Pensioners evicted from their home today!!

Patser

mickoneill30 wrote: »

The guy is on Newstalk now.

Oh man! Did you hear him on Newstalk. Didn't want to really talk about what he owed. Instead just wanted to say he was 'brutally' removed from his family home. How many times did he say brutality. But I nearly gagged when he said common people (maybe normal people) like him wouldn't put up with much more. Like a 19th century eviction it was.

Sorry it was a 2 million loan he refused to pay. And when pushed on this 'sure we all over extended ourselves'.

Faolchu

Thoie wrote: »

I don't know about others, but this isn't begrudgery on my part. I have sympathy for people who lose their homes. I have no sympathy for people who, having gone through all the legal channels, ignore a court order to leave, fail to arrange alternative accommodation and then start comparing themselves to peasants being burned out of their homes. They had the guts of 2 years to sort something out, and apparently didn't bother their arses.

agreed. they are saying they have no place to go. sorry but they have a number of homes they rent out, unless all these homes were repossessed then I'd hazard a guess in the last 2 years one lease in their portfolio has ended. they could have not renewed this then moved in to that home thus vacating this one.

sunflower27

tiny_penguin wrote: »

But these people still chose to take out a 2million euro mortgage 8 years ago. They took full advantage of the boom. Why should they get to live in a house like that, take on income from rental properties and not pay their mortgage? Should everyone who took out a mortgage in the boom just have those debts written off and get free houses? What about the rest of us who may never be able to afford a mortgage because of reckless lending by the banks and reckless borrowing by greedy people.

They have had 2 years to fight this and figure something out - they could downsize? I am sure they have lots of options but they are digging their heels in as they feel they are entitled to this. If I didn't pay my rent, I would be kicked out long before 2 years.

Of course the government are to blame too, changes aren't happening and the country is falling apart. But does that mean that everyone can just stop paying their mortgage?

It may be like trusting a loan shark - but if you are stupid enough to take a loan out with them then you have to deal with the consequences.

I totally agree. They had two years to come to some agreement, but did nothing.

So they probably made a shedload of money in the boom and renting out houses asking for ridiculous rent and then when it all went pearshaped for them they refused to address the issue.

It sounds like pure greed to me. They gambled and lost, but didnt want to admit defeat. So they did nothing.

They refused to take responsibility for their change in circumstances. Why should they feel entitled to different treatment to anyone else?

I'd love to not worry about my mortgae for two years. :rolleyes:

alan4cult

You roll the dice, you pay the price, regardless of age. I'm sorry but rules are rules else we would all be moving into €2 million + houses.

Monty Burnz

alan4cult wrote: »

You roll the dice, you pay the price, regardless of age. I'm sorry but rules are rules else we would all be moving into €2 million + houses.

Or, more accurately, we'd never move into them ever again because the people who have them now would never have to leave whether they bothered to pay their mortgage or not...

Formosa

Patser wrote: »

Oh man! Did you hear him on Newstalk. Didn't want to really talk about what he owed. Instead just wanted to say he was 'brutally' removed from his family home. How many times did he say brutality. But I nearly gagged when he said common people (maybe normal people) like him wouldn't put up with much more. Like a 19th century eviction it was.

Sorry it was a 2 million loan he refused to pay. And when pushed on this 'sure we all over extended ourselves'.

He sounded like a proper c.unt.

No sympathy for him, bloody freeloader.

ste2010

haminka wrote: »

ste2010 wrote: »

