Squatters who 'broke into' pensioner's home ordered to vacate premises by Wednesday

skankkuvhima

I'm reading this on The Journal http://www.thejournal.ie/squatter-phibsborough-ordered-to-leave-3309321-Mar2017/

I must be misinterpreting it though, perhaps someone here can put me right. Is this what happened?

• Guy (Peter Herron) breaks into pensioners house last October and changes the locks.
• Herron and a group of people living in the house had refused access to the gardaí.
• Owner has to go to court to gain access to his own house and remove trespassers
• Owner has been denied use of his own house for the last 6 months

That can't be right? What's to stop someone breaking into my house when I pop out for milk and deny me access for 6 months?

DrumSteve

skankkuvhima wrote: »

I'm reading this on The Journal http://www.thejournal.ie/squatter-phibsborough-ordered-to-leave-3309321-Mar2017/

I must be misinterpreting it though, perhaps someone here can put me right. Is this what happened?

• Guy (Peter Herron) breaks into pensioners house last October and changes the locks.
• Herron and a group of people living in the house had refused access to the gardaí.
• Owner has to go to court to gain access to his own house and remove trespassers
• Owner has been denied use of his own house for the last 6 months

That can't be right? What's to stop someone breaking into my house when I pop out for milk and deny me access for 6 months?

suicide_circus

If that had been my folks house he would have been encouraged to vacate fairly quick

Mr. Incognito

Is Glen Hansard going to throw a concert in the front garden?

gramar

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Is Glen Hansard going to throw a concert in the front garden?

I think Glen is squatting inside the house.

BrokenArrows

skankkuvhima wrote: »

I'm reading this on The Journal http://www.thejournal.ie/squatter-phibsborough-ordered-to-leave-3309321-Mar2017/

I must be misinterpreting it though, perhaps someone here can put me right. Is this what happened?

• Guy (Peter Herron) breaks into pensioners house last October and changes the locks.
• Herron and a group of people living in the house had refused access to the gardaí.
• Owner has to go to court to gain access to his own house and remove trespassers
• Owner has been denied use of his own house for the last 6 months

That can't be right? What's to stop someone breaking into my house when I pop out for milk and deny me access for 6 months?

The article doesnt cover it but squatters rights are only valid if the house was not being used by the owner at the time it was "broken into".
This means the pensioner probably owned the property but lived somewhere else.

This wouldnt be valid if you just went down the shops.

I think squatters rights are a load of bull**** and shouldn't apply to residential property. Anyone who breaks into a property to live there without permission of the owner should be arrested and charged with breaking and entering.

If i own a house and i decide to leave it vacant then that should be my right without having to worry about squatters.

Sam Kade

suicide_circus wrote: »

If that had been my folks house he would have been encouraged to vacate fairly quick

There's no doubt but there's some cheeky b@stards around nowadays :mad:I'd be sending him out the door face first.

JupiterKid

Squatting is never justified and this sounds like an awful case but it IS symptomatic of the appalling housing crisis in this country at the moment. People will resort to anything to gain access to a roof over their head.

skankkuvhima

BrokenArrows wrote: »

The article doesnt cover it but squatters rights are only valid if the house was not being used by the owner at the time it was "broken into".
This means the pensioner probably owned the property but lived somewhere else.

This wouldnt be valid if you just went down the shops.

I think squatters rights are a load of bull**** and shouldn't apply to residential property. Anyone who breaks into a property to live there without permission of the owner should be arrested and charged with breaking and entering.

If i own a house and i decide to leave it vacant then that should be my right without having to worry about squatters.

I hope that's the case, must look into it further.

Sam Kade

skankkuvhima wrote: »

I'm reading this on The Journal http://www.thejournal.ie/squatter-phibsborough-ordered-to-leave-3309321-Mar2017/

I must be misinterpreting it though, perhaps someone here can put me right. Is this what happened?

