Media sympathetic coverage/agenda with evictions

Arbiter of Good Taste

"Land League". LOL.

My folks happen to be visiting Glasnevin Cemetery today. I'll ask them to check if Parnell is turning in his grave yet.

Arbiter of Good Taste

.

Icepick

Victor wrote: »

None of our business, so no speculation please.

Public money is very much our business.

Icepick

How much taxpayers' money has been wasted on legal fees and garda presence?

How many people in need could have been housed instead?

Why should someone on welfare have higher expectations than people in employment funding the welfare?

L1011

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

"Land League". LOL.

My folks happen to be visiting Glasnevin Cemetery today. I'll ask them to check if Parnell is turning in his grave yet.

I was thinking much the same thing - one of my ancestors was heavily involved in the UIL (there were two very similar organisations, the UIL went more for the parliamentary route I think) in Tipperary and would be disgusted by the current attempt to use that history. Particularly that it seems to mostly consist of failed property speculators - the kind of person they'd have been entirely against.

zef

Although I am sympathetic to any homeless person, the answer is not to have family members re occupy a house that you have been evicted from. It has done them no favours.

rawn

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/evicted-couple-martin-and-violet-coyne-tell-court-we-have-been-treated-very-badly-30645383.html

"It’s all about money. Isn’t it? You are not interested in the human side of this at all……..” the final kick-back by Martin (73) and Violet Coyne (61) at the system that eventually threw them out of their home and put them on the roadside.

SHARE
The remarks of Martin Coyne were directed at Judge Jacqueline Linnane in the Circuit Civil Court today. Statements that more properly may have been meant for ACC Bank that had re-possessed the couple’s Carpenterstown, Dublin, home where they had lived for 15 years.

Remarks that were also meant for the Receiver appointed by the bank over assets of Daragh Ward, the Coynes’ landlord who fell upon hard times and whose property bought-to-let with an ACC loan was possessed by the bank.

The bank had wanted vacant possession in order to sell Ward’s house so the Coynes had to go. Judge Linnane had made an eviction order against them and today took the brunt of the couple’s ire in her court when she awarded legal costs against them in favour of the bank’s Receiver.

“We are most definitely objecting to costs. We have been treated very badly,” Mrs Coyne told the judge.

Personally I think the judge made the right call. It's ridiculous that they believe their sob story should overrule the fact that they ignored their eviction notices and cost the previous owner a lot of money while they refused to budge. I noticed it didn't mention where they are living now?

EDIT: They're living in Mullingar on rent allowance and STILL complaining. It's hardly Siberia :rolleyes:

Outside the court, the Coyles told reporters they were now living in Mullingar, which was the nearest place to their former home they could find within their budget and where they found rent allowance was accepted.
They had no family in Mullingar, their relatives and friends being back in Carpenterstown, they said.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/costs-awarded-against-couple-over-dublin-eviction-1.1954633

Michael D Not Higgins

rawn wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/evicted-couple-martin-and-violet-coyne-tell-court-we-have-been-treated-very-badly-30645383.html



Personally I think the judge made the right call. It's ridiculous that they believe their sob story should overrule the fact that they ignored their eviction notices and cost the previous owner a lot of money while they refused to budge. I noticed it didn't mention where they are living now?

The Irish Times article mentions they're renting in Mullingar now, "which was the nearest place to their former home they could find within their budget and where they found rent allowance was accepted"

gaius c

Coverage of why they ended up renting at that age has been scant. Wouldn't suit their agenda I guess.

rawn

gaius c wrote: »

Coverage of why they ended up renting at that age has been scant. Wouldn't suit their agenda I guess.

Martin bought a plot of land at Coolmine Lane in 1994 to build a home for his family. The owners of two similar plots on either side were given permission to build homes but Martin’s permission was refused.
His brother-in-law, Fred Molloy, said: “There was no reason given. They tried everything and employed one of the most eminent planning barristers and he was flabbergasted as to why they were refused.”

