Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Media sympathetic coverage/agenda with evictions

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    murphaph wrote: »
    I'm angry about them. Lots of people on this forum are angry about them. You're angry about them. It simply isn't true that "everyone seems to turn a blind eye to them".

    I don't believe there's a general hostility towards renters either. How do you deduce that exactly? Are people generally hostile towards you when they find out that you rent your home?

    Well I get looked down upon for renting, and sneered at for not 'getting on the ladder'. Not here but in the mad world of thejourna.ie comments section


  • Options
    #33
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,022 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    lima wrote: »
    Well I get looked down upon for renting, and sneered at for not 'getting on the ladder'. Not here but in the mad world of thejourna.ie comments section
    Forget the internet. In real life have you had these experiences? On the internet people say things just to wind others up so you have to take all that with a large pinch of salt.


  • Options
    #34
    Potatoeman
    Registered Users Posts: 4,322 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    murphaph wrote: »
    Yet they have no sympathy for the landlord. According to the IT:


    So basically it was, screw him, we're staying put. A load of contradictory nonsense as well about sleeping with family/van/shelter/park bench...I am 100% sure this couple will not be sleeping in anything other than a private house this evening. They are obstinate in the extreme if you ask me, almost worse than a defaulting mortgage holder because their actions are causing additional distress to an individual, their former landlord, whereas a defaulting mortgage holder causes financial distress to a bank/state at large, so the unfair burden is at least spread around a bit.

    I think both should be evicted if they are not paying but that attitude seems to be that it's okay to stick to the bank but don't stick it to the poor landlord. They are both businesses at the end of the day.

    These attitudes seem to be the trickle down result of the family home being seen as sacred and a basic right without the responsibility that has been growing since the bust.


  • Options
    #35
    piperh
    Registered Users Posts: 989 ✭✭✭piperh


    As has already been posted this did not happen overnight so very little sympathy but a point was raised earlier about rent allowance limits. They really do need to be looked at properly.

    I have relatives 2 yrs off retirement age who have rented their whole adult life, they worked for the same company and were let go 2 yrs ago. Because of their age couldn't get another job and now suffering ill health are now on jsa and rent allowance. The ra for their area is nearly e300 a mnth less than their rent. To rent a suitable (mobility issues) property that ra would cover they had to move over 100km.

    For some areas the limits are ridiculous.


  • Options
    #36
    kdevitt
    Registered Users Posts: 2,278 ✭✭✭kdevitt


    rawn wrote: »
    They had sunk a lot of money into building their own house while renting that one, and wound up selling it (i think) so they prob still have some money from that, as well as all the unaccepted rent cheques since December.

    Was just discussing this with my missus and hit upon this thread from a search. I actually walk past the house they built every morning. It's a 5 bed dormer in a pretty bad location which was on the market for over 1 million when they'd completed it. Totally unfitted as well.

    From reading the other articles it was built based on a 250k loan, so it does kind of seem like they gambled and lost. Only recently was it moved into, and last time I saw the asking price was roughly 300k.

    I still feel very sorry for them - they drink down the local - but a large part of the responsibility has to fall on their shoulders.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    josip
    Registered Users Posts: 13,955 ✭✭✭✭josip


    kdevitt wrote: »
    I still feel very sorry for them - they drink down the local - but a large part of the responsibility has to fall on their shoulders.

    I'm struggling to understand the relevance of the middle bit to either the opening or closing points. Can you explain please?


  • Options
    #38
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    murphaph wrote: »
    Forget the internet. In real life have you had these experiences? On the internet people say things just to wind others up so you have to take all that with a large pinch of salt.

    I'm not purposefully trying to be snappy in my posts. Yes I have from a few people after they had a bit of drink on them. They would not say it sober but would hide behind a computer or a couple of pints.

    Remember 2006, there was something wrong with you if you didn't buy a house and the same type of thinking remains (we I guess the Negative Equity brigade wish they didn't)


  • Options
    #39
    kdevitt
    Registered Users Posts: 2,278 ✭✭✭kdevitt


    josip wrote: »
    I'm struggling to understand the relevance of the middle bit to either the opening or closing points. Can you explain please?

    It's relevant because I know them to see, and played football with their son, so they're not randomers. It's also relevant because I still feel it's primarily their own fault.


  • Options
    #40
    Santa Cruz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭Santa Cruz


    My heart goes out to them Joe, it really does. Anyway what about United this season, ****e or what?


