Media sympathetic coverage/agenda with evictions

CatFromHue

delahuntv wrote: »

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.

Yeah I thought they were given notice before Sep13 but I couldn't find the date anywhere.

L1011

whippet wrote: »

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

According to the Metro (not the best media source out there), they're claiming that the sheriff can't evict in the case of a tenancy.

I don't believe that to be true but more importantly, they didn't have a valid tenancy anyway.

quadrifoglio verde

MYOB wrote: »

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.

You forgot occupy dame st!

murphaph

MYOB wrote: »

According to the Metro (not the best media source out there), they're claiming that the sheriff can't evict in the case of a tenancy.

I don't believe that to be true but more importantly, they didn't have a valid tenancy anyway.

Exactly. A judge has declared that tenancy to be over. The were no longer tenants when they were slung out.

People also keep referring to them as pensioners but Mrs Coyne is only 61. She won't be a pensioner for 5 years.

Riverireland

Personally I believe the coynes case demonstrates the huge disadvantage of renting over buying your own property. I would never rent and am sick of hearing the media waffling on about the Irish obsession with property ownership. It is not an obsession, it is a method of ensuring you do not end up in a similar position to the Coynes when your earning potential is pretty much over!

joseph brand

This story reminds me of that other elderly couple evicted from their mansion house in Killiney back in 2012. The sympathy that most of us had for them was quickly flipped when it was revealed that they had a portfolio of 21 properties.

Best to hold off having sympathy for this pair. Once bitten . . . and all that.

joseph brand

Riverireland wrote: »

Personally I believe the coynes case demonstrates the huge disadvantage of renting over buying your own property. I would never rent and am sick of hearing the media waffling on about the Irish obsession with property ownership. It is not an obsession, it is a method of ensuring you do not end up in a similar position to the Coynes when your earning potential is pretty much over!

I have a mortgage, but there are benefits to renting. If for instance I wanted to live closer to my workplace, it would be a lot easier to relocate than having to sell a home in negative equity. These days people can have many different jobs over their lifetime.

But the point you raise is an important one, maybe more so. Also, if one can pay off one's mortgage as early as possible, that leaves many years mortgage/ rent free.

Barely There

Riverireland wrote: »

Personally I believe the coynes case demonstrates the huge disadvantage of renting over buying your own property.

It demonstrates nothing of the sort.

No conclusions should be drawn, other than the fact that some people believe the world should revolve around their wants.

lima

Riverireland wrote: »

Personally I believe the coynes case demonstrates the huge disadvantage of renting over buying your own property. I would never rent and am sick of hearing the media waffling on about the Irish obsession with property ownership. It is not an obsession, it is a method of ensuring you do not end up in a similar position to the Coynes when your earning potential is pretty much over!

I'd like to give my experience..

Personally, I have found many advantages of Renting over Buying:

- All my friends are 100k+ in Negative Equity whereas I have saved 100k+ and the way things are giong I could buy with cash later on in life if I wanted to
- I get to live 10min from work in leafy D6
- My Rent is about e200 per month higher than the interest I would have to pay to service a mortgage per month. I am gladly paying that extra e200 per month to have a better quality of life
- I have a pension so I have some cover for when I retire if I happen to not buy (in addition to my life savings)
- I don't have the stress of owning a home, bing in negative equity etc.
- I am not stuck out in suburbia, which personally I find would be an awful place to live
- I have lots of disposable income and I am completely debt free
- I can leave this island whenever I want (came back after 7 years, and I'd like to leave again for career reasons)

It really depends on the person, but there is nothing wrong with renting as long as you pay it!

Riverireland

joseph brand wrote: »

I have a mortgage, but there are benefits to renting. If for instance I wanted to live closer to my workplace, it would be a lot easier to relocate than having to sell a home in negative equity. These days people can have many different jobs over their lifetime.

But the point you raise is an important one, maybe more so. Also, if one can pay off one's mortgage as early as possible, that leaves many years mortgage/ rent free.

That is exactly what I am planning on doing. Spoke to my bank recently and due to having a large amount of equity they would be more than happy to give me a substantial mortgage. No way, I'm down sizeing, moving to a less expensive area and getting mortgage free just as soon as I can. This case has copper fastened that for me, no one knows when they may become ill etc and find themselves in a vulnerable position with the banks.

