Forced eviction stopped by protestors, zero coverage in media?!!

Chuck Stone

Red_Wake wrote: »

How much responsibilty would you place on the shoulders of the those who took out the unsustainable mortgages?

More to the point, would you impose this 'incompetence penalty' on all professions, and who would it be payable to?

The penalty for incompetent bankers would be for them and investors/shareholders of banks to be liable for bad debts and liable to their last penny of wealth and assets.

If they don't like it take out insurance like people with cars do and see how much it costs.

Frank Black

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The penalty for incompetent bankers would be for them and investors/shareholders of banks to be liable for bad debts and liable to their last penny of wealth and assets.

If they don't like it take out insurance like people with cars do and see how much it costs.

A lot of professions do have to take out insurance to indemnify themselves.
Professional indemnity insurance is compulsory in most sectors of the construction industry.

It can cost quite a lot.

ejmaztec

curlzy wrote: »

I'm 92.51% sure you're joking but. . . just in case: http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/wbyeats/bl-wbye-sept.htm

I'm 100% sure that I was being cynical.:pac:


I reckon all of those writers and poets worked for the tourist board anyway.

Chuck Stone

black francis wrote: »

A lot of professions do have to take out insurance to indemnify themselves.
Professional indemnity insurance is compulsory in most sectors of the construction industry.

Yep.

It can cost quite a lot.

Because it reflects the risk.

The big US banks had billions of dollars worth of their dodgy assets insured with AIG who were then bailed out by the tax paying public i.e. no risk 'capitalism' or in more emotive terms thieving from tax-payers.

Goldman Sachs collected nearly $3bn (£1.9bn) from bailed-out US insurer American International Group (AIG) as a payout on bets it placed on its own account – with the bulk coming directly from taxpayers after AIG's rescue.

guardian.co.uk

benway

TheZohan wrote: »

From reading the thread over in politics.ie it seems that they sold some property to pay for their debt and only a small amount of debt remained, the bank was unwilling to restructure the debt in any way.

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Here's the update from the Laois Nationalist (not regularly quoted from on AH I imagine):

http://www.laois-nationalist.ie/tabId/153/itemId/13804/I-stopped-the-sheriff.aspx



Odd that Ulster Bank would try and evict a man who is making repayments on such a small loan. As long as he is actually trying to service the debt that is. It says he missed his first repayment in 2006 and try to negotiate with the bank at that stage and they refused. No work if he's actually paid anything off since though. If he hasn't been giving them anything, of course they are going to try and evict him.

I see this at work every day of the week - this is how the banks are operating at the moment, it's an absolute disgrace. Bullying, pure and simple - something needs to be done about this.

I'm glad that the Sherriff was turned back, but please, please let no-one fool themselves that it had anything to do with this Gilroy chap's expert constitutional knowledge, or any "law of the sea" freeman nonsense.

See how many were there between Gardaí and the Sheriff? And see how many protesters? You do the maths.

Red_Wake

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The penalty for incompetent bankers would be for them and investors/shareholders of banks to be liable for bad debts and liable to their last penny of wealth and assets.

If they don't like it take out insurance like people with cars do and see how much it costs.

But would you impose similiar penalties for incompetence in every job?

If not, why are bankers singled out, beyond that you consider them culpable for the current problems facing problems?

And how much culpability would you place on the shoulders who took out mortgages they can no longer afford?

Fries-With-That

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpUjl4LvQM8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Link to the story on YouTube

Fries-With-That

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpUjl4LvQM8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Link to the story on YouTube

cursai

Don't know if the video was already posted

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpUjl4LvQM8

Chuck Stone

Red_Wake wrote: »

But would you impose similiar penalties for incompetence in every job?

Jobs related incompetence and accidents are covered by private insurance or are factored into the cost of doing business.

Rolls Royce are being sued by Quantas for loss of earnings due to engine failure and grounding of the A380 fleet - for example.

You consider them [bankers] culpable for the current problems facing problems?

Yes 100%

And how much culpability would you place on the shoulders who took out mortgages they can no longer afford?

The bank took the risk on the mortgage so should shoulder some of the responsibility or at least the debts after assets are recovered.

The Waltzing Consumer

benway wrote: »

I see this at work every day of the week - this is how the banks are operating at the moment, it's an absolute disgrace. Bullying, pure and simple - something needs to be done about this.
.

These are the stats I have seen:

311 orders for possession were granted at the High Court in 2010, compared to 293 in 2009, 238 in 2008 and 109 in 2007.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0104/1224286702036.html

So out of the tens of thousands of houses and apartments, there are a tiny tiny number of orders so your argument is completely flawed. It is in the bank's interest to get as much return as possible, repossessing a home does not give that, it is more costly, uses more resources and very bad publicity.

