Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 2] *Poll Reset*

dvpower

Le_Dieux wrote: »

I never paid the HHC, NOR have I received the '1st' letter.

Interesting scenario....what would happen if I were brought to court? I am supposed to get 3 before a court appearance, whereas I will only have received 2....assuming I get the 2 to follow.

I can see a legal minefield arising out of all this sh1te

There is nothing in the legislation specifying that you have to get any reminder letters.

No legal minefield at all I'm afraid.

Hijpo

dvpower wrote: »

There is nothing in the legislation specifying that you have to get any reminder letters.

No legal minefield at all I'm afraid.

Its true, they are giving us all so many chances to mend our broken ways out of the goodness of there heart.

how kind... i think ill pay.
If that doesnt get me paying then the guilt trip that the LA are trying to put me on will.

They services will need to be cut because of non payment of the HHC, hogan has told LA's that hes not giving them the money they need.... so what services are going to be cut that everyone avails of but only home owners have to pay for exactly?

Street cleaning? filling in the pot holes that were probably caused by the LA diggin them up repeatedly in the first place? Are they turning off the street lights at night? What about the urban areas? what are they going to cut on them?

darkhorse

Le_Dieux wrote: »

I never paid the HHC, NOR have I received the '1st' letter.

Interesting scenario....what would happen if I were brought to court? I am supposed to get 3 before a court appearance, whereas I will only have received 2....assuming I get the 2 to follow.

I can see a legal minefield arising out of all this sh1te

You are right there. I can see the legals eagles just rubbing their hands together and licking their lips.

Am Chile

Report just in the Irish times about the recent household tax payments where the majority of those payments came from landlords owning multiple properties not single individual homeowners.

The largest payment came from the owner of 130 properties.

The next largest was a landlord of 100 properties, while a third owns 82 homes.




Some 47 of those who paid after getting letters sent by local authorities
were major landlords owning more than 20
properties each.


One landlord who owns 130
homes paid almost €15,000, just under €2,000 of which was
in late payment penalties.





Those with multiple properties made payments in relation to 17,705 houses and apartments.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0815/1224322197721.html

It comes of no surprise the landlords paid when they can easily pass the charge onto tenants by Increasing the rent.

dvpower

darkhorse wrote: »

You are right there. I can see the legals eagles just rubbing their hands together and licking their lips.

How is he right about a legal minefield - I've already explained that there is nothing in the legislation at all about the warning letters?
Where exactly do you think the legal minefield comes from?

Am Chile wrote: »

Report just in the Irish times about the recent household tax payments where the majority of those payments came from landlords owning multiple properties not single individual homeowners.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0815/1224322197721.html

The Irish Times report says no such thing.

Almost half of these came from just 5,340 second property owners

But there were a lot of second home owners in there. Unsurprisingly, since it was second home owners that were targetted, and it does demonstrate that sending warning letters did have a marked effect.

Am Chile wrote: »

It comes of no surprise the landlords paid when they can easily pass the charge onto tenants by Increasing the rent.

So we can put the arguement that tenants are getting away scot free away now.

donalg1

Le_Dieux wrote: »

I could be smart and say I don't own any, as my bank owns the ONE house I am paying mortgage on.

The bank owns your house, that must be handy for you how does that work?

darkhorse

donalg1 wrote: »

The bank owns your house, that must be handy for you how does that work?

I'll tell ya the way it works. After twenty, maybe thirty years, if ya happen to get the final instalment or mortgage payment actually paid, then you will receive the deeds, not til then. So technically, the bank own it as long as you are making repayments to them.

Valetta

darkhorse wrote: »

I'll tell ya the way it works. After twenty, maybe thirty years, if ya happen to get the final instalment or mortgage payment actually paid, then you will receive the deeds, not til then. So technically, the bank own it as long as you are making repayments to them.

Technically, or any other way, they don't own your house.

You own it.

donalg1

darkhorse wrote: »

I'll tell ya the way it works. After twenty, maybe thirty years, if ya happen to get the final instalment or mortgage payment actually paid, then you will receive the deeds, not til then. So technically, the bank own it as long as you are making repayments to them.

No you own it once you sign the contract and start paying the mortgage, you would be the registered owner on the deeds. The bank would merely be registered on the deeds as having an interest in the property that is all.

If the bank own it then the tenant (I assume this is what the occupant would be called) could go to the bank any time there are repairs needed, same way as someone in private rented would go to the landlord.

