Strokestown **Mod Note in Post #4461**

Feisar

Grayson wrote: »

As a side note, to diffuse the tension, cal we all agree that strokestown is a funny name?

Was trying to come up with a good pun regarding pulling a stroke.

Dyr

gandalf wrote: »

Right I'm 50 next year so I'll be heading to the Post Office to get my pension because I will then be elderly !!!!

Well you already go on like an oul wan so you could chance your arm now

Guy:Incognito

stevielink wrote: »

but what law says that you are allowed to assault someone in your front garden? Can i do that to the postman/the leaflet delivery person/utility sompany sales reps?

If they refuse to leave you're property no one is going to stop you picking them up and putting them outside the gate.

cameramonkey

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

So a man in his 50s and older siblings were repeatedly requested to vacate a property that had been given up as collateral for a loan -

Is this a fact? I am asking because I wonder is this the case.

gandalf

amcalester wrote: »

Yup, I'm well aware of that.

Was just wondering if the level of fine/charges owed to Revenue by this guy were comparable to other settlements.

It gives an indication of his levels of cooperation when he owes money.

If he didnt engage with Revenue, then I doubt he was too forthcoming with KBC.

He owed €177,388.00
with Interest of €74,725.00
penalties of €177,388.00
Giving a total of €429,501.00

It's clear from that he wasn't cooperating with the Revenue commissioners at all. If there is one crowd you don't dick around with, its the revenue!

gandalf

Bambi wrote: »

Well you already go on like an oul wan so you could chance your arm now

Ah Christ I am not going down the Brendan O'Carroll route to obtain my pension

stevielink

BattleCorp wrote: »

But seriously though, if someone won't leave a property peacefully on foot of a court order, how on earth are you supposed to get them to leave if you can't force them out?

look, as i said earlier, if the eviction order was valid then tough sh*t on the homeowners.
harsh but that's the law.

my point here is with physically assaulting/manhandling/touching people who don't want to be touched. The only people in the state allowed to do that as far as I know (and yes I'm open to being corrected on that), are the Gardai. If of course, the victim in this case started the assault, then by all means defend yourself, but if they are just standing their ground, I don't believe anyone other than the Gardai have a right to physically remove them.

cameramonkey

gandalf wrote: »

He owed €177,388.00
with Interest of €74,725.00
penalties of €177,388.00
Giving a total of €429,501.00

It's clear from that he wasn't cooperating with the Revenue commissioners at all. If there is one crowd you don't dick around with, its the revenue!

Did the revenue hire our Northern brothers to do the eviction?

stevielink

BattleCorp wrote: »

I didn't realise there was a court order telling the postman/the leaflet delivery person/utility company sales reps to vacate your property.

exactly, a court order. Given by the court.
So who is allowed to enforce a court order? A private security firm? Really?

in the UK they have a baillif system who are allowed to do that. In Ireland we don't have a law that allows private security firms to do that. If you prove me wrong then i'll happily apologise and move on.

amcalester

gandalf wrote: »

He owed €177,388.00
with Interest of €74,725.00
penalties of €177,388.00
Giving a total of €429,501.00

It's clear from that he wasn't cooperating with the Revenue commissioners at all. If there is one crowd you don't dick around with, its the revenue!

Thats the point I was trying to tease out from his defenders, if he has form of not cooperating with Revenue then what chance have KBC got of getting their money back.

Fann Linn

It's good to see Charlie Flanagan organising a review of private security firms and the banks private armies.

BattleCorp

stevielink wrote: »

exactly, a court order. Given by the court.
So who is allowed to enforce a court order? A private security firm? Really?

in the UK they have a baillif system who are allowed to do that. In Ireland we don't have a law that allows private security firms to do that. If you prove me wrong then i'll happily apologise and move on.

So, you have absolutely no problem with the eviction.

Apart from whodunit?

Thatnastyboy

cameramonkey wrote: »

Is this a fact? I am asking because I wonder is this the case.

No idea, just fighting baseless arguments with equally baseless arguments.


The only facts I am sure of is the extremely large amount owed to Revenue (between €4 and €500k) and the debt of €18k to a local supplier.


I would be quite surprised though if KBC were sending lads in there chasing a non-existent loan!

gctest50

Why didn't they just leave ?

They had already failed pathetically

gandalf

cameramonkey wrote: »

Did the revenue hire our Northern brothers to do the eviction?

