Strokestown **Mod Note in Post #4461**

blinding

Effects wrote: »

The house and land were a guarantee on a loan their nephew took out, not them.

Did the Bank do due Diligence on the possibility of this loan been repaid ?

Did the bank do due diligence on the repercussions of this loan not been repaid ?

Guy:Incognito

Zorya wrote: »

First of all, I admit to having been incorrect - I thought the owners were elderly, but now it appears the farmer in question is in his 50s.
Second of all, the figure of about 400,000 is being bandied about. This includes 75,000 in interest and 177,000+ in 'penalties'. The original sum appears to have been about 177,000 itself.

My initial response is that this level of penalties seems very stiff and would mitigate severely against people managing to pay off original sums owing. This seems counter-productive.

At the rate of 1000 per month, that's 12,000 per annum less interest obviously, the original sum could have been paid off in 20 - 25 years. It was within the bounds of feasibility.

The retired garda friend of the farmer is saying that the farmer was making an offer of paying - would it not be better to pursue that offer than this dreadful palaver that has taken place.

Anne Kavanagh, who made some fo the videos circulating, has described in some of them the issues facing farmers in rural Ireland who are being hounded into upgrading to make ends meet since milk quotas etc were cut and are being given loans inappropriately. There are a lot of evictions going on as a result - there is something very nasty about all of this, even though I do not have all the details, so cannot put my finger on it.

There are so many sides to every story. Yes, this farmer has obviously made some inappropriate business moves, but some of the people on here calling them ''scumbags'' and displaying such schadenfreude is really ugly and unwarranted. Local people seem to be on the side of the family. I can tell you around here people would be incensed at this kind of stuff.

Even a local TD said,

According to handle masters post, the 177000 is tax debt. Nothing to do with bank loans.

Kermit.de.frog

Zorya wrote: »

That's fairly rude - to tell someone you don't know to ''get lost'' on a discussion board.
In terms of being locked up, in this country if he raped a child he would get 3 to 6 years at best and about the same amount of contempt as you seem to be ladling on him for getting into financial difficulties.

What else should he be losing as well as the house? From some of the ugly comments on here, perhaps his life too, is that it?

I do not put the financial difficulty of ordinary people anywhere near the category of crime. It should be handled better by the banks than the way this has been handled. But because so many do consider financial difficulties to be so foul, and spit out such ugly calumnies and curse upon the heads of those in trouble, that is why we had so many people stringing themselves up in their sheds during the recession.

The man is a tax defaulter.

Next you will be one of the goons telling us how the rich have everything rigged and all that ****e.

This guy is a TAX DEFAULTER.

Should be in jail.

Guy:Incognito

awec wrote: »

20-25 years for someone in their mid 50s?

Interest free as well of course. Cant have them paying interest and penalties.

road_high

As always in these cases, the truth is far more revealing. Once the hype dies down

listermint

Fiddling the books and fiddling the banks and people are still defending it.

Hilarious.

I suppose there is always planks that enjoy taking the contrary view just to annoy everyone else

JeffKenna

Effects wrote: »

From what I’ve heard, the loan was for the nephews business and not their farm. I don’t know if the nephews business is farming or something else.

All the main media outlets are reporting it was a loan for non payment of VAT due to Revenue.

Gimme A Pound

Zorya wrote: »

That's fairly rude - to tell someone you don't know to ''get lost'' on a discussion board.
In terms of being locked up, in this country if he raped a child he would get 3 to 6 years at best and about the same amount of contempt as you seem to be ladling on him for getting into financial difficulties.

What else should he be losing as well as the house? From some of the ugly comments on here, perhaps his life too, is that it?

I do not put the financial difficulty of ordinary people anywhere near the category of crime. It should be handled better by the banks than the way this has been handled. But because so many do consider financial difficulties to be so foul, and spit out such ugly calumnies and curse upon the heads of those in trouble, that is why we had so many people stringing themselves up in their sheds during the recession.

It's not financial difficulties though, Zorya, it's paying nothing and expecting no consequences. It's the entitlement culture and abdication of personal responsibility.

