Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Buy house, don't pay mortgage, live rent-free for 9 years. MOD WARNING POST #268

Options
1…1011131516…18

Comments

  • Options
    #362
    Poor_old_gill
    Registered Users Posts: 2,893 ✭✭✭Poor_old_gill


    vriesmays wrote: »
    Some people's rent is 24k per year.

    Ok but what's your point?


  • Options
    #363
    Wtf ?
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 343 ✭✭Wtf ?


    Saw them tonight under a tarp in St Anne's Park and the kid's were acting up.
    Won't someone think of the children ?


  • Options
    #364
    tommyc226
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭tommyc226


    That's pretty annoying..Surely the courts won't look too kindly on that?!
    Poor_old_gill wrote: »
    The Ryan's house is only around the corner from mine - the fact that they have a 191 jeep outside is just a ridiculously arrogant 2 fingers to us idiots who actually pay our mortgage.

    I'd gladly keep the money and not bother paying if thats a live option.


  • Options
    #365
    nthclare
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,316 ✭✭✭nthclare


    vriesmays wrote: »
    Some people's rent is 24k per year.

    It's ok it pays for the yawww'z brats or prospective narcissists car for kullage...

    Loike seriously, yuu cont think they'd sent their kid's to kullage wifout a coor...

    Shouldn't we oullll pay for the privilege peeepols loife stoile....

    Wout is wrung with you pesants...

    All joke's aside, rent at 24k a year is ridiculous.

    I think a lot of it's to do with people such as the so called fur coat no knickers brigade having to pay back debts to the banks which they renaged on during the recession and the only way is to hike up the rent and pay back a lot of interest.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, it's the only conclusion I can come up with....


  • Options
    #366
    DubCount
    Registered Users Posts: 1,065 ✭✭✭DubCount


    nthclare wrote: »
    ...

    All joke's aside, rent at 24k a year is ridiculous.

    I think a lot of it's to do with people such as the so called fur coat no knickers brigade having to pay back debts to the banks which they renaged on during the recession and the only way is to hike up the rent and pay back a lot of interest.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, it's the only conclusion I can come up with....

    If you want lower rents, you need more rental supply. To get more rental supply, you need to address landlord costs & risks:

    - Address High Interest rates & Low LTV requirements from banks for Buy2Let

    - Address planning & building regulations to make building new homes more affordable and quicker to build


    - Provide a fast track eviction route for non-paying/anti-social tenants

    - Fix HAP or have more social housing provided directly by govt

    - Stop adding more laws and rules every 6 months

    - Address high taxes on rental income for small investors



    24k rents are a symptom of the problem. Nothing will change while more tenants seek accommodation at the same time the number of available rental properties are falling. This is a result of government policy, and not landlord greed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #367
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,786 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    DubCount wrote: »
    nthclare wrote: »
    ...

    All joke's aside, rent at 24k a year is ridiculous.

    I think a lot of it's to do with people such as the so called fur coat no knickers brigade having to pay back debts to the banks which they renaged on during the recession and the only way is to hike up the rent and pay back a lot of interest.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, it's the only conclusion I can come up with....

    If you want lower rents, you need more rental supply. To get more rental supply, you need to address landlord costs & risks:

    - Address High Interest rates & Low LTV requirements from banks for Buy2Let

    - Address planning & building regulations to make building new homes more affordable and quicker to build


    - Provide a fast track eviction route for non-paying/anti-social tenants

    - Fix HAP or have more social housing provided directly by govt

    - Stop adding more laws and rules every 6 months

    - Address high taxes on rental income for small investors



    24k rents are a symptom of the problem. Nothing will change while more tenants seek accommodation at the same time the number of available rental properties are falling. This is a result of government policy, and not landlord greed.

    The amount of cheap housing in the celtic Tiger era with the lower regulations was impressive......

    Oh wait we never actually saw the cheap housing did we .......

    I also note that pre new regs housing ISNT getting a discount in the market .


  • Options
    #368
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,632 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Old diesel wrote: »
    I also note that pre new regs housing ISNT getting a discount in the market .

    Second hand houses are certainly not getting the prices of new - but HTB is causing much if not all of that


  • Options
    #369
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,786 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    L1011 wrote: »
    Old diesel wrote: »
    I also note that pre new regs housing ISNT getting a discount in the market .

    Second hand houses are certainly not getting the prices of new - but HTB is causing much if not all of that

    My apologies I was thinking of the rental market.