• Guy (Peter Herron) breaks into pensioners house last October and changes the locks.
• Herron and a group of people living in the house had refused access to the gardaí.
• Owner has to go to court to gain access to his own house and remove trespassers
• Owner has been denied use of his own house for the last 6 months

That can't be right? What's to stop someone breaking into my house when I pop out for milk and deny me access for 6 months?

What they do in London when they know a house is vacant is sent one man to break in the door then the squatters arrive after, so they can't be charged with breaking and entering. One man spent 60K getting squatters out of his house and wasn't allowed access to it for six months.

ScumLord

I don't really see why there needs to be a court case here. They broke into the house, they don't own it. The guards should be able to go in and just throw them out. This is just the legal system eating up money and resources on a completely unnecessary case, more money for the boys.

cruizer101

The doctrine of adverse possession, allows third parties claim to a right over land (to which they originally had no legal title to) which they have occupied continuously for over 12 years with the intention of excluding all others including the true owner (also commonly known as “Squatters Rights”). If a squatter enjoys adverse and exclusive possession of the land for over 12 years, which is inconsistent with the title of the true owner, then he or she may oust that owner and gain title.

Squatters rights don't kick in for years. I can't understand why the guards didn't remove the trespassers as that is all they are, trespassing scum.

Edited to add: Even the fact the judge is giving them til Wednesday is a joke he should have given them two hours from when they left the courthouse otherwise send them to jail

BrokenArrows

Sam Kade wrote: »

What they do in London when they know a house is vacant is sent one man to break in the door then the squatters arrive after, so they can't be charged with breaking and entering. One man spent 60K getting squatters out of his house and wasn't allowed access to it for six months.

Squatting in residential property is now fully illegal in the UK since a few years ago. Still a problem with commercial properties.

But even though its illegal it still happens and is a pain in the ass to legally remove someone without force.

BrokenArrows

cruizer101 wrote: »

The doctrine of adverse possession, allows third parties claim to a right over land (to which they originally had no legal title to) which they have occupied continuously for over 12 years with the intention of excluding all others including the true owner (also commonly known as “Squatters Rights”). If a squatter enjoys adverse and exclusive possession of the land for over 12 years, which is inconsistent with the title of the true owner, then he or she may oust that owner and gain title.

Squatters rights don't kick in for years. I can't understand why the guards didn't remove the trespassers as that is all they are, trespassing scum.

Edited to add: Even the fact the judge is giving them til Wednesday is a joke he should have given them two hours from when they left the courthouse otherwise send them to jail

The squatters probably claimed they have "rights" so needed to go to court to prove them wrong. Its a ****ty system.

222233

Squatters rights shouldn't exist in the first place END OF.

If you didn't pay for it or have NO CLAIM to it then you shouldn't be on anyones property, nothing should be free, if I own a vacant commercial building and want to leave it vacant, than so should be my right. All the laws in this country are in favour of societal menaces.

fiachr_a

gramar wrote: »

I think Glen is squatting inside the house.

He's squatting on a band called Anastasia screamed his whole career.

donkeykong5

Did they break in or were they already renting a room. ?

Water John

Totally agree with the owner here, based on what I have read.
Property rights are not absolute. Some posters seem to think so. The Govn't, in the interests of the common good could decide to either encourage or force the use of residential property for that purpose.
They could put a tax on vacant properties to encourage use of the property, since there is a housing shortage.

222233

Water John wrote: »

Totally agree with the owner here, based on what I have read.
Property rights are not absolute. Some posters seem to think so. The Govn't, in the interests of the common good could decide to either encourage or force the use of residential property for that purpose.
They could put a tax on vacant properties to encourage use of the property, since there is a housing shortage.

Great system, lets also start taxing all the cars that are off the road and force people to give them to the less fortunate.

Arcade_Tryer

BrokenArrows wrote: »

If i own a house and i decide to leave it vacant then that should be my right without having to worry about squatters.