So how exactly are you seeing this every day? It does not happen everyday.

benway

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

These are the stats I have seen:

311 orders for possession were granted at the High Court in 2010, compared to 293 in 2009, 238 in 2008 and 109 in 2007.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0104/1224286702036.html

So out of the tens of thousands of houses and apartments, there are a tiny tiny number of orders so your argument is completely flawed. It is in the bank's interest to get as much return as possible, repossessing a home does not give that, it is more costly, uses more resources and very bad publicity.

So how exactly are you seeing this every day? It does not happen everyday.

Try sitting in the Master's Court four days a week, Chancery Special Summons list on a Monday, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. If you don't know what these are, then I suggest you stop being so high-handed.

It's the bullying tactics in particular that I have a problem with.

Red_Wake wrote:

And how much culpability would you place on the shoulders who took out mortgages they can no longer afford?

This is a good question. It's absolutely clear to me that some kind of allowance will have to be made, as a matter of basic fairness and so as to get people spending money again, there won't be any kind of economic recovery without some movement on the personal debt crisis.

Phill Ewinn

Seachmall wrote: »

A "forced eviction" is when the Sheriff shows up. It's then a criminal matter should you refuse to leave.

The sheriff has feck all power in this state. It's you against him. The guards show up for protection of both parties. He can be fecked off your land regardless of what he says.

steddyeddy

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

The sheriff has feck all power in this state. It's you against him. The guards show up for protection of both parties. He can be fecked off your land regardless of what he says.

Is that true? I only encountered american sheriffs who have varying levels of power depending on the state. Nevr once met an irish sheriff!

benway

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

The sheriff has feck all power in this state. It's you against him. The guards show up for protection of both parties. He can be fecked off your land regardless of what he says.

Afraid not, per the Law Reform Commission's summary:

Law Reform Commission wrote:

The sheriff may enter a debtor's premises for the purpose of seizing his goods in execution and may do so forcibly. He must, however, first make reasonable efforts to enter “peaceably and without violence”. He may also forcibly enter the premises of a third party where he either had reasonable grounds for believing that there were goods of the judgment debtor in such premises or he actually finds the goods there. Again, he can only do so after having first made a reasonable attempt to enter peaceably. This is provided for in s 12 of the Enforcement of Court Orders Act 1926. Prior to the enactment of the legislation, the sheriff was never entitled to break into the dwelling-house of the judgment debtor, although he was free to enter without breaking or using force. This privilege did not extend to other premises occupied by the judgment debtor. Entry on to a stranger's property by the sheriff could be justified only if he actually found the judgment debtor's goods there, although even a forcible entry was justified in that even. This is still the law in England.

The report also covers the constitutional question mark over the provisions, but until the section is struck down, it's still the law.

subway

Power of sheriff to oversee an eviction order was repealed in 09.
any case heard before that could still be evicted.
People are opposed to that.
Mr wellstead is one such person caught in that limbo.
What happened today is that they made a scene instead of just filing for a delay until the high court judgments in April.
There is no great victory.

The freeman are just full of ****e, or idiots.

benway

subway wrote: »

Power of sheriff to oversee an eviction order was repealed in 09.

My bad, lumped in eviction with execution of money judgment, think the position is still the same in that regard.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

So out of the tens of thousands of houses and apartments, there are a tiny tiny number of orders so your argument is completely flawed. It is in the bank's interest to get as much return as possible, repossessing a home does not give that, it is more costly, uses more resources and very bad publicity.

While I'm at it, I should have mentioned that the majority of proceedings don't end in a formal order - the borrowers give up possession voluntarily. Although "voluntarily" in the loosest sense, with the level of intimidation and bullying that's the banks' m.o. these days.

Turns out, according to the Central Bank, that proceedings have been issued in relation 3,013 of the 70,000 odd mortgages that are in arrears, with final demand letters having issued in another 9,511. The High Court is dealing with around 600 possession cases per year, this is despite the code of conduct on arrears.

Do you honestly think that the banking sector cares less about any more bad publicity these days? Mind you, if the papers actually sat up in the Master's Court and reported with the same kind of creativity that they employ in the criminal courts, it might be a whole different story. As things stand, the only way that these things get into the papers is if it's someone relatively high profile, and even then the reporting is pretty bland, or when the Master calls them in, and even then reporters don't stick around to see the ordinary business of the Court after he's said his piece.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0511/debt.html

steddyeddy

benway wrote: »

My bad, lumped in eviction with execution of money judgment, think the position is still the same in that regard.

Either way the sheriff in the video seemed a bit clueless!

Sykk

pmcmahon wrote: »

If you live in Ireland you live by the law of the land not the law of morals and official correctness.

If that was the case, we'd still be stoning each other to death and ruled by the Brits...

Jumpy

curlzy wrote: »

Yeah I know Francis, I save that threat for only for the worst of the worst. Don't worry though, you're funny, and therefore safe from the dreaded "ignore list:eek:".