For years they sought to have the decision overturned and in 2000, the Sunday World highlighted their plight. They continually hit a brick wall but eventually after 12 years, planning permission was granted.
However, due to their age it was too late for the Coynes to build a home to live in. ACC gave them money to build the house but only on condition they sell it within a year of it being built, as the bank did not want to give them a mortgage so late in life.
Fred said: “These people’s lives were destroyed. Had they been given permission like their neighbours, they would never have had to borrow in the first place.

“ACC gave the loan on terms that when it was built that it was resold immediately within a year because houses were getting fortunes.”
The house was built and at one point valued as high as €1.2 million. But by the time it was sold it had dropped as low as €400,000, just enough for the couple to re-pay their mortgage to ACC, leaving them without a home of their own.

http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/daily-world/eviction-row-pair-blame-planning-laws

I feel sorry for them in that regard, it must have been heartbreaking. But it doesn't excuse them occupying someone elses house after eviction so my sympathy only extends that far

Meathlass

Bit weird that their planning permission was refused for 12 years. Something must have been wrong with the plans.

Barely There

The owners of two similar plots on either side were given permission to build homes but Martin’s permission was refused.
His brother-in-law, Fred Molloy, said: “There was no reason given. They tried everything and employed one of the most eminent planning barristers and he was flabbergasted as to why they were refused.”

Overpowering smell of BS from this. They're certainly not giving the full story.

The LA would have to supply reasons as to why the permission was being refused. They would have then had the opportunity to appeal this decision and make their case to An Bord Pleanala, or to re-submit alterntive proposals to address the planner's concerns.

The fact that planning permission was held up for 12 years would most likely be due to the fact that what they were seeking permission for was something unsuitable for the site and surrounding area.

Their actions wrt the house they were renting would lead me to speculate that neither of them are particularly interested in compromise - I suspect that is the main reason they didn't get planning permission for 12 years.

I don't really have any sympathy for them at all.
They've proven that they're very good at going crying to the media with one side of a story.

rawn

If you got to http://www.fingal.ie/planning-and-buildings/apply-or-search-for-a-planning-application/search-planning-applications-online/searchplanningapplicationsonline/ and type "Coolmine Lane" into the search bar, you'll find multiple planning applications in their name, all refused except one in 2006 which was granted, then they kept reapplying and getting refused

Michael D Not Higgins

rawn wrote: »

If you got to http://www.fingal.ie/planning-and-buildings/apply-or-search-for-a-planning-application/search-planning-applications-online/searchplanningapplicationsonline/ and type "Coolmine Lane" into the search bar, you'll find multiple planning applications in their name, all refused except one in 2006 which was granted, then they kept reapplying and getting refused

I can't find Coolmine Lane on the maps. The planning applications seem to reference Kirkpatrick Bridge which I assume is the bridge on Coolmine road over the rail line, but there's no Coolmine Lane around there.

rawn

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I can't find Coolmine Lane on the maps. The planning applications seem to reference Kirkpatrick Bridge which I assume is the bridge on Coolmine road over the rail line, but there's no Coolmine Lane around there.

I'm pretty sure it's the lane between the bridge and the back of the stationcourt estate, there's a few bungalows there facing the canal.

Michael D Not Higgins

rawn wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it's the lane between the bridge and the back of the stationcourt estate, there's a few bungalows there facing the canal.

Yeah it's listed as Kirkpatrick Ave on Google Maps, but on streetview for 2009 there's a bungalow for sale, and the property price register has 2 Coolmine Lane sold last year for 215k. If that's the place I can't imagine it ever being valued at €1.2M.

kdevitt

It was definitely on the market for 1.2M - its a large dormer, but not a great location.

If they only needed enough cash to clear and mortgage and buy a house in the D15 area, they didn't need to get anywhere near that price for it though - 700K would have done the job.

Michael D Not Higgins

kdevitt wrote: »

It was definitely on the market for 1.2M - its a large dormer, but not a great location.

