping in a Rolls out the front of the house was probably seen as likely to garner less sympathy than a two-man tent.

Tipsy McSwagger · 21-04-2012 09:03PM

I bet half the stories in the stingiest thread are about these 2 oul farts.

Galwayguy35 · 21-04-2012 09:15PM

sunflower27 wrote: »

Went missing or temporarily in storage? Sleeping in a Rolls out the front of the house was probably seen as likely to garner less sympathy than a two-man tent.

Probably sold off.

evolving_doors · 21-04-2012 10:07PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Probably sold off.

Hmm he did claim on newstalk during the week that his financial situation had changed in the last 3 weeks. Funny that, he must have won the lotto or something..

NIMAN · 21-04-2012 10:33PM

How long before they are on The Late Late Show?

Justice for the individual · 21-04-2012 11:03PM

hondasam wrote: »

It's legal, they were given ample opportunity to move but refused, the only option left is to remove them by force.
People do have rights but the bank also have the right to expect people to pay back what they borrow.
They lost and should have handed back the keys, they want public outrage in order for them to stay in their free home.

And we are bailing out the banks. So do the banks have no obligation to pay back their debts. They are well aware that they will always be protected by our gullible governments, whoever they may be. They know that they can redeem the money from us, and nobody protests. This man and his wife are bearing the brunt of peoples frustrations. Instead they should be aiming their anger and comments towards the real instigators - excessive lending by the financial institutions and soft regulation by government agencies because of the easy availability of stamp duty money from the unfortunate borrowers.

We are taking our eye off the ball, and this is a distraction from the heavy financial burden being put on the Irish people by our government to protect the European model. Nobody is paying back Mr. Kelly's debts. He has collateral - his properties, so the money owed can be redeemed. Lets not focus on this one particular case, but instead concentrate on how policies by successive governments encouraged people to take chances and go for bigger and bigger borrowings, leading to the scenario and indignity of a couple being forced out of their family home. We should all be ashamed of ourselves, the individuals who carried out the eviction, and ourselves for standing idly by. People like Mr. Kelly make mistakes and they cannot be pilloried for this. Failure is not a disgrace.

NIMAN · 21-04-2012 11:08PM

Can someone explain why the Occupy/Lefty people are supporting these 2?

Surely people who invested in 21 properties and were so much an example of all that was bad in the Celtic Tiger era, would be exactly the type of people that the Occupy folk wouldn't like?

Delancey · 21-04-2012 11:49PM

It's gratifying to note the way this example of ' Celtic Tiger ' greed has been exposed - 2 ' poor ' pensioners my arse ! Pity Anglo didn't give thenm the boot 2 years ago when they first got the re-possession order.

It is also a good example of the way attempts are made to portray Irelands Untouchables or Sacred Cows , pensioners are 1 group that seem to enjoy this status , nurses are another that everyone seems to love yet they are far from blameless when it comes to the problems of the Health Service.
Teachers are another ' special ' group though I detect the attitude that we should scrape and bow before that self-serving bunch is changing at last.

battle_hardend · 22-04-2012 12:03AM

Justice for the individual wrote: »

And we are bailing out the banks. So do the banks have no obligation to pay back their debts. They are well aware that they will always be protected by our gullible governments, whoever they may be. They know that they can redeem the money from us, and nobody protests. This man and his wife are bearing the brunt of peoples frustrations. Instead they should be aiming their anger and comments towards the real instigators - excessive lending by the financial institutions and soft regulation by government agencies because of the easy availability of stamp duty money from the unfortunate borrowers.

We are taking our eye off the ball, and this is a distraction from the heavy financial burden being put on the Irish people by our government to protect the European model. Nobody is paying back Mr. Kelly's debts. He has collateral - his properties, so the money owed can be redeemed. Lets not focus on this one particular case, but instead concentrate on how policies by successive governments encouraged people to take chances and go for bigger and bigger borrowings, leading to the scenario and indignity of a couple being forced out of their family home. We should all be ashamed of ourselves, the individuals who carried out the eviction, and ourselves for standing idly by. People like Mr. Kelly make mistakes and they cannot be pilloried for this. Failure is not a disgrace.

people are not criticising the kellys because they made poor property descisions , thier criticising them because they deliberatley courted media publicity and tried to potray thier situation as akin to penniless cottage dwellers in the 1840,s , people saw through thier shameless charade pretty quick and didnt like the kind of brassneckery on display

as for your spiel about the banks and the goverment , why benchmark against bad behaviour

mbur · 22-04-2012 01:13AM

battle_hardend wrote: »

people are not criticising the kellys because they made poor property descisions , thier criticising them because they deliberatley courted media publicity and tried to potray thier situation as akin to penniless cottage dwellers in the 1840,s , people saw through thier shameless charade pretty quick and didnt like the kind of brassneckery on display

as for your spiel about the banks and the goverment , why benchmark against bad behaviour

Welcome to boards b_h. I disagree about the dismissal of the Kellys by paddy public. As soon as the word 'landlord" was mentioned they were trash.

