English landlord to evict Irish tenants?

RATM

Here's an interesting case. English landlords who left their land in Sligo nearly 100 years are staking their claim on it and demanding payment.
Full article:-
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/landlords-lay-claim-to-property-at-scenic-spot-2307972.html

VILLAGERS are reeling after English-based landlords staked claim to property that the original owners left almost a century ago.

Several locals in Rosses Point, Co Sligo, received a solicitor's letter telling them they had 28 days to hand over property to people they had never met.

The letters come from shareholders of the original owners of the property ground rent, the Middleton Estate, most of whose family departed Ireland up to 90 years ago.

In the 1970s, locals traced Middleton family members across the globe, and reached a deal where many bought their ground rent for sums of around IR£100.

But some did not clinch agreement, leaving uncertainty over the ground on which their homes was built, which is in one of the most valuable locations in the north-west.

Meanwhile, Devon-based vicar, the Reverend Guy Chave-Cox, and his wife Heather, who claims descent from the Middleton family, have been checking land in Rosses Point.

It includes a seaside home where the Yeats brothers, poet WB and painter Jack, holidayed with their Middleton cousins in the now-dilapidated Elsinore Lodge.

The lodge was originally built in the early 19th century by pirate captain John Black.

A number of homeowners received solicitors' letters in July, one of which has been seen by the Irish Independent, with the 28-day notice from shareholders of the Middleton estate.

It claimed the homeowner was "wrongfully in possession" of Middleton Estate property. It threatened proceedings without further notice if the property wasn't surrendered. That means, with the 28-day notice, proceedings against some householders could start today.

I'm no expert on property law but don't squatters rights apply in Ireland? A 12 year rule? If the landlord cannot prove they have physically put their foot on the land at least one day every 12 years then the occupier can claim the land for themselves? Or does this just apply to an actual house and not necessarily the land it is on?

I can see this one going all the way to the High Court and maybe beyond.

/grabs popcorn

Treehouse72

Not a legal expert, but there an element of law known as Equity, which I believe states that the strict interpretation of a law can take a back seat to the laws of natural justice in some situations. Given these lands were purchasable in the 70's for £100's, it would stike me as perverse and iniquitous if these people lost them now.

time lord

Would adverse pocession "Squatter rights" not work. No interest from the deed holder for 12 years of more I think would qualify the squatter to gain pocession. Maybe thats just for land?

Anyhow just a thought.

antoinolachtnai

No, is not adverse possession since they were on the land lawfully, under the lease. The lease is over and the ll is asserting his rights.

time lord

I read the indo article. I didn't pick up on when the leases were up.
Would not the tennents who signed the lease not be dead long ago making todays people "squatters" (a desireable title at the moment for them)

antoinolachtnai

Well he wouldn't be serving notice if the lease wasn't up.

The tenants likely have acquired their leasehold interests as assignments from these dead tenants. Even if they gained adverse possession from a tenant that doesn't necessarily mean the interest of the landlord, who may never have been in possession, is torn up. Complicated stuff.

Cavehill Red

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

No, is not adverse possession since they were on the land lawfully, under the lease. The lease is over and the ll is asserting his rights.

Any Irish state that upheld alleged 'rights' of those claiming Irish land having departed this island some ninety years ago does not deserve the name.
This case should be flung out of court with adverse penalties issuing upon those who chose to take it.

Guy:Incognito

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Any Irish state that upheld alleged 'rights' of those claiming Irish land having departed this island some ninety years ago does not deserve the name.
This case should be flung out of court with adverse penalties issuing upon those who chose to take it.

I disagree and I also disagree with the notion of squatters rights. I should have every right to leave my own property and expect to come back to it when I see fit , however long that may be, and it still be as I left it.

If this case didnt involve the "evil English occupiers" no one would give a crap.

Cavehill Red

Stekelly wrote: »

I disagree and I also disagree with the notion of squatters rights. I should have every right to leave my own property and expect to come back to it when I see fit , however long that may be, and it still be as I left it.

No problem with that. Except the original 'owners' (and I would query the legitimacy of their ownership, as it likely stems from a foreign regent in the first place) didn't come back. Their distant descendants did.

Stekelly wrote: »

If this case didnt involve the "evil English occupiers" no one would give a crap.

I suspect any Viking descendant seeking to claim central Dublin wouldn't last long in an Irish court, actually.

Jo King

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Any Irish state that upheld alleged 'rights' of those claiming Irish land having departed this island some ninety years ago does not deserve the name.
This case should be flung out of court with adverse penalties issuing upon those who chose to take it.

There is a provision in the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rent) Act 1978 allowing people who occupy under a long lease to buy the freehold even where the owner cannot be traced.The people who are affected by the moves by the estate to assert it's interests obviously did not avail of the statutory procedures available to them.
When the state was founded all existing rights in property were preserved. It is a fundamental constitution principle that there cannot be arbitrary confiscation or dispossession of property.
The fact that someone is based outside the jurisdiction does not meant that the fundamental laws of the state do not apply to them.

MysticalSoul

28 days seems quite short to me. Would the notice period not be dependent on how long people have occupied the premises, as per the PRTA rules?

the_syco

Stekelly wrote: »

I disagree and I also disagree with the notion of squatters rights. I should have every right to leave my own property and expect to come back to it when I see fit , however long that may be, and it still be as I left it.