Riverireland

Barely There wrote: »

It demonstrates nothing of the sort.

No conclusions should be drawn, other than the fact that some people believe the world should revolve around their wants.

Well one conclusion that can be drawn is that some people have no empathy. Also a home is not a "want" it is a need, big difference!

D3PO

lima wrote: »

I'd like to give my experience..

Personally, I have found many advantages of Renting over Buying:

- All my friends are 100k+ in Negative Equity whereas I have saved 100k+ and the way things are giong I could buy with cash later on in life if I wanted to
- I get to live 10min from work in leafy D6
- My Rent is about e200 per month higher than the interest I would have to pay to service a mortgage per month. I am gladly paying that extra e200 per month to have a better quality of life
- I have a pension so I have some cover for when I retire if I happen to not buy (in addition to my life savings)
- I don't have the stress of owning a home, bing in negative equity etc.
- I am not stuck out in suburbia, which personally I find would be an awful place to live
- I have lots of disposable income and I am completely debt free
- I can leave this island whenever I want (came back after 7 years, and I'd like to leave again for career reasons)

It really depends on the person, but there is nothing wrong with renting as long as you pay it!

I dont think anybody says theres anythign wrong with renting. It has its disadvantages but so does owning a house.

From a lifestyle perspective renting suits some better and buying suits others. There is no a better or worse its an individual thing.

Potatoeman

lima wrote: »

I'd like to give my experience..

Personally, I have found many advantages of Renting over Buying:

- All my friends are 100k+ in Negative Equity whereas I have saved 100k+ and the way things are giong I could buy with cash later on in life if I wanted to
- I get to live 10min from work in leafy D6
- My Rent is about e200 per month higher than the interest I would have to pay to service a mortgage per month. I am gladly paying that extra e200 per month to have a better quality of life
- I have a pension so I have some cover for when I retire if I happen to not buy (in addition to my life savings)
- I don't have the stress of owning a home, bing in negative equity etc.
- I am not stuck out in suburbia, which personally I find would be an awful place to live
- I have lots of disposable income and I am completely debt free
- I can leave this island whenever I want (came back after 7 years, and I'd like to leave again for career reasons)

It really depends on the person, but there is nothing wrong with renting as long as you pay it!

Its fine for the short term but I have rented for over ten years now and paid over 100k. Prices were crazy back then so buying made no sence.

The problem with renting is that it provides no stability at least with a mortgage it will decrease overtime. Also as someone above mentioned what happens when you are older maybe have illness and need to move.

You should buy a home and not an investment so NE does not matter.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Riverireland wrote: »

Well one conclusion that can be drawn is that some people have no empathy. Also a home is not a "want" it is a need, big difference!

No. The "need" only extends to having a safe and secure accommodation. Where these clowns crossed the line was to demand accommodation within their own parameters - of a certain size within a specific area. There was nothing stopping them relocating to somewhere more affordable, or where rent allowance was accepted.

A working person must live within their means, regardless of where their family are located or where they would like to live. Why should these two be any different?

Barely There

Riverireland wrote: »

Well one conclusion that can be drawn is that some people have no empathy. Also a home is not a "want" it is a need, big difference!

I've plenty of empathy.

I've spent a lot of time in some of the world's most disadvantaged regions and I've seen what extreme poverty looks like - it's not pretty.

I do have an issue with people with a misplaced sense of entitlement who've contributed the square-root of fcuk all to the society in which they live and expect everything to be given to them and paid for by the rest of us.

Riverireland

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

No. The "need" only extends to having a safe and secure accommodation. Where these clowns crossed the line was to demand accommodation within their own parameters - of a certain size within a specific area. There was nothing stopping them relocating to somewhere more affordable, or where rent allowance was accepted.

A working person must live within their means, regardless of where their family are located or where they would like to live. Why should these two be any different?

Why are there so many homeless people if there there is plenty of accommodation out there who accept rent allowance? I personally know a lot of professional people who can not find rented accommodation despite being young professionals whit good incomes. This couple have no chance realistically. Seriously cheeky, and I am being kind, to call a couple in their 60's whom I presume you don't know, clowns. Reflects badly on you as a person.