Haminka...don't get me wrong...there is probably ways they should have paid or organised resposnes to form agreements with bank but why should he...he's seeing the guys that brought Ireland to its knees jet around the world like they retired early..so why would he think the govt services and banks would pick on the smaller people...it's like theres a hole in the bottom of the boat but the govt and banks are too busy looking for the craics and ignore the hole..
How was he to know that when he took out the mortgage years ago that when he opened the door all he found was a floor made out of paper masch all because criminal defrauded the country and the regulator who got paid with tax Payers money failed to regulate. He used his head to be innovative in the boom and got punished by taking all the risk on his chin and that he deserves that but you can see my points why should he suffer when the big guys don't....
We are continually having the p*ss taken out of us and we all stand there taking it..
We introduce water rates and create 2000jobs when NI introduced it they cut 800jobs in the civil service. do u think the water services division in local councils will be laid off when this happens? Abrakedabra 2000 jobs were created...this place stinks...and the PAYE are the people who pay for it the most

abouttobebanned

Look at the post on the front page of this thread that got all the thanks. It makes me laugh, and then a little sad that people support the physical removal of pensioners from their home. Some people on this forum absolutely sicken me. Fcuking do gooders the lot of ye.

the varg

If the guy has a number of rental properties I wonder would he be so gracious with his tenants who cannot pay their rent. Somehow I doubt it.

You don't pay your rent/mortgage you loose your home.

Thats the way the world works and he should know better. Still it's a crappy position to be in, in fairness.

cyrusdvirus

abouttobebanned wrote: »

Look at the post on the front page of this thread that got all the thanks. It makes me laugh, and then a little sad that people support the physical removal of pensioners from their home. Some people on this forum absolutely sicken me. Fcuking do gooders the lot of ye.

What's so wrong with being a 'do gooder'? Don't break the law, pay your mortgage that you asked the bank for, and this won't happen to you, it's fairly simple to me.

abouttobebanned

That video that was posted about the pensioners being evicted from their home, by the bank that almost single handedly brought the country to its knees.

This post received 78 thanks.

This couple who own several other properties seem to think that there is something wrong with being expected to pay their mortgage!
No sympathy at all here thread should be re-titled Former super-rich developers forced to live within their means!

78 people, and the OP who seem to think that it's ok to physically remove pensioners from their home in this fashion. Removed by a bank who one of the main instigators in the collapse of this country's economy.

Every day we see bloody hypocrites reply to threads on Boards.

"hi there, i got a threatening letter from the bank today [sic]"

"Well if you pay your bills on time they won't sent you letters"

100+ thanks.

Absolutely sickens me.

haminka

ste2010 wrote: »

Haminka...don't get me wrong...there is probably ways they should have paid or organised resposnes to form agreements with bank but why should he...he's seeing the guys that brought Ireland to its knees jet around the world like they retired early..so why would he think the govt services and banks would pick on the smaller people...it's like theres a hole in the bottom of the boat but the govt and banks are too busy looking for the craics and ignore the hole..
How was he to know that when he took out the mortgage years ago that when he opened the door all he found was a floor made out of paper masch all because criminal defrauded the country and the regulator who got paid with tax Payers money failed to regulate. He used his head to be innovative in the boom and got punished by taking all the risk on his chin and that he deserves that but you can see my points why should he suffer when the big guys don't....
We are continually having the p*ss taken out of us and we all stand there taking it..
We introduce water rates and create 2000jobs when NI introduced it they cut 800jobs in the civil service. do u think the water services division in local councils will be laid off when this happens? Abrakedabra 2000 jobs were created...this place stinks...and the PAYE are the people who pay for it the most

The only thing that drove this guy to make his decisions was greed. He is no different from the Fitzpatrick or any other guy who gambled and lost. He was allowed two years to sort the problems out and did nothing. Please let's stop blaming the Government for everything. I have no sympathy for those tossers but I have no sympathy for the so-called victims of the boom who at the end aren't really poor. They still have enough properties, it's the liquidity they seem to have a problem with. And this couple are no "smaller people".

abouttobebanned

gatecrash wrote: »

What's so wrong with being a 'do gooder'? Don't break the law, pay your mortgage that you asked the bank for, and this won't happen to you, it's fairly simple to me.

Easy to say that anonymously on the internet. But if we looked a bit closer at your life, would you really be as perfect as you're making yourself out to be?

Dyr

its funny that people who have an "I'm alright jack" attitude to their fellow mans travails are suddenly brimming with the milk of human kindness when it comes to the bleedin' mortgage.