Nope it was KBC apparently he also owes them or whoever bought their loan a pile of cash as well. Given the heavy mob they employed it's probably not an insubstantial figure.

Ray Bloody Purchase

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

No idea, just fighting baseless arguments with equally baseless arguments.


The only facts I am sure of is the extremely large amount owed to Revenue (between €4 and €500k) and the debt of €18k to a local supplier.


I would be quite surprised though if KBC were sending lads in there chasing a non-existent loan!

They were only doing it for a bit of craic sure.

amcalester

stevielink wrote: »

look, as i said earlier, if the eviction order was valid then tough sh*t on the homeowners.
harsh but that's the law.

my point here is with physically assaulting/manhandling/touching people who don't want to be touched. The only people in the state allowed to do that as far as I know (and yes I'm open to being corrected on that), are the Gardai. If of course, the victim in this case started the assault, then by all means defend yourself, but if they are just standing their ground, I don't believe anyone other than the Gardai have a right to physically remove them.

I have literally carried people out of pubs when they were causing aggro and they most definitely did not want to be touched but they were acting the bollix so got removed.

Just because someone lays a hand on you doesnt mean you're a victim.

stevielink

BattleCorp wrote: »

So, you have absolutely no problem with the eviction.

Apart from whodunit?

not everything is simply black and white.
Yes if the eviction was valid then fine. Timing and manner was wrong but sure why be human about it

gandalf

gctest50 wrote: »

Why didn't they just leave ?

They had already failed pathetically

They should have but I suspect they had idiots advising them.

stevielink

amcalester wrote: »

I have literally carried people out of pubs when they were causing aggro and they most definitely did not want to be touched but they were acting the bollix so got removed.

Just because someone lays a hand on you doesnt mean you're a victim.

and i worked in retail as a student where I wouldnt dare to physically push people out of the shop. We called the Guards to do that. Of course they werent always around but should I have followed the law or just done what I wanted

caff

stevielink wrote: »

exactly, a court order. Given by the court.
So who is allowed to enforce a court order? A private security firm? Really?

in the UK they have a baillif system who are allowed to do that. In Ireland we don't have a law that allows private security firms to do that. If you prove me wrong then i'll happily apologise and move on.

sheriffs in ireland can appoint bailiffs too http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1924/act/20/enacted/en/print.html

eagle eye

STB. wrote:

Yes.

No you are not. You are supposed to pick up the phone and call the Garda.

Feisar

eagle eye wrote: »

Again, and I've made this clear, I've no issue with Brits but understand that lots of people do.
I have a problem with thugs being hired to carry out a high court order.

I'm interested in this to, why wasn't it the Gardaí doing the evicting?

Simple_Simone

Fann Linn wrote: »

It's good to see Charlie Flanagan organising a review of private security firms and the banks private armies.

He's only doing it to pander to the bleeding heart kneejerkers. Odds-on that the Review's report won't be published until shortly after the next General Election.

Incidentally, if any of Charlie's gofers are reading this thread, please note that I'd be delighted to serve on the review group if he's looking for a token woman.

amcalester

stevielink wrote: »

and i worked in retail as a student where I wouldnt dare to physically push people out of the shop. We called the Guards to do that. Of course they werent always around but should I have followed the law or just done what I wanted

Show me the law that says it's illegal to physically remove someone from a premises.

Cupatae

Im just glad there is huge support for the people that threw that security firm out, great to see people backing there own over money and scumbag banks. The right thing was done.

As for those that think its black and white and the banks were dead right... it speaks volumes about ye, that ye think its right to get security firms to come down 2 weeks before christmas and drag someone out of there home, theres right and wrong ways to do things and this was by far the dumbest thing ive seen done it got the reaction it deserved.

jmayo

cameramonkey wrote: »

Have you got a link to where this is actually evaluated. I mean a proper explanation of the figures involve.


How come when there were very few repossessions in the past that the interest rates were still very high?

Like in 1970s, 1980s.
No competition. Inflation. Recession.

cameramonkey wrote: »

I think Irish consumers are suffering exorbitant bank charges and interest rates because the banks can get away.

AIB made in the first 6 months profits of 726 million, BOI 500 million in 2018, they are making money hand over fist.

The story that some how our interest are high because of repossession problems does not in my mind add up. It is just an excuse to gouge Irish people.