True. But there really should be a heavy tax on vacant property in Dublin. It's completely sub optimal to have thousands of vacant units just lying there appreciating in value while there is simultaneously a serious shortage of supply of housing. Squatter's rights are only as ridiculous as the low levels of property and inheritance tax in Ireland. And those two are responsible for far more inequality and inefficiency than the odd story about squatters.

Water John

Has been spoken about many times eg tax on derelict sites, tax on land that is zoned for housing and being held as a land bank.

Common good doesn't allow absolute property rights. Agricultural land and indeed your front garden can be CPOd for a road widening.

FTA69

BrokenArrows wrote: »

If i own a house and i decide to leave it vacant then that should be my right without having to worry about squatters.

Nah screw that, your actions impact on others and nobody's property rights should supersede the common good. To give an example, what would happen if 25% of houses on a road were owned by speculators were left vacant and as a result the rest of the community had to put up with the dereliction and anti-social behaviour that comes with that? Housing is an important resource and hoarding it in such a fashion to the detriment of everyone else is just plain wrong.

Here in London we have entire apartment blocks that are often left empty, giant money-laundering schemes that facilitate empty homes while the rest of us face a chronic housing crisis. There should be massive tax incentives for vacant properties up to and including seizure of the property.

The Oort Cloud

This kind of thing is happening a lot in the states, and I'm sure we will hear a lot more of this happening soon. It is absolutely astonishing that this can still happen in this country. The squatters in the states even went as far as to change their own name on the utility bills as you do not need to provide identification over there to change the name on bills. Absolutely amazing. The law around this happening here should be changed fast, you will hear more of this in the coming years.

beauf

FTA69 wrote: »

Nah screw that, your actions impact on others and nobody's property rights should supersede the common good. ....

Why stop at property. Why not take 25% of your wages and savings to home the less well off. Not that squatters are always the less well off.

FTA69

beauf wrote: »

Why stop at property. Why not take 25% of your wages and savings to home the less well off. Not that squatters are always the less well off.

The state taking a percentage of your wages? That's a a mad idea altogether, maybe it just might work! They could call it "tax" after the Latin word "taxare".

Arcade_Tryer

beauf wrote: »

Why stop at property. Why not take 25% of your wages and savings to home the less well off. Not that squatters are always the less well off.

20% and 40%.

endacl

JupiterKid wrote: »

Squatting is never justified and this sounds like an awful case but it IS symptomatic of the appalling housing crisis in this country at the moment. People will resort to anything to gain access to a roof over their head.

Unless hippie bull****. Of course.

Galwayguy35

FTA69 wrote: »

Nah screw that, your actions impact on others and nobody's property rights should supersede the common good. To give an example, what would happen if 25% of houses on a road were owned by speculators were left vacant and as a result the rest of the community had to put up with the dereliction and anti-social behaviour that comes with that? Housing is an important resource and hoarding it in such a fashion to the detriment of everyone else is just plain wrong.

Here in London we have entire apartment blocks that are often left empty, giant money-laundering schemes that facilitate empty homes while the rest of us face a chronic housing crisis. There should be massive tax incentives for vacant properties up to and including seizure of the property.

More leftie spiel.

A property that a person owns is theirs to do with what they wish and the likes of you and you're "common good" have no right to tell them otherwise.

MilesMorales1

Isn't it illegal in residental properities end of story, or is that the UK?

The Oort Cloud

Is this still happening in the UK ? where a squatter enters a home that is unoccupied and they can end up owning the house after 7 years if the original occupants don't use it or move back in ?.

FTA69

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

More leftie spiel.

A property that a person owns is theirs to do with what they wish and the likes of you and you're "common good" have no right to tell them otherwise.

Grand. So what if I bought a house next door to you and started piling my rubbish 30 foot high out the back and blaring music until 3am every night. Would that be ok with you? It's my gaff after all.

pickarooney

222233 wrote: »

Squatters rights shouldn't exist in the first place END OF.