Funny old world

sixfingered

Have I got this right: a rich couple tried to get richer, they made a balls of it and now they've lost everything?

Xavi6

abouttobebanned wrote: »

That video that was posted about the pensioners being evicted from their home, by the bank that almost single handedly brought the country to its knees.

This post received 78 thanks.



78 people, and the OP who seem to think that it's ok to physically remove pensioners from their home in this fashion. Removed by a bank who one of the main instigators in the collapse of this country's economy.

Every day we see bloody hypocrites reply to threads on Boards.

"hi there, i got a threatening letter from the bank today [sic]"

"Well if you pay your bills on time they won't sent you letters"

100+ thanks.

Absolutely sickens me.

People in agreeing with the facts shocker.

alan4cult

abouttobebanned wrote: »

Easy to say that anonymously on the internet. But if we looked a bit closer at your life, would you really be as perfect as you're making yourself out to be?

Nobody is saying anyone is perfect but laws are black and white and cruel at times. You don't pay your mortgage you lose your home simple as.

SunnyDub1

get over it and don't take sh*t to the heart to much

kincsem

Hippocrates the father of Western medicine probably had a cure for what ails you.

seamus

How is that hypocritical.

We're far too precious about property in this country.

So long as no-one is actually being thrown onto the street with nowhere to go (which they aren't), then I have no problem with loan contracts being enforced. What would be the ****ing point of having contract law if people could just ignore it?

Chucky the tree

abouttobebanned wrote: »

That video that was posted about the pensioners being evicted from their home, by the bank that almost single handedly brought the country to its knees.

This post received 78 thanks.

78 people, and the OP who seem to think that it's ok to physically remove pensioners from their home in this fashion. Removed by a bank who one of the main instigators in the collapse of this country's economy.

Every day we see bloody hypocrites reply to threads on Boards.

"hi there, i got a threatening letter from the bank today [sic]"

"Well if you pay your bills on time they won't sent you letters"

100+ thanks.

Absolutely sickens me.

As someone who thanked the post of course it is. Also, how does that make people hypocrites?

abouttobebanned

seamus wrote: »

How is that hypocritical.

We're far too precious about property in this country.

So long as no-one is actually being thrown onto the street with nowhere to go (which they aren't), then I have no problem with loan contracts being enforced. What would be the ****ing point of having contract law if people could just ignore it?

I'll tell you why. And there was a reason why I started it in a new thread, because I wanted to discuss it while referring to incidents aside from the one on this thread.

When Sean Sherlock signed the "irish sopa" into law, this forum and the rest of the country were up in arms. They almost took to the streets with the most vehement display of anger that wasn't seen when the government were doing things a thousand times worse. What were people really angry about? Don't tell me it was about freedom and free speech etc. It was because it would soon be harder for them to illegally download music, movies football matches etc.

These people who can so easily pass judgement on others who "break the law".

It really is one rule for some and another entirely for people that you don't know.

kincsem

If I robbed €2,000,000 from Tesco I'd expect they would be a bit upset. Would using the word bank instead of Tesco make it ok.

vibe666

so because the former super rich developers who owned several properties are pensioners they should be given a break when being evicted from their massive luxury mansion?

maybe they should move into one of the others? or sell a one or two of them to pay their bills?

i'm pretty sure the banks didn't cause the financial collapse on their own, they had plenty of help from greedy people vastly over stretching themselves to buy up multiple properties trying to get rich quick.

i'd have plenty of sympathy for a family (or pensioners) with one home who'd lived sensibly and tried their best to save and pay off one mortgage who fell on hard times and got evicted because they couldn't afford to pay their bills, but I don't have a lot of sympathy for greedy people who got bit trying to carve out a big fat slice of the celtic tiger pie just because they have a pension book which i'm sure they don't actually need given the size of the gaff they just got booted out of.

Gummy Panda

abouttobebanned wrote: »

Look at the post on the front page of this thread that got all the thanks. It makes me laugh, and then a little sad that people support the physical removal of pensioners from their home. Some people on this forum absolutely sicken me. Fcuking do gooders the lot of ye.