The bank is a lending agent not a landlord. If you think the bank owns a house until the mortgage is paid then I assume the bank are the ones liable for the HHC as its the owners of properties that are liable for this.

darkhorse

Valetta wrote: »

Technically, or any other way, they don't own your house.

You own it.

Until I can no longer afford to pay the loan on it.
During the first quarter of 2012, legal proceedings were issued to enforce the debt/security on a mortgage in 278 cases. Court proceedings concluded in 212 cases during the quarter, and in 111 of these cases the Courts granted orders for possession or sale of the property.

Valetta

darkhorse wrote: »

Until I can no longer afford to pay the loan on it.
During the first quarter of 2012, legal proceedings were issued to enforce the debt/security on a mortgage in 278 cases. Court proceedings concluded in 212 cases during the quarter, and in 111 of these cases the Courts granted orders for possession or sale of the property.

And in none of those cases did the bank or lending institution own the property.

If they did, why would they have gone to the courts to seek possession?

darkhorse

donalg1 wrote: »

No you own it once you sign the contract and start paying the mortgage, you would be the registered owner on the deeds. The bank would merely be registered on the deeds as having an interest in the property that is all.

If the bank own it then the tenant (I assume this is what the occupant would be called) could go to the bank any time there are repairs needed, same way as someone in private rented would go to the landlord.

The bank is a lending agent not a landlord. If you think the bank owns a house until the mortgage is paid then * I assume the bank are the ones liable for the HHC as its the owners of properties that are liable for this.

I will never think or take for granted that I own this house until every last cent is paid on it, which, in this present climate of recession, looks dubious as no one is sure of what is going happen from day to day, never mind in the future.
*They really should be, seen as over the lifetime of the mortgage, that they be making thousands on the average mortgage.

Cesium Clock

Valetta wrote: »

Technically, or any other way, they don't own your house.

You own it.

If you haven't paid in full , ie paid off the mortgage , you do not own the house, you have no deeds of property, so how can you be the owner of the house,

You are merely the keeper of the property not owner.

Besides no one owns anything in life it's only borrowed till you die,

Bruthal

darkhorse wrote: »

Until I can no longer afford to pay the loan on it.
During the first quarter of 2012, legal proceedings were issued to enforce the debt/security on a mortgage in 278 cases. Court proceedings concluded in 212 cases during the quarter, and in 111 of these cases the Courts granted orders for possession or sale of the property.

The mortgagee does own the house. When your mortgage is finished, and if you happen to secure another loan using the house as security, the same situation arrises if you default on the secured loan.

darkhorse

robbie7730 wrote: »

The mortgagee does own the house. When your mortgage is finished, and if you happen to secure another loan using the house as security, the same situation arrises if you default on the secured loan.

Would you people wake up to reality. One person saying that I and people like me own our house, with thousands of us in absolute dire straits financially and the govt. wanting more from us that we absolutly don't have. Another telling me that I am generating income from my house, when, according to professionals, I'm already in negative equity to the tune of €140k. This is really unbelievable speak, coming from mature people.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:. Is this enough emoticons for ye.

Valetta

darkhorse wrote: »

robbie7730 wrote: »

The mortgagee does own the house. When your mortgage is finished, and if you happen to secure another loan using the house as security, the same situation arrises if you default on the secured loan.

Would you people wake up to reality. One person saying that I and people like me own our house, with thousands of us in absolute dire straits financially and the govt. wanting more from us that we absolutly don't have. Another telling me that I am generating income from my house, when, according to professionals, I'm already in negative equity to the tune of €140k. This is really unbelievable speak, coming from mature people.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:. Is this enough emoticons for ye.

Not sure why you're asking anyone to wake up to reality.

The reality is that you and " people like you" - which by the way includes me- do own our houses. The fact that thousands are in dire financial straits doesn't change that.

A house is an asset and has value. Whether or not there is a loan/ mortgage secured on the house is a separate matter.

Everyone's circumstances are different, but it doesn't take away from the fact that you own a valuable asset.

Hijpo

Valetta wrote: »

darkhorse wrote: »

robbie7730 wrote: »

The mortgagee does own the house. When your mortgage is finished, and if you happen to secure another loan using the house as security, the same situation arrises if you default on the secured loan.