I'll bet you we will never get to hear the phone conversation that Kelly was so keen to tell us about. Its always odd when the client tells all but the Bank doesn't want to breach "client" confidentiality.

I'm not so annoyed by what they did. We've seen plenty of "shameless" and "brassneckery" in a lot of high places recently. (I just don't recall having seen it spelt that way). Sadly for the Kellys they are below the "too big to fail" line that seems to exist. They are just going to have to payup like the rest of us mere mortals.

counterlock · 22-04-2012 01:15AM

mbur wrote: »

Its always odd when the client tells all but the Bank doesn't want to breach "client" confidentiality.

No its not, why would a bank publish any details about any of its clients unless it was forced to do so?

Agent J · 22-04-2012 01:31AM

Justice for the individual wrote: »

Nobody is paying back Mr. Kelly's debts. He has collateral - his properties, so the money owed can be redeemed. People like Mr. Kelly make mistakes and they cannot be pilloried for this. Failure is not a disgrace.

Well Mr Kelly obviously isn't paying back his debt. If he doesnt, IBRC does which means the tax payer. He hasn't shown any willingness to use said collateral to pay back this debt over the last 3 years so i see no reason to believe/trust him.

Where is the responability for the individual?

His mistake was to try an obvious pity play and try to play on peoples sympathyies.

Mr Kelly has compared himself to Ghandi & 19th Irish Peasant famers. My sympathy is somewhat lacking for someone without any sense of historical proportions.

ejmaztec · 22-04-2012 01:31AM

The couple should be prosecuted for loitering within tent.

:pac:

El Weirdo · 22-04-2012 01:36AM

ejmaztec wrote: »

The couple should be prosecuted for loitering within tent.

You do realise, I have the powah to ban you now?

K-9 · 22-04-2012 01:43AM

mbur wrote: »

Welcome to boards b_h. I disagree about the dismissal of the Kellys by paddy public. As soon as the word 'landlord" was mentioned they were trash.

Personally I think it was the 21 properties.

I'll bet you we will never get to hear the phone conversation that Kelly was so keen to tell us about. Its always odd when the client tells all but the Bank doesn't want to breach "client" confidentiality.

The guy had had 2 years for phone calls, 2 years. Banks don't tend to break client confidentiality in these cases and you should be glad of that, unless you've examples where they have?

I'm not so annoyed by what they did. We've seen plenty of "shameless" and "brassneckery" in a lot of high places recently. (I just don't recall having seen it spelt that way). Sadly for the Kellys they are below the "too big to fail" line that seems to exist. They are just going to have to payup like the rest of us mere mortals.

A few "too big to fail" have failed.

mikemac1 · 22-04-2012 01:59AM

mbur wrote: »

I'll bet you we will never get to hear the phone conversation that Kelly was so keen to tell us about. Its always odd when the client tells all but the Bank doesn't want to breach "client" confidentiality.

Banks don't release these calls to the media

Never ever

You seem to be saying it's sly that they won't release it

It's private information and there would be sackings if bank staff leaked it to the media

And Mr Kelly can be sly himself
When asked on the Pat Kenny show how many properties he had went into Bertie mode and dodged the question

We find out later on Vincent Brown show it's twenty one

take everything · 22-04-2012 02:45AM

ejmaztec wrote: »

The couple should be prosecuted for loitering within tent.

:pac:

Bravo, sir.

Spread · 22-04-2012 03:18AM

ejmaztec wrote: »

The couple should be prosecuted for loitering within tent.
:pac:

The couple should be prosecuted for loitering with intent within tent. There FYP:p

Spread · 22-04-2012 03:20AM

El Weirdo wrote: »

You do realise, I have the powah to ban you now?

Congratulations El Weirdo. In this here post you have shown remarkable restraint. Perhaps this has nothing to do with recent goings on in London W12

Atlantis50 · 22-04-2012 03:32AM

mikemac1 wrote: »

No windup
Was on another site

http://www.politics.ie/forum/united-left-alliance/186777-people-before-profit-td-joan-collins-speaks-up-evicted-property-speculators.html

Not sure why People before Profit and the ULA are getting involved here

Sure they were bashing rich speculators before, suddenly they defend them?

Heard that. She called in to offer her two cents and it has backfired on her.

Gilmore also going on about how 'distressing' he found the eviction.

That's the left in Ireland for you.

Galwayguy35 · 22-04-2012 05:29AM

NIMAN wrote: »

Can someone explain why the Occupy/Lefty people are supporting these 2?

Surely people who invested in 21 properties and were so much an example of all that was bad in the Celtic Tiger era, would be exactly the type of people that the Occupy folk wouldn't like?

Sure they weren't getting any newstime since their little camp was dismantled. I think it settles the issue as regards those who were defending ODS, i.e. they don't know what they were meant to be protesting about.