Then you known what to do if you don't like it so much

omahaid

kincsem wrote: »

If I robbed €2,000,000 from Tesco I'd expect they would be a bit upset. Would using the word bank instead of Tesco make it ok.

According to some people on this thread if you are a pensioner then it is ok to rob €2,000,000, it's all down to your age apparently.

Zulu

abouttobebanned wrote: »

They almost took to the streets...

People "almost" do lots of things.
That couple "almost" paid their mortgage. And "almost" didn't get evicted.

Seachmall

abouttobebanned wrote: »

What were people really angry about? Don't tell me it was about freedom and free speech etc. It was because it would soon be harder for them to illegally download music, movies football matches etc.

Completely inaccurate and irrelevant. People were angry because it was a disgraceful way to introduce the legislation and disgraceful way to deal with concerns and criticisms, it was also disgracefully worded legislation.

OT,

They agreed to the terms of the mortgage. They failed to keep their end of the agreement. The bank evicted them as per the agreement.

Not that hard to comprehend.

Monty Burnz

ste2010 wrote: »

Haminka...don't get me wrong...there is probably ways they should have paid or organised resposnes to form agreements with bank but why should he...he's seeing the guys that brought Ireland to its knees jet around the world like they retired early..so why would he think the govt services and banks would pick on the smaller people...it's like theres a hole in the bottom of the boat but the govt and banks are too busy looking for the craics and ignore the hole..
How was he to know that when he took out the mortgage years ago that when he opened the door all he found was a floor made out of paper masch all because criminal defrauded the country and the regulator who got paid with tax Payers money failed to regulate. He used his head to be innovative in the boom and got punished by taking all the risk on his chin and that he deserves that but you can see my points why should he suffer when the big guys don't....
We are continually having the p*ss taken out of us and we all stand there taking it..
We introduce water rates and create 2000jobs when NI introduced it they cut 800jobs in the civil service. do u think the water services division in local councils will be laid off when this happens? Abrakedabra 2000 jobs were created...this place stinks...and the PAYE are the people who pay for it the most

None of this is really relevant though, is it? Hopefully the state will eventually have evidence to charge and convict the morons who lead us into this, but at the same time stupidity is not illegal. Otherwise a lot of our mortgage defaulters would be looking at jail time too.

Meanwhile, the country is full of people living in houses they can't afford, but it's out of the question for them to rent and to allow other people (like those who have had to rent for the last decade or two) who can afford their homes to move in.

Jokeshop.

seamus

Sounds like abouttobebanned was too busy getting upset about other people defaulting on their mortgages to actually bother understanding the problems with Sherlock's folly.

coadyd

i feel for them not a nice thing to happen to nay human
the problem is the system
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gKX9TWRyfs

philstar

The old fella in the clip says its "reminiscent of an eviction in the 19th century":rolleyes:

but he's a landlord himself...i reckon he wouldn't hesitate in evicting a tenant if they fell behind in their rent

(btw - see the size of that bailliff:eek: what a fat bast*rd)

the groutch

so the facts are:

only 1 of them is a penssioner (63 & 71)
they were given nearly two years notice
they have multiple other properties, any of which they could have sold to meet repayments.
they will not be homeless due to above mentioned other properties
they're still better off financially than 90% of the population


zero sympathy, total non-story, and stuff like this will probably be rolled out by FG and used as an excuse not to cut pensions.

OldNotWIse

Don't they have other properties...?

cyrusdvirus

abouttobebanned wrote: »

Easy to say that anonymously on the internet. But if we looked a bit closer at your life, would you really be as perfect as you're making yourself out to be?

Do i live within the laws of the land? Yep. I can tell that because i am not posting from jail, but from the office where i work.

Do i pay my bills? Yep. I can tell that because i have electricity, telephone, heating oil, internet, and tv service at home.

Do i owe money? Yep. I can tell that because every month my mortgage gets taken from my account.