Plenty of people end up in financial difficulty, they explain it to the bank, which comes to an agreement with them. They don't get evicted.

blinding

blinding wrote: »

Did the Bank do due Diligence on the possibility of this loan been repaid ?

Did the bank do due diligence on the repercussions of this loan not been repaid ?

They were very likely capable of paying it at one stage but the revenue intervened and hit them with 400k of a bill since.

Do you think the revenue should show some mercy and let them off with the tax bill so they can make good on their bank loans and keep their land???

awec

Has the value of the repossessed property been published anywhere?

blinding

pablo128 wrote: »

I wonder if the 70 heroes with the bats be as quick to attack a travellers camp for burglarizing their neighbours?

Success breeds success . They certainly had a good result on this outing .

amcalester

JeffKenna wrote: »

All the main media outlets are reporting it was a loan for non payment of VAT due to Revenue.

That doesn’t seem right, if he borrowed the money to repay Revenue he wouldn’t still owe the money to revenue.

And I doubt banks would lend money to someone to repay Revenue.

blinding

blackbox wrote: »

If they were third generation in the property, the loan must have been for investment or expansion.

If they didn't want to risk eviction why did they use house as security?

.

Why did the Bank take the house as security . How do we know the bank did due dilligence ?

Guy:Incognito

blinding wrote: »

Did the Bank do due Diligence on the possibility of this loan been repaid ?

Did the bank do due diligence on the repercussions of this loan not been repaid ?

The repercussions are they take the property the loans are secured on. Simple stuff really. All in the contract both parties sign and one party is going back on.

Guy:Incognito

JeffKenna wrote: »

All the main media outlets are reporting it was a loan for non payment of VAT due to Revenue.

So steal the vat, borrow to pay for the vat he stole, dont pay the loan.

Is there anything about whether he even paid the revenue from the loan? Or is that issue still outstanding?

Maybe mick Wallace will stick up for him in the Dail............

JeffKenna

amcalester wrote: »

That doesn’t seem right, if he borrowed the money to repay Revenue he wouldn’t still owe the money to revenue.

And I doubt banks would lend money to someone to repay Revenue.

So he owes over €400k to revenue and a separate loan to the bank?

blinding

blueythebear wrote: »

Someone referred to it as being the nephew with the owners of the property being guarantors for the loan. I can't see that this is correct. It doesn't add up on many fronts but fundamentally it would be monumentally naive for someone to put their house up as collateral for another persons borrowing.

And the bank should not have accepted the house as collateral .

relax carry on

Mooooo wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/garda-investigate-dissident-links-to-predawn-attack-at-repossessed-house-37632029.html

From the article

In 2015, Revenue secured a settlement totalling €429,501 against the evicted man as a tax defaulter for the under declaration of VAT. It included €177,000 in tax owed, almost €75,000 in interest, and more than €177,000 in penalties.

The penalties equal the tax. That's a 100% penalty. Based on the code of practice for Audits that's considered deliberate behaviour with no cooperation.

This is someone who has issues with dealing with his money problems.

awec

JeffKenna wrote: »

So he owes over €400k to revenue and a separate loan to the bank?

Yes, he owes nearly half a million to the taxpayer alone.

He also owes 18,000 to a local business (a quarry).

His actual bank debts are unknown.

listermint

blinding wrote: »

And the bank should not have accepted the house as collateral .

Why.


In detail please

Zorya

Kendra Dazzling Nail wrote: »

It's not financial difficulties though, Zorya, it's paying nothing and expecting no consequences. It's the entitlement culture and abdication of personal responsibility.

Plenty of people end up in financial difficulty, they explain it to the bank, which comes to an agreement with them. They don't get evicted.

I see what you mean, Gimme. I don't know if he paid nothing. Maybe he did. From his garda friend it seems he was trying to come to some agreement. I really don't know. From some of the ugly remarks on here from people who do not know either, it makes me worry for people who get into financial trouble. There were so many suicides by farmers around here over the past decade or so.

noodler

To not pay your mortgage after years is one thing but defrauding revenue of half a million euro is another.

I knew there had to be more to this.

Guy:Incognito

blinding wrote: »

And the bank should not have accepted the house as collateral .