Would you people wake up to reality. One person saying that I and people like me own our house, with thousands of us in absolute dire straits financially and the govt. wanting more from us that we absolutly don't have. Another telling me that I am generating income from my house, when, according to professionals, I'm already in negative equity to the tune of €140k. This is really unbelievable speak, coming from mature people.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:. Is this enough emoticons for ye.

Not sure why you're asking anyone to wake up to reality.

The reality is that you and " people like you" - which by the way includes me- do own our houses. The fact that thousands are in dire financial straits doesn't change that.

A house is an asset and has value. Whether or not there is a loan/ mortgage secured on the house is a separate matter.

Everyone's circumstances are different, but it doesn't take away from the fact that you own a valuable asset.

an asset is something you can make money on, i never intend to sell my house, therefor its not an asset to me nor should my home be classed as an asset to anyone else just because theres might be and because they say so.

dvpower

Hijpo wrote: »

an asset is something you can make money on, i never intend to sell my house, therefor its not an asset to me nor should my home be classed as an asset to anyone else just because theres might be and because they say so.

Your home is an asset - like it or not.

as·set


noun 1. a useful and desirable thing or quality: Organizational ability is an asset.

2. a single item of ownership having exchange value.

3. assets, a. items of ownership convertible into cash; total resources of a person or business, as cash, notes and accounts receivable, securities, inventories, goodwill, fixtures, machinery, or real estate ( opposed to liabilities).

b. Accounting . the items detailed on a balance sheet, especially in relation to liabilities and capital.

c. all property available for the payment of debts, especially of a bankrupt or insolvent firm or person.

d. Law . property in the hands of an heir, executor, or administrator, that is sufficient to pay the debts or legacies of a deceased person.

darkhorse

dvpower wrote: »

Your home is an asset - like it or not.

as·set


noun 1. a useful and desirable thing or quality: Organizational ability is an asset.

2. a single item of ownership having exchange value.

3. assets, a. items of ownership convertible into cash; total resources of a person or business, as cash, notes and accounts receivable, securities, inventories, goodwill, fixtures, machinery, or real estate ( opposed to liabilities).

b. Accounting . the items detailed on a balance sheet, especially in relation to liabilities and capital.

c. all property available for the payment of debts, especially of a bankrupt or insolvent firm or person.

d. Law . property in the hands of an heir, executor, or administrator, that is sufficient to pay the debts or legacies of a deceased person.

Except that it would not be sufficient to pay the debts or legacies of a deceased person, if I happen to be that deceased person tomorrow. Goodnight.

dvpower

darkhorse wrote: »

Except that it would not be sufficient to pay the debts or legacies of a deceased person, if I happen to be that deceased person tomorrow. Goodnight.

What the hell are you on about?
Even when presented with the dictionary definition of the word....

donalg1

darkhorse wrote: »

Would you people wake up to reality. One person saying that I and people like me own our house, with thousands of us in absolute dire straits financially and the govt. wanting more from us that we absolutly don't have. Another telling me that I am generating income from my house, when, according to professionals, I'm already in negative equity to the tune of €140k. This is really unbelievable speak, coming from mature people.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:. Is this enough emoticons for ye.

Seriously, you do own your house I have explained this already. Whether or not you are in dire straits financially has no bearing on who owns your house. Are you saying then if your house is not in negative equity and you are amazingly well off financially that you then own your house?

Who owns your house if you dont?

tunedout

Hey dvpower. For the government to assign unpaid taxes to the property wouldn't the constitution have to be changed? Would that require a referendum?

(Yo ali boy?)

donalg1

tunedout wrote: »

Hey dvpower. For the government to assign unpaid taxes to the property wouldn't the constitution have to be changed? Would that require a referendum?

(Yo ali boy?)

Was there a referedum for the NPPR? Or is this different it could be now I dont know a whole lot about it just remember hearing the landlords that havent paid the NPPR will have to pay it if they are selling their property.

Cantona's Collars

So the councils are cribbing over having no money due to non payment of the HHC.

Here's an example of how it's being wasted: Heavy rain yesterday yet 2 workers had about €500 worth of delay-set tar on a truck filling potholes.Anyone with a bit of cop on knows this stuff is useless for potholes at the best of times but in the rain it won't last half an hour.Parts of the road were flooded but these lads drove past the floods intent on filling potholes instead of making the road safe by doing something about the flooding.

Nice to know that the HHC is being well spent:rolleyes:

bgrizzley

zerks wrote: »

So the councils are cribbing over having no money due to non payment of the HHC.