If the PPR listing is for this property and it sold for 215k last year, then it was surely well overvalued at 1.2M. Average drops in price for Dublin were 50%, this would have been a drop of 82%.

kdevitt

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

If the PPR listing is for this property and it sold for 215k last year, then it was surely well overvalued at 1.2M. Average drops in price for Dublin were 50%, this would have been a drop of 82%.

I'd go with it being overvalued to be honest. There was a small plot of land opposite it which was initially included in the sale - that is fenced off now and is not part of the house, so that would account for a small bit of the difference.

Windows were constantly being broken, and the placed was just a shell - no kitchen or furnishings were in place, so the price was definitely optimistic in the first place.

Question has to be asked though - they owned the plot of land, so surely they could have built a very small house to suit the two of them to live in for a lot less than the 400k mortgage?

Michael D Not Higgins

The problem being that the bank wouldn't let them do that since they wouldn't give them a mortgage due to their age which was because of the delay in the planning permission.

The apparent fall from 1.2M to 400k was the height of the boom price it seems which would be in line with it selling last year at just over 200k. 1.2M might have been an unrealistic price based off more extensive plans which were rejected time and time again.

Just another victim of the boom who still believe in their entitlement to housing, despite receivers, PRTB and judge telling them otherwise.

foggy_lad

It would seem like the Council didn't think a house should be built there at all or someone else was making representations to others who might have had some say in the planning department as the reasons given are always about the distance between the house and other houses on the lane and also the would affect the amenity value of the area.


http://planning.fingalcoco.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=F99A/0398&theTabNo=2&backURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=1087746%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%20%3E%20%3Ca%20href=%27wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=1152613%26StartIndex=1%26SortOrder=rgndat,apnid%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=1087746%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%27%3ESearch%20Results%3C/a%3E

Reason The subject site is located in an area designated as use zoning objective 'F' ie. 'to preserve and provide for open space and recreational amenities' in the County Development Plan 1993. The proposal would contravene materially this objective to retain land in this area, primarily for open space and recreational amenity use and as such is contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.
Reason The proposed development, given the inadequate separation distance between the dwellinghouse and existing residential properties to the north, and in particular, its location due south of same, would be seriously injurious to the residential amenities of these properties and would depreciate the value of these properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.

garhjw

I'm very surprised anyone would rent a house to them.

The planning permission story sounds like bull.

jd

kdevitt wrote: »

If they only needed enough cash to clear and mortgage and buy a house in the D15 area, they didn't need to get anywhere near that price for it though - 700K would have done the job.

Mr Conyne insisted on having the last word in court. “Money. That’s what this is all about,” he said. -

_Kaiser_

i still genuinely don't see why these 2 people think they have a case or why it's dragged on and getting as much coverage as it has

The bottom line is that they were tenants in someone else's property and regardless of whether the owner went bankrupt or not, they had no right - ever! - to it themselves.

By all accounts they were given plenty of notice and time to move out but refused, ultimately resulting in them being evicted by the Sherrif .. but that's on them and it still doesn't change the fact that it WASN'T THEIR HOUSE TO BEGIN WITH

rawn

Ruth Coppinger on her Facebook page lashing back at people criticizing them :rolleyes:

groovyg

This couple back in the papers again why are the media giving them so much coverage?
They speculated on the property market and lost the €280 grand loan which they got from the bank to fund their project was later written off. I guess from their age they were probably never going to be able to pay that back, but still nice work to get that much of a loan written off for a large gamble. Their rent originally €1,100 a month had come down in recent years to €800 a month.

They were offered a bungalow free of charge by an American benefactor, but didn't take it and are now living in Mullingar. I think they have been treated pretty fairly. There are a lot of other people out there who are worse off than them.

In todays hearing "Addressing the court, Mr Coyne said: “Is it all about costs? Is there no human side?” Jeezus their sense of entitlement knows no bounds :mad:

I am surprised that a landlord would risk renting these two a house considering they had to be forcefully evicted from the house in Carpenterstown.