Why not?

whippet

Why is it that these groups of vigilantes only ever seem to crop up when the ‘victim’ owes huge amounts of money and is obviously not even trying to repay the monies.

blinding

blinding wrote: »

And the bank should not have accepted the house as collateral .

Why would he offer it as collateral?

And why then sign a contract saying it is used as collateral?

_Brian

whippet wrote: »

Why is it that these groups of vigilantes only ever seem to crop up when the ‘victim’ owes huge amounts of money and is obviously not even trying to repay the monies.

Because most are thugs looking for a fight rather than defending a good cause.

Guy:Incognito

Zorya wrote: »

I see what you mean, Gimme. I don't know if he paid nothing. Maybe he did. From his garda friend it seems he was trying to come to some agreement. I really don't know. From some of the ugly remarks on here from people who do not know either, it makes me worry for people who get into financial trouble. There were so many suicides by farmers around here over the past decade or so.

So we move on from the "poor, elderly farmer" angle to vague insinuations the state is driving him to suicide? He underpaid his vat, so presumably he had the money and used it for something else.

Is this info from the garda friend the 1000 he was going to pay? Presumably that's a month. So in 500 months the revenue will have their money back. What about the money others are owed?


BTW, for those not too quick on the calculator, 500 months is over 41 years.

gandalf

So not as was being presented yesterday then by some. These guys are not elderly, they have a history of default and have multiple judgments against them. And still some want them to retain ownership of this farm. I have absolutely no sympathy for them at all. This kind of tripe muddies the water for the real hard cases where families are being turfed out of their homes because the main breadwinner lost their job. These jokers in Roscommon obviously couldn't manage their business finances properly, and got into serious trouble with the banks and revenue.

They are cheating us taxpayers by not paying tax, they are making it more difficult for financially prudent farmers to try and get legitimate business loans (or by their actions increasing the costs for these businesses). There is absolutely nothing to be lauded about them. The only reason the mob got involved was a chance to give a few Northies a beating.

blinding

listermint wrote: »

Why.


In detail please

Because it was the only home three other people have to live in ; From the detail we know .

handlemaster

Go fund me page coming for this

lol

so taxpayer and the state be damned

local businesses be damned

bank be damned

and me and the boys will sort out anyone who tries to enforce

tis my field tadhg


and people here turning it into a rights of man session as to the legitimacy of the loan, the identity of the personnel hired, the right of revenue to levy penalties

for gods sake. ye were wrong and look silly. theres less shame in admitting it than getting ever deeper in defence of this crowd of feckless thugs

Muscles Schultz

Was the dog sound on the National Question? Does anyone know if he was Catholic or
Protestant?

listermint

blinding wrote: »

Because it was the only home three other people have to live in ; From the detail we know .

And what had that to do with anything.

The man gave the house as collateral to take out a loan.

What's your point

Without just making nonsense points for post scoring.

blinding

Muscles Schultz wrote: »

Was the dog sound on the Nation Question? Does anyone know if he was Catholic or
Protestant?

Money was his God .

noodler

At least this should curb that downright stupid sectarian comments for a while.

BattleCorp

Muscles Schultz wrote: »

Was the dog sound on the Nation Question? Does anyone know if he was Catholic or
Protestant?

Not sure about the dog but the moustache was protestant....apparently.

Thatnastyboy

No need for intelligent debate around this one, just shout bootlicker as loud as possible if someone offers an opinion contrary to the mob.

blinding

listermint wrote: »

And what had that to do with anything.

The man gave the house as collateral to take out a loan.

What's your point

Without just making nonsense points for post scoring.

Did the bank ask if this was the only home for these People . Did these people know their home was been put up as collateral for these loans ?

Has the bank operated in a proper and diligent manner in particular with regard to the only home of these people ?

blinding

blinding wrote: »

Did the bank ask if this was the only home for these People . Did these people know their home was been put up as collateral for these loans ?

Has the bank operated in a proper and diligent manner in particular with regard to the only home of these people ?

this has been subject to court scrutiny and passed muster

whats your basis for the scattershot rhetoric?

MrMusician18

JeffKenna wrote: »

All the main media outlets are reporting it was a loan for non payment of VAT due to Revenue.