If the land was not left to them in the will of the original owner, I cannot see how they can claim any ownership of it?

MysticalSoul wrote: »

28 days seems quite short to me. Would the notice period not be dependent on how long people have occupied the premises, as per the PRTA rules?

I think it's 12 weeks if they've lived there 4 years or more...

antoinolachtnai

They may have a will but you don't necessarily need one to inherit property. A lease like that would be unlikely to come under the PRTB. 28 days could be fine,depends on the circumstances and the lease.

The landlord just wants them to buy out the freehold by the looks of things. It's not necessarily a big deal.

D3PO

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The landlord just wants them to buy out the freehold by the looks of things. It's not necessarily a big deal.

^ this

I think a mountain is being made out of a molehill. Thats what the quotes and the story seem to indicate.

the_syco

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The landlord just wants them to buy out the freehold by the looks of things. It's not necessarily a big deal.

To me, it looks like they're trying to get a free house and some cash with a technicality...

antoinolachtnai

Them owning the freehold on the land would be a bit more than a technicality.

jenny jinks

If the lease on the land has expired they would have to pay one eight of the market value of the house for a new lease. It is happening a lot around Dublin where leases expire and people whose ground rent was a few euro a year have to pay hundreds of thousands of euro for a new lease. People who occupy houses on long leases should buy them out at the earliest opportunity and kill off the problem once and for all.

The_Conductor

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I suspect any Viking descendant seeking to claim central Dublin wouldn't last long in an Irish court, actually.

I also suspect that if I tried to lay claim to several hundred acres of farmland in Tyrone that my ancestors were dispossessed of 360 odd years ago against their will, that I'd be shot..... I am also certain I have other ancestors who farmed and owned land at Rosses Point in the 17th century- and were dispossessed also- surely a solid claim of dispossession trumps that of an absentee landlord and his or her descendents?

Do these distant ancestors really want to open the can of worms that Cromwell and others set in place when they dispossessed the Irish of much of their property and lands?

shoegirl

Strange case. It seems that the people in question are now denying that they instructed a solicitor to write those letters demanding repossession, but locals are showing the media letters from a solicitor in Mayo demanding vacant possession within 28 days.

For a start I think the English couple in question would need to prove both that they are the legitimate heirs and that those heirs would have legitimate ownership. Its possible that might not be certain.

It is probable that after such a long time courts would be unlikely to "evict" people who bought or inherited houses on that land without substantial compensation after so many decades.

Jo King

shoegirl wrote: »

For a start I think the English couple in question would need to prove both that they are the legitimate heirs and that those heirs would have legitimate ownership. Its possible that might not be certain.

It is probable that after such a long time courts would be unlikely to "evict" people who bought or inherited houses on that land without substantial compensation after so many decades.

They need no necessarily be the heirs of anybody. They could have purchased the portfolio from people entitled. Many leases on property were for periods up to 999 years. There is often little difficulty proving title. Deeds are registered in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Registry and the landed gentry tended to be quite careful keeping tabs on their portfolios.
It is not the decision of the courts to evict or not. The courts must apply the law. If somebody comes to court and proves their title and proves that they are entitled to possession the courts must give it. It is for the Oireachtais to legislate within the constitution to alter that outcome.

Some companies have spent years buying up freehold interests and often try things on.

jmayo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

No problem with that. Except the original 'owners' (and I would query the legitimacy of their ownership, as it likely stems from a foreign regent in the first place) didn't come back. Their distant descendants did.

I suspect any Viking descendant seeking to claim central Dublin wouldn't last long in an Irish court, actually.

Well the Israelis reckon the Jews have claim to Palestine and their claims go even further back.

Then again they do use tanks and helicopter gunships to get their point across. :rolleyes:

This looks like some vicar was doing the old "Who am I or where did I come from" (whatever that TV show is called) and reckons he can get a few quid out of the peasant Irish.

Another interesting one is Castlebar where lots of property was owned by Lord Lucan.
Now AFAIK some tenants were trying to have it legally stated that he was now probably deceased so that they could move things along and probably buy out their property or reach agreement with his heirs.

D3PO wrote: »

^ this

I think a mountain is being made out of a molehill. Thats what the quotes and the story seem to indicate.

Yeah but it could be a big costly worrying molehill for some old folks who may have lived all their lives in these properties, but are now facing threat of eviction from their homes.

antoinolachtnai

Presumably their solicitors, or the solicitors of their predecessors, would have advised that this was a lease not a land transfer, and that they would be required to pay rent, even if this was not completely obvious from the papers they signed.

gaius c

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

No, is not adverse possession since they were on the land lawfully, under the lease. The lease is over and the ll is asserting his rights.

Is it?
These leases tend to last for 999 years!

gaius c

Jo King wrote: »

Some companies have spent years buying up freehold interests and often try things on.

Noel O'Gara... We're looking at you!

Mary Hairy

gaius c wrote: »

Is it?
These leases tend to last for 999 years!

Some of them can be as short as 99 years. I was offered one once on a house in Phibsboro. Many of the houses in Rathmines have 200 year leases and some have 150 year leases. People living in houses built in the 19th century in these areas have been getting nasty surprises in these areas over the past few years.