Galwayguy35 · 22-04-2012 05:39AM

mbur wrote: »

Welcome to boards b_h. I disagree about the dismissal of the Kellys by paddy public. As soon as the word 'landlord" was mentioned they were trash.

I'll bet you we will never get to hear the phone conversation that Kelly was so keen to tell us about. Its always odd when the client tells all but the Bank doesn't want to breach "client" confidentiality.

I'm not so annoyed by what they did. We've seen plenty of "shameless" and "brassneckery" in a lot of high places recently. (I just don't recall having seen it spelt that way). Sadly for the Kellys they are below the "too big to fail" line that seems to exist. They are just going to have to payup like the rest of us mere mortals.

If memory serves me correctly Kelly was also very selective on the questions he wanted to answer. And I don't think you can compare them to most of us who are scrimping and scraping to keep above water. Most of us when we feel we are going under will at least try to work something out with our lenders. I know I did and while it's not ideal it was the only option. The Kellys seem to have had this all well planned to get in the news and it backfired as their lifestyle was light years away from the average person on the street.

Run_to_da_hills · 22-04-2012 08:11AM

Mr Noonan was far more direct and critical in his comments, saying: "The Government has pledged, insofar as possible, to keep people in their own homes. We have not pledged to keep people in 21 different homes and we must distinguish between people who can't pay and people who won't pay."

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/evicted-couple-upset-at-ministers-comments-3088288.html

Littlehorny · 22-04-2012 08:36AM

Agent J wrote: »

Well Mr Kelly obviously isn't paying back his debt. If he doesnt, IBRC does which means the tax payer. He hasn't shown any willingness to use said collateral to pay back this debt over the last 3 years so i see no reason to believe/trust him.

Where is the responability for the individual?

His mistake was to try an obvious pity play and try to play on peoples sympathyies.

Mr Kelly has compared himself to Ghandi & 19th Irish Peasant famers. My sympathy is somewhat lacking for someone without any sense of historical proportions.

I think i heard in the last couple of days that Mr Kellys home is mortgaged with Anglo but his 21 rental properties are mortgaged with TSB so if he sold all his portfolio TSB will get any money going and probably still be left short so Anglo were never going to see any money from this couple, so the bank had no other option but to evict and try recoup some of the loss.
Classic case of greed during the property bubble by all people involved.

Unrealistic · 22-04-2012 09:09AM

Justice for the individual wrote: »

And we are bailing out the banks. So do the banks have no obligation to pay back their debts. They are well aware that they will always be protected by our gullible governments, whoever they may be. They know that they can redeem the money from us, and nobody protests. This man and his wife are bearing the brunt of peoples frustrations. Instead they should be aiming their anger and comments towards the real instigators - excessive lending by the financial institutions and soft regulation by government agencies because of the easy availability of stamp duty money from the unfortunate borrowers.

We are taking our eye off the ball, and this is a distraction from the heavy financial burden being put on the Irish people by our government to protect the European model. Nobody is paying back Mr. Kelly's debts. He has collateral - his properties, so the money owed can be redeemed. Lets not focus on this one particular case, but instead concentrate on how policies by successive governments encouraged people to take chances and go for bigger and bigger borrowings, leading to the scenario and indignity of a couple being forced out of their family home. We should all be ashamed of ourselves, the individuals who carried out the eviction, and ourselves for standing idly by. People like Mr. Kelly make mistakes and they cannot be pilloried for this. Failure is not a disgrace.

Your arguments might be more persuasive if you didn't get so many of your facts completely arseways. The banks, whether they are still a going concern (AIB, BOI etc.) or being wound down (Anglo, INBS), do have an obligation to pay back the tax payer. It is clear we won't get all of it back but for everyone who gets €2m of free home that's €2m less we'll get back. The bank (INBS) in question has not been "protected by our gullible governments". It is dead and its loans have been transferred to IBRC to try to get at least some of the money back for the tax payer. If the Kellys hadn't fuсked around for three years (they admit they last made a mortgage payment in 2009) they might have been able to sell the house for enough to pay back the outstanding loan. As it is the house will not now achieve even half that amount (so another €1m the taxpayer is out of pocket). The Kellys only have themselves to blame for the "indignity of a couple being forced out of their family home". They deliberately turned this into a media circus hoping they could embarrass the IBRC into letting them keep the house. Thankfully it didn't work. Indeed "failure is not a disgrace" but the Kellys are not being berated for failing but instead for refusing to recognise their own failure and looking for the rest of us to give them €2m worth of free house.

By all means rail against those responsible for lax regulation and loose lending practices but recognise that they couldn't have done the damage they did without a third player, reckless borrowers. And this couple are the classic reckless borrowers taking out a mortgage on a trophy home while approaching retirement and re-mortgaging a whole portfolio of other properties after reaching retirement age.

Pensioners evicted from their home today!!

Comments