Am i perfect? No. i can tell that because i am human.
Do i take the piss about not paying my bills? No. I can tell that because i don't have any letters to my door with the words FINAL DEMAND written on them.

smash

the groutch wrote: »

they have multiple other properties, any of which they could have sold to meet repayments.
they will not be homeless due to above mentioned other properties
they're still better off financially than 90% of the population

I'm guessing that their other properties were purchased as a retirement fund and are in negative equity with mortgages outstanding. It will be interesting to hear what happens when the full story emerges.

Faolchu

abouttobebanned wrote: »

78 people, and the OP who seem to think that it's ok to physically remove pensioners from their home in this fashion.

i read it as 79 people that think its ok to remove someone that ignored a court order given 2 years ago, someone that owes 2million euro and has multiple other properties that generate revenue

abouttobebanned wrote: »

Removed by a bank who one of the main instigators in the collapse of this country's economy.

actually they were removed by the ballifs after ignoring a court order for 2 years, the fact that anglo got that order after they presumably failed to pay their mortgage for a long time is irrelevant. teh fat remains a court order was in place, they ignored it and have to suffer for that be the 30 or 60 the rules apply to everyone

abouttobebanned wrote: »

Every day we see bloody hypocrites reply to threads on Boards.

"hi there, i got a threatening letter from the bank today [sic]"

"Well if you pay your bills on time they won't sent you letters"

100+ thanks.

Absolutely sickens me.

thats 100+ people that think if you enter into a contract and do not keep up your side of the contract that you should be brought to task over it. the bank wont sent threatening letters straight away if you try work with them, if you bury your head in the sand and hope it all blows over then they might send threatening letters.

the "poor OAP got man handled by the evil bankers" attitude sickens me. this guy was an accountant, that means he was intelligent enough to fully understand the terms of the contract he entered into, if he was idiotic enough to secure his property empire on his family home and then fail to keep up payments then tough **** as far as i'm concerned. hope he enjoys sleeping rough begging for scraps

OldNotWIse

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If I can't afford something, I do without it. But I'm a bit old-fashioned I suppose.

If everyone else in this country thought like this, we wouldn't be in such a mess. We have such a culture of instant gratification now its unbelieveable. People have spent their whole adult lives living on credit. I know people who went out of their way to make their wages appear higher than they were in order to get bigger mortgages - the multiples were there for a reason! :eek:

skyhighflyer

abouttobebanned wrote: »

That video that was posted about the pensioners being evicted from their home, by the bank that almost single handedly brought the country to its knees.

You're deluded.

The reason that Anglo Irish Bank (and many others) was brought to its its knees was exactly because of the gentleman in the video and many others like him.

Let's look at the background:

Guy used cheap funds from Anglo to buy up various investment properties in the boom, which loans were then secured on his mansion in Killiney. Property market collapses, loans are called in and the bank enforces against the same property which he willingly mortgaged to the bank when he was looking for funds to buy up investment properties. I'd hazard a guess that the same guy in the video would happily have engaged those same sheriffs to evict one of his own tenants had they failed to pay rent on one of his many investment properties during the good times, but he appears to believe that a different rule applies to him. Is this fair?

Let's take the analysis a bit further: me, you and the rest of the Irish taxpayer mugs paid some €35 billion to bail out Anglo. Why did Anglo need to be bailed out? Because of reckless lending to the guy in the video and countless others like him who were only too happy to avail of these cheap funds to make themselves richer. These loans were then transferred to NAMA who has a duty to the Irish taxpayer to realise value from these loans. Thus, his loans no longer belong to Anglo, they belong to the Irish taxpayer. As someone on a normal wage paying taxes and charges out the ass while trying to live within my means, I have no interest in subsidising this man's luxury life in Killiney. What happened is what needed to happen: the guy was put out and now the house will be sold in order to pay back the Irish taxpayer at least some of the money they paid bailing out Anglo (as I've already said, because of guys like him).