If that's the case €1k a month offered wouldn't cover half the loan repayment over a typical 25 year term.

I think that is beside the point though, it doesn't matter what the loan was for. Once you put down something as collateral, it's at risk if you don't meet the terms.

listermint

blinding wrote: »

Did the bank ask if this was the only home for these People . Did these people know their home was been put up as collateral for these loans ?

Has the bank operated in a proper and diligent manner in particular with regard to the only home of these people ?

You are aware it being a home and it being an asset also doesn't matter.

What are you nonsensing about due diligence you've been doing it for pages and pages.

Its an asset this fella was happy to put it up as collateral against a loan. Simple as that.

Guy:Incognito

MrMusician18 wrote: »

. Once you put down something as collateral, it's at risk if you don't meet the terms.

They should put that in their ads to help people remember..........

Feisar

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If that's the case €1k a month offered wouldn't cover half the loan repayment over a typical 25 year term.

I think that is beside the point though, it doesn't matter what the loan was for. Once you put down something as collateral, it's at risk if you don't meet the terms.

What sort of madness is that!

Bonzo Delaney

blinding wrote: »

Did the bank ask if this was the only home for these People . Did these people know their home was been put up as collateral for these loans ?

Has the bank operated in a proper and diligent manner in particular with regard to the only home of these people ?

Banks are not baby sitters they are the purest definition of capitalism
If you want to play with the big boys and be the big lad around town you have to have your wits about you and understand exactly what hand your delt and playing with. And be prepared to suffer the repercussions if it goes tits up it's called calculated risk.
The lad put his house up as collateral on a financial gamble and lost .
In the words of my good friend Christy Moore " Tough ****e Paddy" .

gctest50

JeffKenna wrote: »

All the main media outlets are reporting it was a loan for non payment of VAT due to Revenue.

It's halfway down this :


https://static.rasset.ie/documents/business/defaulters-list2-june2015.pdf

Omackeral

I asked why you're all for these vigilantes all of a sudden when nearly always you're against them usually.

end of the road wrote: »

because in most cases such tactics are unnecessary, and are often used for outcomes, which are not for the common good.
in this case however, such tactics while still illegal, and for which as we know, the law enforcement machinery of the state will have to do it's work as is obligated by the citizinary of the state, were used to send a message that the use of security firms, especially unregulated out of state security firms, to cary out evictions, is a no no and would not be tolerated. especially where a security firm is alleged to have elements with links to an extreme element of a belief system which over all is benign, but which said particular element which it is alleged these elements of the firm may have links to, is not compatible with, and which is hostile toards, the irish state and it's people.

So basically you pick and choose when to endorse vigilante action. You'd be outraged if it was suggested against Traveller gangs or against black gangs in Balbriggan. Plenty of the hostility and incompatibility from those boys but it's always ''the law must be enforced''. You're hypocritical.

cameramonkey

Muscles Schultz wrote: »

Was the dog sound on the National Question? Does anyone know if he was Catholic or
Protestant?

Dog was a hun(d).

blinding

listermint wrote: »

You are aware it being a home and it being an asset also doesn't matter.

What are you nonsensing about due diligence you've been doing it for pages and pages.

Its an asset this fella was happy to put it up as collateral against a loan. Simple as that.

Were the three people in the house fully aware that their home was being put up as collateral for these loans . Were they all capable of agree-ing that their sole home should be put up as collateral . Do all of these People have a claim on that home ? Have they signed off their right to that home ? Are all their names on the debts ?

Mad_maxx

awec wrote: »

Yes, he owes nearly half a million to the taxpayer alone.

He also owes 18,000 to a local business (a quarry).

His actual bank debts are unknown.

Looks like he may not be Bob cratchet afterall

Guy:Incognito

blinding wrote: »

Were the three people in the house fully aware that their home was being put up as collateral for these loans . Were they all capable of agree-ing that their sole home should be put up as collateral . Do all of these People have a claim on that home ? Have they signed off their right to that home ? Are all their names on the debts ?

Why do you keep replying with stupid questions. Why don't you go find out.

The rest of us are happy the courts have the answers to any relevant questions and made an informed decision.