The Irish banks can now charge what they like because all foreign banks bar Ulster which has been here for centuries anyway and KBC have left the market.
Competition is the key to competitive rates.
Bank of Scotland's entrance had forced rates down.

Rabobank who had bought ACC tripped over themselves to get out.
Bank of Scotland/Halifax pulled out.
Danske/NIB pulled out.

They all saw losses, the very slow rate of repossessions and more importantly the lack of political will to enforce any.

And if this type of mullarkey continues KBC will be out too.

Do you think any foreign bank is going to want to set up in a tin pot shyte hole were bad debt recovery is near impossible ?

FTA69 wrote: »

So a group of elderly people in hoc to some vulture bank and were trying to repay the loan as best they can were forcibly evicted by a shower of Loyalist mercenaries and people ended up battering the hired thugs?

Good. Fair play to all involved. Hopefully opportunistic scumbags who bash old people on behalf of bankers will take note.

Ahh FFS FTA69 can you put your republican fantasies aside for a moment.

They were not elderly or maybe you are using famine era to now also describe peoples ages.
You are one of the most vocal about socialism and governmental provided services, so how does that stack with you supporting a guy who welches on their statutory obligations on paying their taxes into the system?
Don't ever dare come on again lecturing us about the state not providing proper services if you stand totally behind a tax cheat.

What about non payment of other debts and the affects that kind of behaviour has on local small businesses providing much needed employment.

stevielink

caff wrote: »

sheriffs in ireland can appoint bailiffs too

good to know. thanks.

not sure if this was applicable here. If it was, then according to that act they would have had to produce a warrant etc.
the act also only refers to goods and animals.

no mention of how to get people off the land

Mr. CooL ICE

Cupatae wrote: »

Im just glad there is huge support for the people that threw that security firm out, great to see people backing there own over money and scumbag banks. The right thing was done.

As for those that think its black and white and the banks were dead right... it speaks volumes about ye, that ye think its right to get security firms to come down 2 weeks before christmas and drag someone out of there home, theres right and wrong ways to do things and this was by far the dumbest thing ive seen done it got the reaction it deserved.

KBC are a business. Businesses don't survive on appeals to emotion.

Guy:Incognito

stevielink wrote: »

and i worked in retail as a student where I wouldnt dare to physically push people out of the shop. We called the Guards to do that. Of course they werent always around but should I have followed the law or just done what I wanted

What law?

After admitting you're making up as you go along and saying you're open to correction you're now sure every bouncer and security guard in the country is breaking the law throwing people out of premises?

BattleCorp

Cupatae wrote: »

Im just glad there is huge support for the people that threw that security firm out, great to see people backing there own over money and scumbag banks. The right thing was done.

As for those that think its black and white and the banks were dead right... it speaks volumes about ye, that ye think its right to get security firms to come down 2 weeks before christmas and drag someone out of there home, theres right and wrong ways to do things and this was by far the dumbest thing ive seen done it got the reaction it deserved.

It was hardly a surprise to the occupants of the house that they were going to be evicted. Below is the process for repossession and eviction in Ireland (taken from AskAboutMoney.com) It's not a speedy process.

The stages are as follows in Ireland for someone who does not engage and wants to stay as long as possible. (Of course, most borrowers engage and get to stay in their homes)
1) A borrower goes into arrears
2) The lender must go through a Mortgage Arrears Resolution Process with them.
3) The lender usually spends a lot of time trying to get the borrower to engage
4) Eventually they write to the borrower telling them that they are not cooperating and that MARP no longer applies
5) The earliest that they can begin the legal process is 3 months after exiting MARP or 8 months after arrears first arose, whichever is the latest. The 8 months is pretty much irrelevant as the banks spend a lot of time trying to get the person to engage.
6) The solicitor writes to the borrower
7) The solicitor issues proceedings
8) The first court date is set - it is automatically adjourned on the first date.
9) The second court date is probably 3 to 6 months later. The borrower shows up and says he now has a job; his joint owner was not served with proceedings; Some step in the CCMA was missed and the case is adjourned for another 6 months. In 85% of cases the borrower does not show up, but the Registrar looks for a reason to adjourn the case e.g. "Check if there is anyone living in the property".
10)The lender might get an order for possession on the third or 4th hearing if the borrower is paying absolutely nothing.
11) A stay will be put on the execution of the repossession order for 6 to 8 months.