I don't even want to start on those who liken this situation to the British evictions of the 19th century. Wake up - we had to go with the begging bowl to the EU and IMF after bailing out the banks. We're not evicting him to pay back out foreign overlords - we're evicting him because we took on his loans that then bankrupted us (rather then him) thus causing the country to seek a bailout. The guy in the video is literally the epitome of why we are in this mess. And yet people feel sympathy for him and feel that he and his wife should be allowed to live in a 6+ bedroom mansion at the taxpayer's expense. The mind boggles.

the groutch

smash wrote: »

I'm guessing that their other properties were purchased as a retirement fund and are in negative equity with mortgages outstanding. It will be interesting to hear what happens when the full story emerges.

if that's the case, both the bank were very foolish giving mortgages to a man in his 50's (at the time), as was the man himself for taking them.

blowtorch

+ isn't it ironic....... German woman's house repossessed in order to pay back her own country's (Germany) Bank's bets on little auld Ireland.

- Two years they have had to organize themselves to give back the property.
Why the surprise and indignation when the day of reckoning arrives?

On the other hand - what if they defended 'their property' and shot a bailiff or two when they were attacking the door. Would that come under Shatter's new law? (I take it that it would still be deemed as 'their property' until the repossession actually took place)

Tazz T

The old man needs to pay his bills - yes - or face the consequences.

But the irresponsible banker (who also took part of the risk when lending the money) needs to be held culpable too. They are as much responsible for the mess were in. He should be fired and fined. And if this leads to the banker losing his house as well, well there ya go...

As for all the people defending the actions of the bailiffs 'doing their job' I truly hope your circumstances lead you to that position one day. In this case, the man has other properties and should lose them to pay the one he's in, but there's plenty of cases where people on the poverty line or who have been giving massive unpayable fines by e-flow for the M50 tolls have their people coming round taking their furniture. In these cases, the law needs to be changed. It's a simple matter or what's right and what's wrong.

smash

blowtorch wrote: »

I take it that it would still be deemed as 'their property' until the repossession actually took place

I'm guessing that since a court order was issued for repossession in 2010 that it's not their property!

abouttobebanned

seamus wrote: »

Sounds like abouttobebanned was too busy getting upset about other people defaulting on their mortgages to actually bother understanding the problems with Sherlock's folly.

No.

My problem is with the way these people were treated.

And my problem with this website is how quick people are to condemn others, as if they themselves are so virtuous. It's hypocrisy, pure and simple.

By all means, slag me off for my opinion, it's what boards.ie is all about.

dvpower

blowtorch wrote: »

On the other hand - what if they defended 'their property' and shot a bailiff or two when they were attacking the door. Would that come under Shatter's new law? (I take it that it would still be deemed as 'their property' until the repossession actually took place)

The property was in the ownership of the bank but in the possession of someone else.
It's not 'their property'.

smash

abouttobebanned wrote: »

My problem is with the way these people were treated.

They were asked to leave repeatedly and they didn't.

Seachmall

blowtorch wrote: »

(I take it that it would still be deemed as 'their property' until the repossession actually took place)

I presume the house had already been repossessed, they were just now being evicted (what right would the bank have to evict them if they hadn't repossessed the house already?).

abouttobebanned wrote: »

And my problem with this website is how quick people are to condemn others, as if they themselves are so virtuous. It's hypocrisy, pure and simple.

If you read the first few pages again you'll notice the division was between people having sympathy and people holding off judgement until the facts were uncovered.

The facts are uncovered, these people are in the wrong. Legally and ethically.

dvpower

abouttobebanned wrote: »

My problem is with the way these people were treated.

How would you want them to be treated?

foxyboxer

All I can say is 'Collateral Damage'.

If you apply for a loan and offer collateral and subsequently can't pay then the bank is obliged to take the collateral, by force if necessary.

seamus

abouttobebanned wrote: »

And my problem with this website is how quick people are to condemn others, as if they themselves are so virtuous. It's hypocrisy, pure and simple.

So basically what you're saying is that unless someone is whiter than white, they're not entitled to express an opinion?

I honour my contracts. If I don't, I will take the consequences. I fail to see how I'm suddenly a hypocrit for expressing that someone else should do the same.