    The older stock was "cheaper to build" but it's still stupidly expensive to rent .

    You are probably best looking at grants for meeting some of these new standards rather then simply ditching them.

    In the same way electric cars get incentives because Govt wants more people driving electric cars for emissions.

    A lot of the regulation in new homes is there because......

    1) improved energy efficiency means less fossil fuel use and less emissions - in other words going A1 to A3 BER is part of climate change work.

    2) people cutting corners in the past even with lower regs.

    The A2 BER cost issues can be addressed with grants/supports .

    Issues with BCAR and inspection costs could be addressed by industry putting forward alternative quality control measures that actually work.


  • Options
    #370
    Poor_old_gill
    Registered Users Posts: 2,893 ✭✭✭Poor_old_gill


    https://www.herald.ie/news/ruling-on-ryan-and-flood-home-set-for-monday-38487228.html

    Rumbles on


  • Options
    #371
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,259 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Poor_old_gill wrote: »
    https://www.herald.ie/news/ruling-on-ryan-and-flood-home-set-for-monday-38487228.html

    Rumbles on
    The way that article is writing is hilarious, did Pamela write it or was it her friend ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #372
    the.red.baron
    Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/celebrity-couple-seek-to-keep-their-home-with-634000-writeoff-bid-38509163.html




    This country is some dump, how long can they keep up this



    any normal person would be in jail by now


  • Options
    #373
    tylercheribini
    Registered Users Posts: 2,014 ✭✭✭tylercheribini


    His legal fees to fight it this long have to be in at least the six figure category so not exactly "rent free" living either.


  • Options
    #374
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    pyramuid man wrote: »
    It wouldn't surprise me if they have been saving enough to buy another house in that nine years....

    They would have had to disclose that in the personal insolvency application if that was the case which is of course most unlikely.


  • Options
    #375
    the.red.baron
    Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    they spent it all...


    hard to afford life in Malahide on peanuts


    which of course they wont have




    no doubt they won't be on the homeless list after the insolvency









  • Options
    #376
    Poor_old_gill
    Registered Users Posts: 2,893 ✭✭✭Poor_old_gill


    the.red.baron wrote: »
    they spent it all...


    hard to afford life in Malahide on peanuts


    which of course they wont have




    no doubt they won't be on the homeless list after the insolvency








    As I said previously - the 191 jeep outside the house just makes a farce of this whole thing.

    They'd not have gotten credit for it so must have paid cash - sheer lunacy that this has been allowed to carry on


  • Options
    #377
    Immortal Starlight
    Registered Users Posts: 2,074 ✭✭✭Immortal Starlight


    In a case like this it's who you are that counts. If it was any of us there's no way we'd be in that house 9 years after we'd stopped paying for it. It's absolutely ridiculous.


  • Options
    #378
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,865 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Guessing they will keep the house now. But who knows?

    As a pp said, those who are honest and upfront with their issues, engage Stepchange or whatever it's called, and come to an agreement and show interraction with the process still might lose their home.

    God help those who have not got the legal backup like this pair has. But if the law says it's ok, what can we say?


  • Options
    #379
    tylercheribini
    Registered Users Posts: 2,014 ✭✭✭tylercheribini


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    Guessing they will keep the house now. But who knows?

    As a pp said, those who are honest and upfront with their issues, engage Stepchange or whatever it's called, and come to an agreement and show interraction with the process still might lose their home.

    God help those who have not got the legal backup like this pair has. But if the law says it's ok, what can we say?

    Her being a barrister certainly doesnt hurt either, prob Godmother to the Judges first born.


  • Options
    #380
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,865 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    tylercheribini wrote: »
    Her being a barrister certainly doesnt hurt either, prob Godmother to the Judges first born.

    Never knew she was a legal eagle. Any evidence of this, just wondered why it hadn't been mentioned up to now. Well as far as I could see, but that's not much these days either!


  • Options
    #381
    tylercheribini
    Registered Users Posts: 2,014 ✭✭✭tylercheribini


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    Never knew she was a legal eagle. Any evidence of this, just wondered why it hadn't been mentioned up to now. Well as far as I could see, but that's not much these days either!

    Apologies, mixin het up with that Lowe one.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #382
    Poor_old_gill
    Registered Users Posts: 2,893 ✭✭✭Poor_old_gill


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    Guessing they will keep the house now. But who knows?