If you didn't pay for it or have NO CLAIM to it then you shouldn't be on anyones property, nothing should be free, if I own a vacant commercial building and want to leave it vacant, than so should be my right. All the laws in this country are in favour of societal menaces.

Well in that scenario it would be easy to argue that someone selfishly leaving a building vacant while people go homeless is the greater societal menace.

pickarooney

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

More leftie spiel.

A property that a person owns is theirs to do with what they wish and the likes of you and you're "common good" have no right to tell them otherwise.

Like the way England owned Ireland that time?

FTA69

FTA69 wrote: »

Grand. So what if I bought a house next door to you and started piling my rubbish 30 foot high out the back and blaring music until 3am every night. Would that be ok with you? It's my gaff after all.

That's completely different, you're causing anti social problems.
But it is your house and there would be nothing anyone could do, except for bringing you to the district courts under environment law

Water John

Galway might want to read a bit of Law or study the Consitution.

The reality is if a piece of infrastructure eg road, new water pipe to Dublin is going through your house, the Govn't can CPO it and knock it. That is how much it is ONLY your business.

When I retire, i intend to live overseas for the majority of the year. At the moment, i would also intend to leave a property in Dublin, for my use when i come back.
Would anyone seriously think squatters moving into my property would be in the right?

FTA69

bubblypop wrote: »

That's completely different, you're causing anti social problems.
But it is your house and there would be nothing anyone could do, except for bringing you to the district courts under environment law

What and you don't think having a load of vacant properties in a community causes problems? Or that having empty tower blocks owned by Chinese and Russian millionaires surrounded by people paying fortunes in rent or unable to get housing causes problems? Go on away out of it.

Also I'm fully aware that storing rubbish and blaring music is negative; the point I'm getting at is there is such a thing as a common good and to dismiss it is ridiculous.

Sam Kade

FTA69 wrote: »

What and you don't think having a load of vacant properties in a community causes problems? Or that having empty tower blocks owned by Chinese and Russian millionaires surrounded by people paying fortunes in rent or unable to get housing causes problems? Go on away out of it.

Also I'm fully aware that storing rubbish and blaring music is negative; the point I'm getting at is there is such a thing as a common good and to dismiss it is ridiculous.

So if you went on a foreign holiday for a month and you had squatters in your home when you came back you'd think they had every right to take it over?

222233

pickarooney wrote: »

Well in that scenario it would be easy to argue that someone selfishly leaving a building vacant while people go homeless is the greater societal menace.

Perhaps there are many reasons why someone would leave a building vacant? Maybe you shouldn't assume they are selfish.

Not everyone WANTS to profit from their buildings, tenants might be too much hassle for someone. That person MAY want to move into THEIR building one day or perhaps keep if for family without risking it being destroyed by those in the rental market.

Maybe the property is not suitable to be let due to legal, aesthetic or construction reasons. Maybe that person is planning on renovating. Maybe that person is not available to make decisions about that property. Maybe the person purchased the property as a project or to move into at a later stage. Maybe the property was inherited and the person does not want to let it for sentimental reasons.

There is plenty of property out there, people just need to accept that they can't always live 5 mins from their ma, or accept that if they wish to rent they may have to commute to work or possibly move out into the country somewhere.

Phoebas

Sam Kade wrote: »

So if you went on a foreign holiday for a month and you had squatters in your home when you came back you'd think they had every right to take it over?

I don't think it applies to that kind of thing.

But let's say you were a developer and you developed a ghost estate in the middle of, say, Longford, and you had no intention of finishing it and you left it go derelict.
If a homeless person moved in what's the harm? The property gets used, it makes no difference to the developer and it takes someone off the housing list at least for a while. Win-Win.

Phoebas

222233 wrote: »

Perhaps there are many reasons why someone would leave a building vacant? Maybe you shouldn't assume they are selfish.

