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

hometruths

Jesus wept, if you heard these guys interviewed out of the blue you would think they are a satirical comedy sketch - sneering at the weight of the thugs, comapring the eviction to those in 18th century, "i'm not here to discuss my finances" etc.

How anyone can take them seriously is beyond me, never mind socialist TDs and protestors! They are just deluded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t0oPNNzY2Y

edit: will try again to embed, here is direct link http://youtu.be/6t0oPNNzY2Y

Show Time

Anyone feeling sorry for this pair need their heads read.

mbur

K-9 wrote: »

Personally I think it was the 21 properties.

I first heard about this on NewsTalk and Pat Kenny just after Kellys first interview. The reaction was not good. No talk of 21 props then. At that number he is nothing special in this country BTW. The guy I first rented off had over 40.

K-9 wrote: »

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 get the impression that once IBRC get that court ruling its all over. No wriggle room, no more deals, they have what they want and you have two years to get out. Mr Kelly, ever the optimist, thought he had a few more chips to play. It was a smart move to put the eviction video on you tube. Sadly for Kelly the game was already lost. You are right, the banks never give any info unless forced to by the 'law'. Kelly might have taped the phone conversations himself and embarrased a few banker phone jocks. But there is a huge double standard there. Y'all would be condeming him for being sneeky.

K-9 wrote: »

A few "too big to fail" have failed.

It's a very exclusive group. We are just getting new owners who are bigger (more agressive) than the last lot.

Gummy Panda

People should ignore these fools and put their attention on Prority Hall. Now that's the little man getting fúcked

The Waltzing Consumer

Gummy Panda wrote: »

People should ignore these fools and put their attention on Prority Hall. Now that's the little man getting fúcked

You would think wouldn't you? But unfortunately, it is not a FF or Government linked developer at Priory Hall.

I think the reason you don't see massive protests or similar occupy protests for Priory Hall is because the developer is a former Hunger Striker and attended an event in recent years for Mary Lou McDonald.

If the developer had these type of links to FF or FG/LAB, you would see the ULA and SF go mad and use the media to create a storm, but double standards are pretty evident.

super_furry

I just honestly don't understand why they even think they should be allowed to remain in the house.

battle_hardend

super_furry wrote: »

I just honestly don't understand why they even think they should be allowed to remain in the house.

irish people are notoriously sentimental when it comes to any issue relating to pensioners , they probabley thought they would be given a pass on everything due to thier age

true

This is a classic case of a reckless bank selling an absolutely huge and unsustainable mortgage on a home to a couple approaching retirement and re-mortgaging their whole portfolio of other properties. No wonder the banking system failed in this country. The bankers and regulator have a lot to answer for. They were supposed to be the experts. After wrecking the system, collecting their bonuses and pensions they are not the ones in the tent now.

battle_hardend

true wrote: »

This is a classic case of a reckless bank selling an absolutely huge and unsustainable mortgage on a home to a couple approaching retirement and re-mortgaging their whole portfolio of other properties. No wonder the banking system failed in this country. The bankers and regulator have a lot to answer for. They were supposed to be the experts. After wrecking the system, collecting their bonuses and pensions they are not the ones in the tent now.

so no responsibility rests with the kellys ?

true

battle_hardend wrote: »

so no responsibility rests with the kellys ?

did they commit any crime or break any law? They worked hard, sold their businesses in Germany and invested in the Irish economy. They tried to provide for their own future and I would hazard a guess that they paid a hell of a lot of stampt duty and other taxes over the years.

Had the bank acted prudently - and asked how a couple at retirement age could intend to pay back a multi-million mortgage ......then things would be different now, now just for the Kellys but for the whole economy. The bankers greed in looking for his bonus on selling the multi-million mortgage which he/she must have known could never be paid back...

The Waltzing Consumer

true wrote: »

This is a classic case of a reckless bank selling an absolutely huge and unsustainable mortgage on a home to a couple approaching retirement and re-mortgaging their whole portfolio of other properties. No wonder the banking system failed in this country. The bankers and regulator have a lot to answer for. They were supposed to be the experts. After wrecking the system, collecting their bonuses and pensions they are not the ones in the tent now.

You must be one of those occupy guys supporting this couple?

How does it feel to have finally jumped the shark?

true

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

You must be one of those occupy guys supporting this couple?

no ( I do not know what an occupy guy is ) , but I always try to see things from the other persons point of view.

The biggest sharks I saw were the bank managers, the regulator and government who created the mess / allowed it to happen. They are still swimming and feeding off you and me.

battle_hardend

true wrote: »

did they commit any crime or break any law? They worked hard, sold their businesses in Germany and invested in the Irish economy. They tried to provide for their own future and I would hazard a guess that they paid a hell of a lot of stampt duty and other taxes over the years.

Had the bank acted prudently - and asked how a couple at retirement age could intend to pay back a multi-million mortgage ......then things would be different now, now just for the Kellys but for the whole economy. The bankers greed in looking for his bonus on selling the multi-million mortgage which he/she must have known could never be paid back...

your rationale is astonishing to me

The Waltzing Consumer

true wrote: »

no ( I do not know what an occupy guy is ) , but I always try to see things from the other persons point of view.

The biggest sharks I saw were the bank managers, the regulator and government who created the mess / allowed it to happen. They are still swimming and feeding off you and me.

What would you be saying if this couple were bank managers or regulators? Would you still be defending them?

What does it fricking take for people like you to be rational and think about PERSONAL responsibility? No bank had a gun to anyone's head and demanded to give them a loan.

Monty Burnz

true wrote: »

no ( I do not know what an occupy guy is ) , but I always try to see things from the other persons point of view.

The biggest sharks I saw were the bank managers, the regulator and government who created the mess / allowed it to happen. They are still swimming and feeding off you and me.

Why do you think the loan was reckless? It seems to me that the bank will get its money back. That's what a bank is supposed to do, no?

Clareboy

I imagine that Kelly thought that people like him - living in Killiney in a €2,000,000 home would never be evicted. At least now we can see that the long held view of ' one law for the rich and another law for the poor' no longer applies.

true

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

No bank mortgage applicant had a gun to anyone's head and demanded to give them a loan.

fixed that for you. No bank should have sold an absolutely huge and unsustainable mortgage on a home to a couple approaching retirement and who had not the means of paying it back. They would not have sold a multi-million mortgage to near-pensioners in the 80's or 90's and no bank would do it now either.

mikemac1

Buy property and price goes up: Canny investor :cool:
Buy property and price goes down: Blame the regulator and government and everyone

They are investors and as they say on the ads, past performance is no guide to future returns

There were lots who put their money in shares and lost everything like AIB and BOI shares.
Or remember Elan about seven years ago and they collapsed overnight

Tough luck on losing money on shares, it's risky.
Well so is property

Mr Kelly is an accountant, I feel I shouldn't have to post this

thebaz

"They (Kelly's) just get the feeling that the mood against them is turning in a bad way. For Brendan, this isn't to do with how many investment properties he owns. He's upset that he and Asta have been put out of their home."

My heart bleeds , I knew it wouldnt take long before they hightailed to one of the many properties they own - I own no properties , if I don't pay my rent I get turfed out, by the likes of Mr. Kelly, and literally to the streets - I did support the Occupy movement , but their support for Kellys has changed that ...

true

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Why do you think the loan was reckless? It seems to me that the bank will get its money back.

Bank lending was reckless because the applicants - at retirement age - could never have paid it back.
No wonder the banks went bust. The banks will not get all the monety it foolishly lent in the boom. It did not lend foolishly in the 80's or 90's and is not lending foolishly now.

The Waltzing Consumer

true wrote: »

fixed that for you. No bank should have sold an absolutely huge and unsustainable mortgage on a home to a couple approaching retirement and who had not the means of paying it back. They would not have sold a multi-million mortgage to near-pensioners in the 80's or 90's and no bank would do it now either.

again, avoiding any sense of personal responsibility. :rolleyes:

Good attitude, sure blame no one for anything, blame a vague term, reckless bankers, that helps.

Monty Burnz

true wrote: »

fixed that for you. No bank should have sold an absolutely huge and unsustainable mortgage on a home to a couple approaching retirement and who had not the means of paying it back. They would not have sold a multi-million mortgage to near-pensioners in the 80's or 90's and no bank would do it now either.

If I go into a motorbike shop, ask them for a bike, pay for it, crash it and hurt myself - is that the fault of the bike shop?

If I go into a bank, ask them for a loan, sign the forms, take the cash, buy an asset and get into financial trouble - is that the fault of the bank?

Monty Burnz

true wrote: »

Bank lending was reckless because the applicants - at retirement age - could never have paid it back.

Presumably they and the bank thought they could. The bank took a lien on the house to be sure they would get their money if they couldn't.

Nothing wrong with the lending. Stupid borrowing, perhaps?

true

mikemac1 wrote: »

There were lots who put their money in shares and lost everything like AIB and BOI shares.

But ( generrally speaking) the banks were not lending vast sums to tens of thousands of people to invest in shares.
By throwing money at borrowers like the Kellys at retirement age they must have known in 05 / 06 it would come crashing down. So why did they - just to get their big bonuses?

battle_hardend

true wrote: »

fixed that for you. No bank should have sold an absolutely huge and unsustainable mortgage on a home to a couple approaching retirement and who had not the means of paying it back. They would not have sold a multi-million mortgage to near-pensioners in the 80's or 90's and no bank would do it now either.

the kellys not only had the means of paying it back , they have the means , they can sell everyone of thier rental properties if they wish , even in todays market , the proceeds of twentys properties would easily cover a two million euro house in kiliney , the kellys would have gotten more for thier rental properties two years ago when they stopped paying the mortgage on thier principal residence , instead they made a descision to brazen things out , thier is some merit in saying a persons principal residence is sacred and should be beyond the bank ( not sure i agree entirely ) but to suggest that a big fat portfolio is a no go area is infantile

The Waltzing Consumer

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Presumably they and the bank thought they could. The bank took a lien on the house to be sure they would get their money if they couldn't.

Nothing wrong with the lending. Stupid borrowing, perhaps?

Stop it Monty, rational thinking does not belong.

How dare you suggest that this couple are thinking, intelligent beings who understood that by taking this money, they agreed to the terms that if they could not pay it back, they would lose their house.

Na na, let's pretend their idiots and stupid and the bankers twisted their moustaches as they never gave this VERY VERY VERY VERY obvious information to this poor poor couple who had never owned or bought any property before.

battle_hardend

true wrote: »

But ( generrally speaking) the banks were not lending vast sums to tens of thousands of people to invest in shares.
By throwing money at borrowers like the Kellys at retirement age they must have known in 05 / 06 it would come crashing down. So why did they - just to get their big bonuses?

even mr kelly was ninety , with such a large portfolio of property assetts , he was a safer bet than a twenty something starting out in an insecure job market , the kellys have and had ample security , they are by any measure , well off people

true

battle_hardend wrote: »

the kellys not only had the means of paying it back , they have the means , they can sell everyone of thier rental properties if they wish , even in todays market , the proceeds of twentys properties would easily cover a two million euro house in kiliney

not if the loans on the 20 properties greatly exceed their value, which is likely.

oppenheimer1

Possibly the most interesting Irish story all week, and not even a mention of it in the Sunday Independent today.

What agenda do they have?

true

battle_hardend wrote: »

even mr kelly was ninety , with such a large portfolio of property assetts , he was a safer bet than a twenty something starting out in an insecure job market , the kellys have and had ample security , they are by any measure , well off people

the fact that the banks are losing billions show that reckless lending has cost the banks a fortune. No other banks would give a couple at retirement age a mortgage on a house for 3 million or whatever.