    As a pp said, those who are honest and upfront with their issues, engage Stepchange or whatever it's called, and come to an agreement and show interraction with the process still might lose their home.

    God help those who have not got the legal backup like this pair has. But if the law says it's ok, what can we say?

    Will they keep the house?
    I'd imagine that the fund will push hard for this not to happen as otherwise they will have a raft of people doing the same


  • Options
    #383
    CiarraiAbu2
    Registered Users Posts: 582 ✭✭✭CiarraiAbu2


    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/pamela-flood-ronan-ryan-avoid-immediate-loss-of-home-after-court-appeal-1.4042748


  • Options
    #384
    punisher5112
    Registered Users Posts: 24,647 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    CiarraiAbu2 wrote: »
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/pamela-flood-ronan-ryan-avoid-immediate-loss-of-home-after-court-appeal-1.4042748

    Wow...

    Pay nothing and get to still keep everything..


  • Options
    #385
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,003 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    punisher5112 wrote: »
    Wow...

    Pay nothing and get to still keep everything..

    The law is an ass, but I feel like a bigger one because I have been paying a mortgage for 20 years.


  • Options
    #386
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Dav010 wrote: »
    The law is an ass, but I feel like a bigger one because I have been paying a mortgage for 20 years.

    Likewise.

    Should this not have ruined their credit rating in the meantime.


  • Options
    #387
    zom
    Registered Users Posts: 1,908 ✭✭✭zom


    Actually this is very interesting story in case of someone facing house eviction. This "Personal Insolvency Act" seems to be a gate to heaven for people who don't want to pay their mortgage anymore..

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/former-miss-ireland-pamela-flood-and-ronan-ryan-win-reprieve-over-900k-dublin-home-955510.html
    Instead, Mr Ryan brought proceedings under the Personal Insolvency Act and obtained a protective certificate from the Circuit Court in late June.

    The certificate prevented Tanager from executing the possession order against the couple's home, pending the determination of the application of a personal insolvency arrangement.

    Tanager, which acquired the loan Mr Ryan took out on the property, opposed the appeal and had argued that it was fundamentally unfair if the existence of the protective certificate was allowed derail its order for possession.

    It argued that Mr Ryan should not be allowed to go behind the consent order made in March. Mr Ryan's conduct in seeking a protective certificate, it was argued, represented an abuse of process.

    This was because Mr Ryan had failed to disclose the existence of the possession order when seeking the protective certificate.

    Mr Ryan, represented by Keith Farry Bl instructed by solicitor Eugene Carley argued that there had been no material non-disclosure by him, and despite the existence of the possession order Mr Ryan met the eligibility criteria for a protective certificate.

    In his ruling, Mr Justice Simons said that while it was unsatisfactory that the existence of the possession order was not disclosed to the Circuit Court the omission did not constitute a material non-disclosure.

    The existence of the possession order, the judge, said would not have affected the outcome of the application for a protective certificate.

    The possession order the Judge said is not a bar to the restructuring of secured debt by way of an insolvency arrangement.

    The fact that Tanager has the benefit of an unexecuted order for possession does not preclude the possibility of the restructuring of debts as envisaged under personal insolvency laws.

    Mr Ryan, the judge added, met the eligibility criteria for the protective certificate.


  • Options
    #388
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,499 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Courts will go crazy now, every barrister will.use this for their clients. You just have to follow the path they did and it's likely you win.


  • Options
    #389
    knucklehead6
    Registered Users Posts: 6,737 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Courts will go crazy now, every barrister will.use this for their clients. You just have to follow the path they did and it's likely you win.

    And it also means the banks will go crazier with mortgage interest rates, so those of us who aren't famous and don't have friends in the media etc will all lose

    Thanks Pam and Ronan. You pair of leeches


  • Options
    #390
    terrydel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,881 ✭✭✭terrydel


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Courts will go crazy now, every barrister will.use this for their clients. You just have to follow the path they did and it's likely you win.

    I'd love to see receipts for everything they've spent in the intervening years.
    I bet the fancy restaurants, multiple holidays, material and lifestyle purchases have continued unabated.
    As Christy Moore sang, 'He still drives a car and smokes his cigar
    And still he takes his family on a cruise, he'll never lose'.

    A certain section of Irish elite society live by those words.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #391
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,786 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    This ISNT permanent though right??????.

    They are going for a personal insolvency arrangement.

    At the end of the process this will need to be sorted again.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement