squatters rights on land belong to NAMA???

josisboss

Is there anyone out there who can help me with information on land adjacent to my house.
I live in a housing estate built by a bust building developer. There is a few remaining sites not built on. One of these is adjacent to my home. Ive had problems with people drinking in there and rubbish been dumped. I have secured the entrance by supplying a gate and lock and have knocked down the dividing wall between my house and the land. I have the kept the half acre site clean and sprayed all weeds. I have a clothes line and its like a big back garden to me for the last 4 years.
Nobody has been in contact with me and i pay no rent, I consider it mine.

What would be my best approach and what would I need to do to claim squatters rights? ( wouldnt do it to anyone else but consider NAMA fair game)

wazzoraybelle

If NAMA is a statutory body then you would have to have to exclude everyone from that property for 30 years! If a representative of NAMA sets foot on the property then the clock is restarted.

If I recall correctly a farmer was able to defeat a claim of adverse possession on a piece of land by stating that he had looked at the land over a hedge.

By knocking down walls you may have left yourself open to a damages claim or even criminal charges.

NoQuarter

Do what you are doing for 12 years in total, although its 30 years for state land so if NAMA owning it means its state land well then you have a long wait, long wait either way.

josisboss

I think NAMA is a private company or so i gather from research....... thats true i suppose about the wall but it was a short span of a wall and if anyone asks it fell down..??? well thats the plan..is there anything/steps i could take to improve my chances???..thanks for all posts

NoQuarter

Put in a shrubbery! Really. Or a little garden walkway or something like that, maybe a shed. Dont go to massive expense though because you might lose it.

josisboss

NoQuarter wrote: »

Put in a shrubbery! Really. Or a little garden walkway or something like that, maybe a shed. Dont go to massive expense though because you might lose it.

ya thats exactly what i was thinking off..small shed ..park a car...fingers crossed ha...do i have any rights now??,,ive heard of people been paid to leave after a few years

Procrastastudy

josisboss wrote: »

ya thats exactly what i was thinking off..small shed ..park a car...fingers crossed ha...do i have any rights now??,,ive heard of people been paid to leave after a few years

Enjoying an extra bit of land no one is using is one thing. Screwing money out of anyone is quite another. Please bear in mind we all fund NAMA.

sweeney1971

josisboss wrote: »

Is there anyone out there who can help me with information on land adjacent to my house.
I live in a housing estate built by a bust building developer. There is a few remaining sites not built on. One of these is adjacent to my home. Ive had problems with people drinking in there and rubbish been dumped. I have secured the entrance by supplying a gate and lock and have knocked down the dividing wall between my house and the land. I have the kept the half acre site clean and sprayed all weeds. I have a clothes line and its like a big back garden to me for the last 4 years.
Nobody has been in contact with me and i pay no rent, I consider it mine.

What would be my best approach and what would I need to do to claim squatters rights? ( wouldnt do it to anyone else but consider NAMA fair game)

Its called Adverse Possesion. Private Message me if you want some advice, did this on some land and ended up with a Title Deed for it, even though land was not mine.

Doom

Grow drugs on it, if you get caught blame NAMA....if not you get land and lots of cash for the drugs too

NoQuarter

josisboss wrote: »

ya thats exactly what i was thinking off..small shed ..park a car...fingers crossed ha...do i have any rights now??,,ive heard of people been paid to leave after a few years

No rights until 12 years are up if NAMA is a private company (I should really know that).

All it takes for you to go back to square 1 is for a NAMA head to just come by and check the place out. Dont let anyone else on the land, if it isnt claimed in 12 years you deserve to have it, at least the value of your property will go up and that is the point of adverse posession - to keep value in otherwise worthless land.

slimjimmc

josisboss wrote: »

I think NAMA is a private company or so i gather from research....... thats true i suppose about the wall but it was a short span of a wall and if anyone asks it fell down..??? well thats the plan..is there anything/steps i could take to improve my chances???..thanks for all posts

According to their own website NAMA are a statutory body. Would that mean a 30 year wait for the OP?

Governance and accountability

NAMA was established as a separate statutory body with its own Board and CEO appointed by the Minister for Finance. It operates under the aegis of the National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA) which provides it with staff and business support services.

BornToKill

josisboss wrote: »

Is there anyone out there who can help me with information on land adjacent to my house.
I live in a housing estate built by a bust building developer.

What leads you to believe that NAMA actually owns the land? Even if the developer is in NAMA, its likely that NAMA have acquired only the loans and not the underlying security.

josisboss

slimjimmc wrote: »

According to their own website NAMA are a statutory body. Would that mean a 30 year wait for the OP?

if it is the goverment i think it is 30 years..but iam not sure it is ...i think it was set up by them but due to conflict of interest its independently ran..i hope!!

josisboss

BornToKill wrote: »

What leads you to believe that NAMA actually owns the land? Even if the developer is in NAMA, its likely that NAMA have acquired only the loans and not the underlying security.

good question...

krd

BornToKill wrote: »

What leads you to believe that NAMA actually owns the land? Even if the developer is in NAMA, its likely that NAMA have acquired only the loans and not the underlying security.

But the loans are secured against the assets. If they own the loans, they own the asset.

Many NAMA properties are worth absolutely nothing. I believe many small sites will be forgotten and abandoned. Some are literally bog fields with no agricultural or any other value. And some NAMA assets are not even land - they're options to build on land.

Now, whether NAMA is to be properly considered as a state agency (ie are the assets in the possession of the state, or when in the possession of NAMA are they considered the possessions of private company - or is NAMA's possession of the loans, also a possession of the assets themselves or just an option to seize the assets. ) In the end of the day it probably doesn't matter. I believe they will be more concerned with the cherries than the wild ditch berries.

BornToKill

krd wrote: »

But the loans are secured against the assets. If they own the loans, they own the asset.

That is absolutely inaccurate.

krd wrote: »

I believe they will be more concerned with the cherries than the wild ditch berries.

I have no idea what this is intended to mean.

krd

BornToKill wrote: »

That is absolutely inaccurate.

No, it's not inaccurate. NAMA have already been able to sell properties without the permission of the original borrower. They control the assets as well as the loans. NAMA stands for the National Asset Management Agency. They control the assets. They can either work with the debtor (some instance throwing lots of good money after bad) or they can enforce against them. And yes, I know there's a gravy train for some people in the enforcement - but what would you expect these people to do otherwise - Irish society would collapse if we didn't continue to shovel money at them. Some people may find it peculiar, having to hire a law firm to enforce when the developer has surrender the property without protest. Peculiar.

I have no idea what this is intended to mean.

NAMA have thousand of properties. Many are completely worthless or even liabilities.

The cherries are properties that are worth something. Options to build in bog fields are worthless. Derelict sites that were once going to be fabulous luxury hotels (for weekend get aways for all the wonderful people working in the property industry - 'dressed for success' men with prominent adams apples - smort and snooty wives ) are in some cases terrible liabilities, and will cost local authorities millions in clearing them up. Undoubtedly, cleared up by some new incarnation of the developers originally responsible for the mess.

Before the property bubble, most of the country was near worthless bog field. And now, although there are attempts at jiggery pokery - the reality is, most of the country is worthless bog field.

schemingbohemia

josisboss wrote: »

Is there anyone out there who can help me with information on land adjacent to my house.
I live in a housing estate built by a bust building developer. There is a few remaining sites not built on. One of these is adjacent to my home. Ive had problems with people drinking in there and rubbish been dumped. I have secured the entrance by supplying a gate and lock and have knocked down the dividing wall between my house and the land. I have the kept the half acre site clean and sprayed all weeds. I have a clothes line and its like a big back garden to me for the last 4 years.
Nobody has been in contact with me and i pay no rent, I consider it mine.

What would be my best approach and what would I need to do to claim squatters rights? ( wouldnt do it to anyone else but consider NAMA fair game)

Are NAMA 4 years old?

johnnyskeleton

krd wrote: »

No, it's not inaccurate. NAMA have already been able to sell properties without the permission of the original borrower. They control the assets as well as the loans. NAMA stands for the National Asset Management Agency. They control the assets. They can either work with the debtor (some instance throwing lots of good money after bad) or they can enforce against them. And yes, I know there's a gravy train for some people in the enforcement - but what would you expect these people to do otherwise - Irish society would collapse if we didn't continue to shovel money at them.

Surely you realise that saying they own it and can sell it without the permisison of the borrower and then go on to talk about enforcement you are contradicting yourself? If they could sell it now, why bother seeking to enforce the loan agreement by e.g. seeking an order for possession?

Some people may find it peculiar, having to hire a law firm to enforce when the developer has surrender the property without protest. Peculiar.

Facinating. Can you name an instance of a developer who has voluntarily surrendered property but a law firm was hired to bring enforcement proceedings?

josisboss

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Are NAMA 4 years old?

dont know how old they are, in the begining when the company went bust is when people started dumping,drinking and parking caravans.so after many phone calls i took matters into my own hands..now with time passed iam just scheming

NoQuarter

josisboss wrote: »

dont know how old they are, in the begining when the company went bust is when people started dumping,drinking and parking caravans.so after many phone calls i took matters into my own hands..now with time passed iam just scheming

In a way youre not really doing anything wrong. Theres a balance to be struck between trespassing and adverse possession. The courts actually want you to put up a fence and to exclude everyone else from the new property and you can openly do so, these are requirements for adverse possession so to speak.

josisboss

NoQuarter wrote: »

In a way youre not really doing anything wrong. Theres a balance to be struck between trespassing and adverse possession. The courts actually want you to put up a fence and to exclude everyone else from the new property and you can openly do so, these are requirements for adverse possession so to speak.

cheers..i paid way over the ods for a house worth nothing .i get so mad sometimess thinking if i waited a few years could have bought same for 60% less..this would defo balance it out..

josisboss

so can anybody confirm what nama is?? if the land belongs to nama is it the goverments??

Robbo

josisboss wrote: »

so can anybody confirm what nama is?? if the land belongs to nama is it the goverments??

In other matters, NAMA has been trying to argue that it isn't a government body or local authority so as to avoid Freedom of Information requests.

If it was me, I'd be looking at who's the registered owner on the Folio, and whether there's any applications pending. Then start the landgrab process.

krd

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Surely you realise that saying they own it and can sell it without the permisison of the borrower and then go on to talk about enforcement you are contradicting yourself? If they could sell it now, why bother seeking to enforce the loan agreement by e.g. seeking an order for possession?

NAMA is paying the salaries of many of these developers. Also employing the services of companies owned by these developers. Which I believe should put them in a good position to negotiate surrenders without having to enforce through the courts. It would be peculiar to be paying someone 200 grand, and then having them up in court, wouldn't it.

Everything about it is peculiar. NAMA poured, I believe, well over 200 million down Treasury Holdings (I live near Treasury - lots of smort suits and BMW sports cars - money well spent). And now Ritchie and Johnny, are taking NAMA to court.

Facinating. Can you name an instance of a developer who has voluntarily surrendered property but a law firm was hired to bring enforcement proceedings?

I assume, if a developer is on the NAMA payroll, that they are cooperating. Then if I see certain things happening, I can just scratch my head in puzzlement.

Brian2850

krd wrote: »

NAMA is paying the salaries of many of these developers. Also employing the services of companies owned by these developers. Which I believe should put them in a good position to negotiate surrenders without having to enforce through the courts. It would be peculiar to be paying someone 200 grand, and then having them up in court, wouldn't it.

Your going off on a bit of a tangent here.....Your original statement was misleading. Owning the loans does not mean that you own the asset. You may be entitled to pursue ownership of the asset through enforcement action. The borrower may or may not co-operate in this process but NAMA still needs to enforce the default of their loan to get their hands on the asset.

OP should keep doing what he is doing for the time being. Still a bit to go before the time tresholds already mentioned are reached.

wazzoraybelle

I believe for a claim to the land to be successful, your possession of the land must be adverse to the owners interest in the property.

I can't name the case ( but I think it CIE were involved ) where the owners argued that their interest in the land was purely that it may be of future use to them, and so the fact that someone was now using the land was not Adverse Possession.

If NAMA's interest in the land is purely its future resale or other future use,then the fact that you are using it now may not be enough to gain (even over time ) a claim on it.

BornToKill

krd wrote: »

No, it's not inaccurate. NAMA have already been able to sell properties without the permission of the original borrower. They control the assets as well as the loans. NAMA stands for the National Asset Management Agency. They control the assets.

It's inaccurate alright. You are speaking of assets and loans as if they are different things. From the perspective of either a bank or NAMA, they are not. The loans are the assets and are shown as such in the financial accounts.

What you seem to be labelling as 'assets' is the (mostly) real property which stands as underlying security for the loans. NAMA, in acquiring the loans from the banks, has stepped into the shoes of the bank though the NAMA Act 2009 gives it some powers as a creditor additional to those of the bank which made the lending. NAMA cannot deal with the underlying security - the land or houses - unless it takes enforcement action. It has done this to a degree, though its preferred approach is to work with the debtor and to allow the debtor to deal with the real property for so long as the debtor sticks to an agreed business plan re repayments.

The question was asked as to how old NAMA is now. The establishment day for NAMA was 21 December 2009 so it will be three years old next Christmas-time. Although it is part of a State plan and was established by the Government, NAMA is structured corporately as a series of private companies as shown in it's accounts. This was done, with agreement from the EU Commission, to keep NAMA's debt off the Government balance sheet. That makes sense in so far as the bonds issued by NAMA in order to acquire the bank loans are counterbalanced by the assets acquired at a discount off the banks.