  • Options
    #41
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    It really sickens me with these protests and the socialists getting involved. Its simple - pay for your house or get out .

    we should fast-track repossessions and boot people out after 6-8 months , this lark of keeping people around is doing nobody any favours, and it keeps pushing up prices in areas lacking properties where solvent people are waiting to buy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,301 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    MEATH NOT GOOD ENOUGH???

    F**kin leeched didn't pay their rent, and caused a man to lose his house.

    HE LOST HIS HOUSE BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO PAY THE RENT.

    Who in their right mind would rent a place to them, when they don't pay the rent of their current house???


  • Options
    #43
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    It was my understanding that they were either paying rent or that the bank had been refusing to take it?

    Edit:
    They continued paying their €800 monthly rent until KPMG stopped accepting it last December.

    See more at: http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/couple-threatened-with-eviction-have-nowhere-else-to-go-30455743.html#sthash.KBXCHVVK.dpuf


  • Options
    #44
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    It was my understanding that they were either paying rent or that the bank had been refusing to take it?

    Edit:

    I thought the same that there were no issues with them paying rent?


  • Options
    #45
    MouseTail
    Registered Users Posts: 1,663 ✭✭✭MouseTail


    piperh wrote: »
    I have relatives 2 yrs off retirement age who have rented their whole adult life, they worked for the same company and were let go 2 yrs ago. Because of their age couldn't get another job and now suffering ill health are now on jsa and rent allowance. The ra for their area is nearly e300 a mnth less than their rent. To rent a suitable (mobility issues) property that ra would cover they had to move over 100km.

    For some areas the limits are ridiculous.

    But that's not a RA issue, that's a social housing issue. It is disgraceful we have allowed our housing stock be decimated. It would be economically and socially better for your relatives to live in social/council housing.


  • Options
    #46
    rawn
    Registered Users Posts: 3,093 ✭✭✭rawn


    the_syco wrote: »
    MEATH NOT GOOD ENOUGH???

    F**kin leeched didn't pay their rent, and caused a man to lose his house.

    HE LOST HIS HOUSE BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO PAY THE RENT.

    Who in their right mind would rent a place to them, when they don't pay the rent of their current house???

    Did they refuse it? Ruth Coppingers page on FB says it "fell through".


  • Options
    #47
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    By them not moving it would be my, uneducated in these matters, opinion that the debt of the landlord who wanted to sell the place would have been increasing through interest etc.
    ACC Bank is seeking repossession of the home because the landlord, Daragh Ward, went into receivership in 2012 and they want to sell the house to reduce his debt.


  • Options
    #48
    delahuntv
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,532 ✭✭✭delahuntv


    I reckon the media will realise they been suckered and sold a pup on this all in the aim of publicity.

    They were told over 3 years ago that the house had to be sold.

    Landlord than had properties put in receivership.

    Receiver then informed coynes that house was going on market and gave the a FURTHER 3 months to vacate.

    They at all time refused to move.

    Receiver stopped accepting rent last October.

    Coynes were receiving rent allowance from the social welfare system - did they refuse this or refund this considering they were not paying rent since last October.

    They refused a free house in Navan because it needed a little work done to it.

    The seem to be unwilling to trade down to a 2 bed apartment or move to another area.



    No landlord will take them at this stage as they have proven to be one of the worst tenants you could have.

    I have ZERO pity for them because they are trying to play the "pity" card without telling the truth. - There are many people out there who are truthful and in genuine need of help. The coynes are not one of them.

    Hopefully the media will cathc on to this scam and reveal them for the deceiving types they are.


  • Options
    #49
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    It is a big question what was happening to the rent allowance.

    Doesn't it go straight to the landlord usually?


  • Options
    #50
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,422 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Folks, I've issued warnings and infractions. While people may have qualms about the situation, some people have made comments that go too far. Remember that we are still dealing with human beings who have thoughts and feelings.
    gaius c wrote: »
    Seems they got refused for legal aid. I wonder if it's because they have means that they are not disclosing?
    We don't know why, so let's not speculate.

    Legal aid won't always be granted in a civil case.
    CatFromHue wrote: »
    It is a big question what was happening to the rent allowance.
    None of our business, so no speculation please.
    Doesn't it go straight to the landlord usually?
    No.

    Moderator


  • Options
    #51
    rawn
    Registered Users Posts: 3,093 ✭✭✭rawn


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    It is a big question what was happening to the rent allowance.

    Doesn't it go straight to the landlord usually?

    RA is paid to the tenant, who then pays it to the LL. They just have to pay €35 p/w IIRC.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,301 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    Doesn't it go straight to the landlord usually?
    Nope. Very unusual for it to happen. Unless you're thinking of RAS?