Riverireland

Barely There wrote: »

I've plenty of empathy.

I've spent a lot of time in some of the world's most disadvantaged regions and I've seen what extreme poverty looks like - it's not pretty.

I do have an issue with people with a misplaced sense of entitlement who've contributed the square-root of fcuk all to the society in which they live and expect everything to be given to them and paid for by the rest of us.

How do you know what they did or didn't contribute to society? Do you know them personally? Would you feel the same if they were your parents for example?

By the way, just because you have seen poverty, and found it not pretty, does not mean you have empathy.

Barely There

Riverireland wrote: »

How do you know what they did or didn't contribute to society? Do you know them personally? Would you feel the same if they were your parents for example?

By the way, just because you have seen poverty, and found it not pretty, does not mean you have empathy.

It's highly amusing how on one hand how you accuse me of lacking the facts to come to a conclusion on this couple, while in the next sentence accuse me of lacking empathy despite knowing nothing about me.

I've formed my opinions on them based on media reports and interviews conducted with the couple concerned - a lot more information than you've based your conclusions on.

Oh, and spare me the bleeding heart liberal bullsh;t.
If you want to prove how much you care about people, tear yourself away from your laptop and go work as a missionary.

Riverireland

Barely There wrote: »

It's highly amusing how on one hand how you accuse me of lacking the facts to come to a conclusion on this couple, while in the next sentence accuse me of lacking empathy despite knowing nothing about me.

I've formed my opinions on them based on media reports and interviews conducted with the couple concerned - a lot more information than you've based your conclusions on.

Oh, and spare me the bleeding heart liberal bullsh;t.
If you want to prove how much you care about people, tear yourself away from your laptop and go work as a missionary.

You posted on a forum and therefor I'm entitled to respond to what you posted, judgement is required to do this.

I have also based my opinions on media reports and come to a different conclusion.

Based on your posts on this issue I do think you lack empathy. I would however commend you on your user name, at least that is accurate. My bleeding heart wishes you a happy day:)

murphaph

Not lacking in empathy. Just not naïve.

They want housing on their terms but there's an old saying that beggars can't be choosers.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Riverireland wrote: »

Why are there so many homeless people if there there is plenty of accommodation out there who accept rent allowance? I personally know a lot of professional people who can not find rented accommodation despite being young professionals whit good incomes. This couple have no chance realistically. Seriously cheeky, and I am being kind, to call a couple in their 60's whom I presume you don't know, clowns. Reflects badly on you as a person.

LOL! Reflects bad on me as a person! I'm not the one who was standing out in the street in my pyjamas claiming I was "unlawfully" evicted. Although frankly, your opinion means very little to me.

I'm not saying I don't have any sympathy for genuinely struggling people. These people are not genuinely struggling.

I just have no sympathy for people who expect to have their way paid for.

Sala

This case shows how difficult it can be to actually evict someone from your property. The receiver appeared to go the correct route and a year later they were still there, no doubt costing huge money in court fees, which will come from the sale, at a loss to the bank aka the taxpayer.

You cannot expect to live in a property you don't own forever, because it's the area you like and pay below market rate for it. It's unpleasant that tenants have to leave long term homes but they wouldn't have been evicted if they acted on the notice to quit and moved.

Many renters, myself included, live in areas and properties that are not ideal as it's all they can afford.

I dont really know what they are trying to achieve looking for the public sympathy or publicity. The judge cannot order they live in the receivers house forever,paying below market rate, they can't skip the housing queue as that's unfair to those on it for many more years, and even if they did I doubt they'd get a property comparable to what they were in. They really need to think about this practically and look for somewhere within their means.

I am interested to see whether the eviction was illegal - I looked up s133 and would assume the tenancy was validly terminated so it doesn't apply. If it does, that's means no one could ever be evicted from rented properties, which is just crazy.

Riverireland

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

LOL! Reflects bad on me as a person! I'm not the one who was standing out in the street in my pyjamas claiming I was "unlawfully" evicted. Although frankly, your opinion means very little to me.

I'm not saying I don't have any sympathy for genuinely struggling people. These people are not genuinely struggling.