Here's an example of how it's being wasted: Heavy rain yesterday yet 2 workers had about €500 worth of delay-set tar on a truck filling potholes.Anyone with a bit of cop on knows this stuff is useless for potholes at the best of times but in the rain it won't last half an hour.Parts of the road were flooded but these lads drove past the floods intent on filling potholes instead of making the road safe by doing something about the flooding.

Nice to know that the HHC is being well spent:rolleyes:

luckily Zerks, us non HHC payers have already started to do something about this. 700,000k of us have already achieved monetary cutbacks to the local councils to try and stem this waste of money.
we can now look to a future where the councils will have to think about where they spend their money intead of throwing it down holes(pun intended )

Great work Guys!! we did in a few short months what sucessive governments couldnt do for decades!!!

donalg1

bgrizzley wrote: »

luckily Zerks, us non HHC payers have already started to do something about this. 700,000k of us have already achieved monetary cutbacks to the local councils to try and stem this waste of money.
we can now look to a future where the councils will have to think about where they spend their money intead of throwing it down holes(pun intended )

Great work Guys!! we did in a few short months what sucessive governments couldnt do for decades!!!

Throwing it down holes like providing the majority of the population with free water to their homes. Sure no harm anyway they will be charging for this soon enough, and instead of maybe charging each household enough to cover the costs of getting the water to the taps they will add a little extra on to cover the cost of running the other departments too, call it a LA Subsidy or something, be grand sure.

And you havent really stopped the waste by not paying the HHC so havent really done anything apart from ensuring the LA's will continue to lose money, thereby meaning the services they do currently provide will have to be cut some more.

lugha

zerks wrote: »

So the councils are cribbing over having no money due to non payment of the HHC.

Here's an example of how it's being wasted: Heavy rain yesterday yet 2 workers had about €500 worth of delay-set tar on a truck filling potholes.Anyone with a bit of cop on knows this stuff is useless for potholes at the best of times but in the rain it won't last half an hour.Parts of the road were flooded but these lads drove past the floods intent on filling potholes instead of making the road safe by doing something about the flooding.

Nice to know that the HHC is being well spent:rolleyes:

Ah this ‘aul red herring. Hasn’t been wheeled out in a while now!

I’ll bow to your greater knowledge than mine as to what to do with the vexed questions of pot holes. But whether or not the incident you cite is an example or not, it is certainly possible, always was possible and I think always will be possible to highlight example after example of waste or questionable spending by some or all of the LAs.

But this waste is not happening because we have a household charge. If the HHC is abandoned and we return to fully funding LAs from exchequer funds I see no reason why the waste will be in any way reduced (or increased).

And of course, the taxpayer is fully funding these authorities, no matter which mode of funding is used. You address waste by focusing on how the money is spent, not on how it is raised.

Cantona's Collars

lugha wrote: »

Ah this ‘aul red herring. Hasn’t been wheeled out in a while now!

I’ll bow to your greater knowledge than mine as to what to do with the vexed questions of pot holes. But whether or not the incident you cite is an example or not, it is certainly possible, always was possible and I think always will be possible to highlight example after example of waste or questionable spending by some or all of the LAs.

But this waste is not happening because we have a household charge. If the HHC is abandoned and we return to fully funding LAs from exchequer funds I see no reason why the waste will be in any way reduced (or increased).

And of course, the taxpayer is fully funding these authorities, no matter which mode of funding is used. You address waste by focusing on how the money is spent, not on how it is raised.

It annoys me to see money being blatently wasted while providing a service.Yes they were filling holes but common sense says you don't do that in a storm,more important things to be done.
It's stupid things like this (never mind the guys at the top,that's another story) that make people see how our €100 charge is being used & wasted.It seems initiative is frowned on,pity 'cos that's a way to save money.But as long as every €100 collected is thrown at a problem,sure isn't it grand.

jasonb

Just a quick question. I didn't receive the 1st 'warning' letter, and now there's talk on Aertel of 2nd letters going out and the threat of Legal Proceedings. Did anyone else not get the 1st warning letter? Thanks...

J.

Cantona's Collars

jasonb wrote: »

Just a quick question. I didn't receive the 1st 'warning' letter, and now there's talk on Aertel of 2nd letters going out and the threat of Legal Proceedings. Did anyone else not get the 1st warning letter? Thanks...

J.

No letter for me,maybe they were all left in one of the vacant properties near me.