Other ways to frustrate the process
1) There is an internal appeals process within the bank
2) Appeal any decision to the Financial Services Ombudsman
3) When you are in the courts process itself, go to a PIP and apply for a PIA.

The cases we have seen recently in the courts where repossession orders were granted with a stay of 8 months, typically had last repayments of 2011. So based on these, it takes about 5 years to repossess a house.

Sean.3516

Cupatae wrote: »

Im just glad there is huge support for the people that threw that security firm out, great to see people backing there own over money and scumbag banks. The right thing was done.

As for those that think its black and white and the banks were dead right... it speaks volumes about ye, that ye think its right to get security firms to come down 2 weeks before christmas and drag someone out of there home, theres right and wrong ways to do things and this was by far the dumbest thing ive seen done it got the reaction it deserved.

What in your opinion was the right way for the bank to handle this? Just let people stay in a home they haven’t paid for? Seriously what is your solution here? Banks have an incentive to turn profits or they fail as institutions. If your not paying your rent you’re fair game to be evicted. Everybody knows this

stevielink

amcalester wrote: »

Show me the law that says it's illegal to physically remove someone from a premises.

i don't know of one, equally don't know of a law that says it's legal to do so.
so which is it? If it's legal then the guards were possible right. If it's not legal then the Guards were possibly wrong.

my opinion is that they were wrong. i'd like to know the truth. Should they have intervened? That's why I asked that Garda management make a statement to clarify , because I genuinely don't know

Guy:Incognito

Cupatae wrote: »

Im just glad there is huge support for the people that threw that security firm out, great to see people backing there own over money and scumbag banks. The right thing was done.

As for those that think its black and white and the banks were dead right... it speaks volumes about ye, that ye think its right to get security firms to come down 2 weeks before christmas and drag someone out of there home, theres right and wrong ways to do things and this was by far the dumbest thing ive seen done it got the reaction it deserved.

Again with the emotive bull****. If they didn't want to drag it out till 2 weeks before Christmas they could have left anytime between stopping paying the bank and them showing up with a court order to evict them.

BattleCorp

Sean.3516 wrote: »

What in your opinion was the right way for the bank to handle this? Just let people stay in a home they haven’t paid for?

Spot on.

If that's the case, I might as well stop paying my two mortgages. I'm sure the taxpayer will love to be on the hook for another €340k.

Guy:Incognito

stevielink wrote: »

i don't know of one, equally don't know of a law that says it's legal to do so.
so which is it? If it's legal then the guards were possible right. If it's not legal then the Guards were possibly wrong.

my opinion is that they were wrong. i'd like to know the truth. Should they have intervened? That's why I asked that Garda management make a statement to clarify , because I genuinely don't know

Go check the statute books for laws if you want your own opinions fact checked. This isnt Irish statute books Google.

stevielink

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What law?

After admitting you're making up as you go along and saying you're open to correction you're now sure every bouncer and security guard in the country is breaking the law throwing people out of premises?

making up as I go along?
I'm not a legal expert. am i expected to know every aspect of everything? Do you know how to perform open heart surgery?

This is a discussion forum. I am discussing this and am open to correction. Of course I am. that's how conversations work, right?

Thatnastyboy

BattleCorp wrote: »

Spot on.

If that's the case, I might as well stop paying my two mortgages. I'm sure the taxpayer will love to be on the hook for another €340k.

Seems that's what a lot of people are advocating today,

Another great reply on facebook today


"That's it, no more money to these wanker bankers until all the bailout money is repaid in full plus interest"

Guy:Incognito

stevielink wrote: »

making up as I go along?
I'm not a legal expert. am i expected to know every aspect of everything? Do you know how to perform open heart surgery?

This is a discussion forum. I am discussing this and am open to correction. Of course I am. that's how conversations work, right?

You're saying they were in the wrong then asking if you're opinion in right and then refusing to accept answers youre given.

Head on down to the library and look it up.

stevielink

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Go check the statute books for laws if you want your own opinions fact checked. This isnt Irish statute books Google.

but my opinion could be right. who's to say yours is right?

gandalf

Cupatae wrote: »

Im just glad there is huge support for the people that threw that security firm out, great to see people backing there own over money and scumbag banks. The right thing was done.