I dont know who you are or why you want to put me on your ignore list.
If you are looking for funny, I can tell you I dont have a sense of humour.
But what I do have, is a very particular set of skills, skills I have aquired over a very long boards.ie membership. Skills that make me a nightmare for posters like you.
If you leave me off ignore, that will be the end of it. But if you dont ... I will quote you, edit you and ridicule you by saying "FYP".

bagsmcg

It does my head in that people run to conclusions based on half facts and one sided information. There is no information regarding the history regarding this loan, the ability of the person to pay, did he pay and if he did how much did he pay. If the logic of the person's who think that this is a victory for the common man then why should any of us pay our bills or live up to our responsiblities or commitments. Bring on the anarchy and these self serving individuals that proport this sort of obstructive action are the very ones that will whinge that there rights are been infringed when its free for all.
Everyone is into their rights until it comes to the rights of corporations and big business. I'm sick of it. I pay my bills. My family enjoy no luxuries as there is no money for them. I get nothing from the state other than children's allowance. I have payed my full share of tax all my life and I have been fortunate to always have had a job since I left school. But my responsible way of living my life is getting harder to justify when all around me I see people who lie, cheat and spurn their resposibilities and get away with it scot free. Be it the banks, politicians, regulators, Auditors (who seem to have no responsibility in this fiasco even thought they were paid enormous summs to check all the companies currently in the pan), citizens that partied during the celtic tiger (not me) and finaly the investors that are palying the markets like their private play thing. Its time that the silent quiet majority (I hope its a majority still), start to say enough is enough tell us the truth please.

The Waltzing Consumer

benway wrote: »

Try sitting in the Master's Court four days a week, Chancery Special Summons list on a Monday, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. If you don't know what these are, then I suggest you stop being so high-handed.

Well can you back up your claim of seeing people evicted from their homes everyday with a few stats?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0104/1224309779037.html

It says 250 repossessions were granted in 2011.
Of these,

100 were family homes
40 were individual homes
110 were buy-to-let properties
50 of the residential properties were vacant when repossession was granted.

Now I am sure there are some horrible cases where it is very emotional, but I gotta wonder where you get your view of "I see this at work every day of the week - this is how the banks are operating at the moment, it's an absolute disgrace. Bullying, pure and simple - something needs to be done about this." when it says in the article:

"In most cases, the court gave a stay of execution before homes could be repossessed.

The length varied depending on circumstances, with the shortest time granted for vacant properties.

Stays for family homes were generally of six months, though some were nine months long."

So if we are saying 140 residential properties, with 50 vacants already, this is not exactly the most common thing in the world since the 53000 figure is bandied about of houses in six months or more of mortgage arrears. So you have a figure of 0.26% of all houses in six months or more arrears being granted repossession orders.

benway

Please read my response. There were 250 orders, but a further 350 "voluntary" surrenders, cases settling without the need for a former order for possession. It's in the Central Bank's statistics, which I posted.

I didn't say that I see a repossession every day of the week, I said that I see the banks' bullying tactics every day of the week.

In case you're not aware, the Master's Court deals with debt collection in general and the preliminary stages of repossession cases, the final order is obtained on a Monday before the High Court proper. Don't take my word for it, here's a quote from the Master:

Edmund Honohan said the pursuit of people to the bitter end as part of an accountancy exercise to write-off debts for tax relief was leading to social disquiet and driving some people to suicide.

Mr Honohan, who deals with a range of applications, including the enforcement of judgment mortgages, said new laws are needed to protect those unable to pay their debts.

He added a level of 'debt forgiveness' needs to be introduced.

Mr Honohan also described some banks as 'cheerleaders for the Celtic Tiger' and said some were 'then reverting to type and come to court assuming the banker always wins. That is not how the law sees it'.

Existing laws provided a measure of protection for debtors in difficulty and banks should not expect to have it all their own way, he said.

He added there was no reason why legislation should not be changed to 'put a brake' on the spiralling number of judgments against those who cannot pay.

This would be a way of introducing debt forgiveness, he said, adding: 'Why should there be an incentive to cause untold harm socially when there is no money at the end of the road?'

He said if evidence is found that any transactions were in reality a joint venture with the bank, the law would insist that both parties share the losses.

Mr Honohan said most of the debt cases arose due to circumstances beyond the control of the debtor because the economy had shut down as a result of the banking collapse.

While debtors may think they are 'outlaws in uncharted territory', even members of the 'new debt set' had legal rights, he said.

He said it was a criminal offence to demand repayment so frequently as to cause alarm, distress or humiliation; to tell a debtor they are guilty of criminal offence; to pretend to be officially authorised by law to enforce payment and unjustified enrichment of creditors was also prohibited under law.

The Master, who deals with a range of legal matters including applications to register and enforce judgments, made the remarks yesterday when dealing with several such cases.

The reason he felt it necessary to raise these things is because of the banks' disregard for peoples' lives in their attempts to "extract blood from a stone" as he generally puts it.

Make all the excuses you like, the reality is much more grim than you're trying to paint it. These aren't numbers and percentages, these are real people and real lives being destroyed, you should pop in to the Courts some time and see for yourself.