In the UK back in the 90's (I don't know what its like today), some of the councils used to facilitate squatters.
They had a stock of empty property, but they didn't have the funds to bring it up to spec, so they didn't mind people squatting in it.

People squatting had a couple of benefits - occupied property wasn't being used for anti social behaviour and it took some people off the housing list. I know Lambeth Council had a form that squatters could fill in so the council knew that that the place was occupied. When they wanted the place back, they'ed write to the squatters. Generally, the squatters would just move to another place.
This was on some of the dodgier estates in Lambeth so there was no shortage of places to squat - it's probably a lot different these days.

the_syco

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't really see why there needs to be a court case here. They broke into the house, they don't own it.

I'm surprised they didn't disappear into a shallow grave up the Wicklow mountains, tbh. The pensioner must not have any kids.

Phoebas

Darkglasses wrote: »

Public Liability Insurance would matter, right?

Sure, probably.
It's no an ideal situation, but I guess public liability insurance is required whether people are squatting or not.

andekwarhola

He needs to be kicked up and down the stairs a few times before being escorted off the premises.

andekwarhola

JupiterKid wrote: »

Squatting is never justified and this sounds like an awful case but it IS symptomatic of the appalling housing crisis in this country at the moment. People will resort to anything to gain access to a roof over their head.

One does immediately note that the 'filmmaker' squatter didn't occupy a suburban ghost estate house or corpo gaff in Finglas, rather choosing to express his homelessness desperation vis a vis a nice redbrick within walking distance of town.

DivingDuck

I understand the argument about common good, but the point remains that individual property rights shouldn't be eroded. That's a dangerous slope.

I can think of a number of items I'm not currently using (my last phone, my backup computer, the TV in the spare room) but which would absolutely qualify under "theft" if someone decided to "re-purpose" them for someone else's use without my permission. All of these items are worth under a grand. Surely if something's a few hundred thousand times more valuable than that, it should be a worse crime, not no crime?

Yes, property is a more finite resource which is more "essential" than the likes of old iPhones and computers from 2008, but it still belongs to someone who has earned the right to decide, within reason, how it's used. Instead of penalising those who leave their properties vacant (because, as 222233 pointed out upthread, there can be many reasonable reasons for doing so), maybe incentivise people to do otherwise? Offer rather than punish.

FTA69

FTA69 wrote: »

What and you don't think having a load of vacant properties in a community causes problems? Or that having empty tower blocks owned by Chinese and Russian millionaires surrounded by people paying fortunes in rent or unable to get housing causes problems? Go on away out of it.

Also I'm fully aware that storing rubbish and blaring music is negative; the point I'm getting at is there is such a thing as a common good and to dismiss it is ridiculous.

and what about when I go overseas to live for most of the year? Do you think the home I keep in Dublin should be taken over by people that haven't paid for it?
Or should I be allowed privacy in my life & my home, to do with as I wish?

nuckeythompson

Just passed by the house, they have the windows covered with sheets and a copy of the star . Not entirely covered. In there now with two other lads smoking and drinking cans. If your reading these Mr Scorsese it was me who punctured the tyres on your cunty hipster bike ya prick

the_pen_turner

whats stopping you breaking into 'their' house and claiming squatters on the house

__Alex__

I just can't understand why squatter's rights are a thing anywhere.

andekwarhola

Phoebas wrote: »

I don't think it applies to that kind of thing.

But let's say you were a developer and you developed a ghost estate in the middle of, say, Longford, and you had no intention of finishing it and you left it go derelict.
If a homeless person moved in what's the harm? The property gets used, it makes no difference to the developer and it takes someone off the housing list at least for a while. Win-Win.

Kinda different though as that would be a mutually beneficial arrangement agreed by the owner.

Some gaff owned by a pensioner (under what circumstances nobody can be sure) is slightly different to that or vast tranches of property owned by a company.

Was wondering what the insurance situation is if one of the squatters injures themself in the house or something.