As a State agency, I am uncertain as to whether the hurdle would be 12 or 30 years for the purpose of a claim of adverse possession. As Robbo observed, the question of NAMA's status for the purpose of EIR is before the High Court and the outcome of that hearing may shed light on the adverse possession point. I very much doubt it will be of any significance for the OP, however, as there seems to be no evidence that NAMA is in ownership of the adjoining site.

josisboss

BornToKill wrote: »

It's inaccurate alright. You are speaking of assets and loans as if they are different things. From the perspective of either a bank or NAMA, they are not. The loans are the assets and are shown as such in the financial accounts.

What you seem to be labelling as 'assets' is the (mostly) real property which stands as underlying security for the loans. NAMA, in acquiring the loans from the banks, has stepped into the shoes of the bank though the NAMA Act 2009 gives it some powers as a creditor additional to those of the bank which made the lending. NAMA cannot deal with the underlying security - the land or houses - unless it takes enforcement action. It has done this to a degree, though its preferred approach is to work with the debtor and to allow the debtor to deal with the real property for so long as the debtor sticks to an agreed business plan re repayments.

The question was asked as to how old NAMA is now. The establishment day for NAMA was 21 December 2009 so it will be three years old next Christmas-time. Although it is part of a State plan and was established by the Government, NAMA is structured corporately as a series of private companies as shown in it's accounts. This was done, with agreement from the EU Commission, to keep NAMA's debt off the Government balance sheet. That makes sense in so far as the bonds issued by NAMA in order to acquire the bank loans are counterbalanced by the assets acquired at a discount off the banks.

As a State agency, I am uncertain as to whether the hurdle would be 12 or 30 years for the purpose of a claim of adverse possession. As Robbo observed, the question of NAMA's status for the purpose of EIR is before the High Court and the outcome of that hearing may shed light on the adverse possession point. I very much doubt it will be of any significance for the OP, however, as there seems to be no evidence that NAMA is in ownership of the adjoining site.

if the builders went bust and now belong to nama would that not mean this "unfinished" housing estate or at least the few remaing small sites would belong to them (nama)

josisboss

wazzoraybelle wrote: »

I believe for a claim to the land to be successful, your possession of the land must be adverse to the owners interest in the property.

I can't name the case ( but I think it CIE were involved ) where the owners argued that their interest in the land was purely that it may be of future use to them, and so the fact that someone was now using the land was not Adverse Possession.

If NAMA's interest in the land is purely its future resale or other future use,then the fact that you are using it now may not be enough to gain (even over time ) a claim on it.

would that mean squatters rights dont exist anymore?..

NoQuarter

josisboss wrote: »

would that mean squatters rights dont exist anymore?..

They arent called squatters rights, its called "adverse possession" and is alive and well in Ireland today as many have said above.

The case that poster is thinking of is Dunne v. Iarnrod Eireann, you can read the facts here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055169446

The argument about future use failed n that case but can succeed depending on the circumstances.

My interpretation is the fact that NAMA or whoever intends to use it in the future is irrelivant, it is only an issue if the "squatter" knows they intend to use it in the future and intends only to "borrow" the land until then rather than take the land for himself forever.

wazzoraybelle

slightly off topic but are there capital acquisition tax implications with adverse possession?

krd

Brian2850 wrote: »

Your going off on a bit of a tangent here.....Your original statement was misleading. Owning the loans does not mean that you own the asset. You may be entitled to pursue ownership of the asset through enforcement action.

Yes I know.

The borrower may or may not co-operate in this process but NAMA still needs to enforce the default of their loan to get their hands on the asset.

I think in most cases the borrowers are cooperating.

I've just been looking at the NAMA enforcements list. If each enforcement went to court they'd be there until the crack of doom.

If you want a peek at the lists they're here http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/nama-property-for-sale/

It even has the names of the estate agents to contact if you wish to enquire after a unit. I wonder are they working on commission or is NAMA keeping their boats afloat.

It is really shocking. The entire property market (commercial) just seems to have been banks throwing money at eejits.

Here's NAMA's own searchable site http://www.nama.ie/about-our-work/properties-enforced/properties-subject-to-enforcement-action/

josisboss

wazzoraybelle wrote: »

slightly off topic but are there capital acquisition tax implications with adverse possession?

from what i can gather ...no

monkeypants

sweeney1971 wrote: »

Its called Adverse Possesion. Private Message me if you want some advice, did this on some land and ended up with a Title Deed for it, even though land was not mine.

Is that you Pat Kenny?

krd

:0