    It seem KPMG refused rent because they were no longer renting, but rather illegally staying (the court had ordered them to leave).


  • Options
    #53
    garhjw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,424 ✭✭✭garhjw


    Ruth coppinger was just speaking on newstalk. She didn't really contribute anything worthwhile to the story. I had some sympathy for the tenants but that evaporated listening to them yesterday and also reading up further on the story.


  • Options
    #54
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    garhjw wrote: »
    Ruth coppinger was just speaking on newstalk. She didn't really contribute anything worthwhile to the story. I had some sympathy for the tenants but that evaporated listening to them yesterday and also reading up further on the story.

    There didn't seem to be any mention of the timeline leading up to yesterday's eviction.
    An order for vacation of the property had been first made in September 2013. The court made another order on March 27th and Mr Coyne had given a sworn undertaking to vacate the property when he came before the court on June 25th
    .

    It's just under a year since they were given notice to vacate.

    I still have sympathy for them, even if they haven't helped themselves, it's a tough situation to be in.


  • Options
    #55
    delahuntv
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,532 ✭✭✭delahuntv


    CatFromHue wrote: »

    .

    It's just under a year since they were given notice to vacate.

    I still have sympathy for them, even if they haven't helped themselves, it's a tough situation to be in.

    They were originally given three months notice in June 2013. Then after the notice expired an order for vacation was given.

    Previous to this they were informed that the house was to be sold - so in all they have had 2 years to sort it out.


    I've been told I can't say that this is a scam - but the FACTS suggest they have been playing a game and lost.


  • Options
    #56
    D3PO
    Registered Users Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    jackal wrote: »
    Another example today of the mainstream media's very predictable reporting on any case to do with eviction.

    Headline: Couple evicted from rented Dublin property in their pyjamas 'left homeless with no clothes' - See more at: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/couple-evicted-from-rented-dublin-property-in-their-pyjamas-left-homeless-with-no-clothes-30541264.html

    The article is full of subjective drivel, quotes from the couple in question, and of course a socialist TD chiming in that evictions should be outlawed.

    Little mention that:

    They were notified in November 2010 that their tenure was being terminated because the house was being put up for sale.

    They have appeared in court a number of times and were told they would be jailed if they did not evacuate the house.

    Im led to believe this couple were also offered a house by somebody emigrating to the US weeks ago but turned it down. Zero sympathy for them, irresponsible sensationalist reporting.


  • Options
    #57
    quadrifoglio verde
    Registered Users Posts: 3,670 ✭✭✭quadrifoglio verde


    D3PO wrote: »
    Im led to believe this couple were also offered a house by somebody emigrating to the US weeks ago but turned it down. Zero sympathy for them, irresponsible sensationalist reporting.

    Irresponsible sensationalist reporting sells newspapers.
    I found it funny that coppinger was saying that rents are rising because some landlords interest only period has come to an end....eh no Ruth, rents are rising because the market demand is greater than the supply


  • Options
    #58
    Zamboni
    Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    What was Ruth Coppinger doing there?

    Is socialism and personal responsibility mutually exclusive?


  • Options
    #59
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    I heard the two of them on The Last Word yesterday evening.
    I have to say I found their self-entitled attitude absolutely appalling.

    I have no idea what they have contributed to society during their working lives, but they struck me as a couple who've spent most of their time with their hands out looking for 'The State' (as they constantly referred to it) to provide for them.

    I'm glad we live in a society which has the safety net of a social welfare system to provide for those in need - there are many places on this planet which have nothing of the sort. As a tax-payer I'm more than happy to contribute to this system. But people like this really make my blood boil. They seem to think that the money 'The State' hands out has been magically conjured out of this air.
    A little bit of self-awareness and gratitude wouldn't go amiss.

    These people think they should be given the house they want, when they want. Do they even realise that this is all provided for by taxpayers like myself who work their asses off for 40hours a week to fund this system with their taxes - I suspect the thought never even enters their self-entitled little minds.


  • Options
    #60
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,903 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Zamboni wrote: »
    What was Ruth Coppinger doing there?

    Is socialism and personal responsibility mutually exclusive?

    Any eviction at all gets jumped on for political gain, see the Killiney incident where we had SP/PBPA politicians campaigning on behalf of mass landlords.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭whippet


    what is really annoying me is with all the media interviews the Coynes, Coppinger and the rest are saying that the Baliffs acted illegally ... yet none of the interviewers have actually asked what was illegal. surely if it was illegal that would be a bigger story?

    M


Advertisement