I just have no sympathy for people who expect to have their way paid for.

That is correct, you were not out out on the street at 7.30am otherwise you would have been on the street in your pyjamas. Maybe it will happen to you one day. There is a huge housing shortage in the greater Dublin area currently. But I guess once you're not personally effected we can all sit back and relax. And yes it does reflect on you as a person that you call an elderly couple clowns because they got evicted from their home.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Riverireland wrote: »

That is correct, you were not out out on the street at 7.30am otherwise you would have been on the street in your pyjamas. Maybe it will happen to you one day. There is a huge housing shortage in the greater Dublin area currently. But I guess once you're not personally effected we can all sit back and relax. And yes it does reflect on you as a person that you call an elderly couple clowns because they got evicted from their home.

That's right, I'm not out on the street at 7:30 am in my pyjamas. I am in my car driving to work.

It probably wont happen to me because I live within my means and did not start building a huge 5 bedroom behemoth unlike this pair

Barely Hedged

Riverireland wrote: »

That is correct, you were not out out on the street at 7.30am otherwise you would have been on the street in your pyjamas. Maybe it will happen to you one day. There is a huge housing shortage in the greater Dublin area currently. But I guess once you're not personally effected we can all sit back and relax. And yes it does reflect on you as a person that you call an elderly couple clowns because they got evicted from their home.

Surely you cannot side with this couple once the facts of the situation have been revealed?

Barely There

Riverireland wrote: »

That is correct, you were not out out on the street at 7.30am otherwise you would have been on the street in your pyjamas. Maybe it will happen to you one day. There is a huge housing shortage in the greater Dublin area currently. But I guess once you're not personally effected we can all sit back and relax. And yes it does reflect on you as a person that you call an elderly couple clowns because they got evicted from their home.

The laughable thing about your attitude, is that by supporting parasites that seek to hoover up as much of our scant SW resourses that they can guzzle, you condemn those that are truly in need of State support to a reduced service.

You do get the concept that resources in this country are not infinite?
It's not a case of turning on a tap and money flowing out to solve all the problems of society.

Every euro that 'poor old elderly couple' have cost the State - and it's quite a sum at this stage I'd imagine - is one euro less to deal with the "huge housing shortage in the greater Dublin area" .
But hey, don't go thinking about these things too much now, otherwise you might find your incredibly empathetic position and castigation of those who don't share your outlook a less comfortable position to maintain.

rawn

According to the Irish Times the couple have a combined income of €363 p/w plus are entitled to €700 in RA p/m. My partner and I lived in a beautiful 3-bed house in the middle of Carlow town (1.2 hours away from Dublin by bus/car) on a combined income of €312 p/w without RA and we were comfortable. If they set their sights outside their ideal area there are plenty of options that they seem to be refusing to even consider. Then they could move back to Dublin when something becomes available that suits their particular tastes.

Ipso

Barely There wrote: »

You do get the concept that resources in this country are not infinite?
It's not a case of turning on a tap and money flowing out to solve all the problems of society.

I think that would actually shock a lot of people.

quadrifoglio verde

Riverireland wrote: »

Well one conclusion that can be drawn is that some people have no empathy. Also a home is not a "want" it is a need, big difference!

Wanting to live in dublin with the rent subsidised by the state is a want, not a need.
Having a roof over your head to keep you warm and dry satisfies that need. It doesn't need to be in a leafy suburb of dublin and neither does it need to be of a substantial size.
A couple with no children under 18/23 of in 3rd level, don't need anything bigger than a 1 bedroom house. If that means that visitors have to sleep on the couch, tough luck

Now if you're a couple with no kids and want to have more than one bedroom, you put your hand in your pocket and you pay for it.

murphaph

Mrs Coyne (who is only 61, not a pensioner as has been widely reported and certainly not "elderly" by any reasonable definition) wore her dressing gown for spin purposes. Do you really believe that she couldn't have sourced a top and a pair of jeans from someone, perhaps her supporter Miss Coppinger, in the HOURS between eviction and court appearance? She wore those clothes for a purpose. I don't even believe that the Sheriff wouldn't have thrown her out a few clothes if asked NICELY.