As for those that think its black and white and the banks were dead right... it speaks volumes about ye, that ye think its right to get security firms to come down 2 weeks before christmas and drag someone out of there home, theres right and wrong ways to do things and this was by far the dumbest thing ive seen done it got the reaction it deserved.

So you condone violence then to protect a defaulter debtor who has also defrauded the Revenue and therefore us as taxpayers in this country. As someone has posted getting a repossession order is a long drawn out process that typically takes years to deliver.

It's the ilk of this individual that is denying revenue for services that a lot of his defenders on this thread are whinging about being underfunded. It's about time of lot of you actually grew up and joined the real world.

stevielink

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You're saying they were in the wrong then asking if you're opinion in right and then refusing to accept answers youre given.

Head on down to the library and look it up.

what answers have i refused to accept specifically?

amcalester

stevielink wrote: »

i don't know of one, equally don't know of a law that says it's legal to do so.
so which is it? If it's legal then the guards were possible right. If it's not legal then the Guards were possibly wrong.

my opinion is that they were wrong. i'd like to know the truth. Should they have intervened? That's why I asked that Garda management make a statement to clarify , because I genuinely don't know

Laws generally don't state what you are allowed do, they state what you are not allowed to do.

Do you really think the Guard would have stood back and watched if they thought someone was actually being assaulted? Before you answer, bear in mind that merely touching someone who doesn't want to be touched does not equate to an assault.

Guy:Incognito

stevielink wrote: »

but my opinion could be right. who's to say yours is right?

My opinion is that every bar, club and shop in the country is legally entity to throw people out of their premises as they do every day of the week.

You're the one saying it's illegal, so go check it.

Which is more likely?

gandalf

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

Seems that's what a lot of people are advocating today,

Another great reply on facebook today


"That's it, no more money to these wanker bankers until all the bailout money is repaid in full plus interest"

The irony is the Belgian taxpayers bailed out KBC bank :rolleyes:

Gimme A Pound

stevielink wrote: »

but my opinion could be right. who's to say yours is right?

Opinion doesn't come into it - it's either a fact or it isn't. Opinions are subjective views.

Billcarson

Cupatae wrote: »

Im just glad there is huge support for the people that threw that security firm out, great to see people backing there own over money and scumbag banks. The right thing was done.

As for those that think its black and white and the banks were dead right... it speaks volumes about ye, that ye think its right to get security firms to come down 2 weeks before christmas and drag someone out of there home, theres right and wrong ways to do things and this was by far the dumbest thing ive seen done it got the reaction it deserved.

Your wasting your time in talking to most in this thread. They are a disgrace to this country with their pro establishment bs. We are supposed to keep our heads down and bow and smile to our masters . They can't get it into their heads that people are unhappy with the way this country is run. Granted i don't have all the answers myself but anything has to be better then keeping the status quo. But sure fg and ff have been doing so well this last nearly hundred yrs. What happened in roscommon disgusted many but this thread is full of know it alls who are afraid of any change.

SoupyNorman

gandalf wrote: »

Nope it was KBC apparently he also owes them or whoever bought their loan a pile of cash as well. Given the heavy mob they employed it's probably not an insubstantial figure.

I believe KBC sold the loan to vulture fund. More probable the vulture fund is responsible and or has direct links to these dodgy eviction gurriers. Whether these eviction companies are North or South they still have few qualms on using violence as when they have an active eviction order they are pretty much free to use any means required which is why the Guards stood idly by.

Also, the evicted party has a shady damn past and owes a million or more to banks and revenue.

Is it right that the violence was used to evict, no. Was is right that violence was used in retaliation, no. Is it right for a person who does not repay their debts to enjoy items for which they don’t pay, no.

stevielink

amcalester wrote: »

Laws generally don't state what you are allowed do, they state what you are not allowed to do.

Do you really think the Guard would have stood back and watched if they thought someone was actually being assaulted? Before you answer, bear in mind that merely touching someone who doesn't want to be touched does not equate to an assault.

The people at the scene claim the person was assaulted. That's what I have to go on. No one has come out to say he wasn't assaulted. I would just like Garda management to clarify. I don't see that as being a problem.

stevielink

Kendra Dazzling Nail wrote: »

Opinion doesn't come into it - it's either a fact or it isn't. Opinions are subjective views.

exactly which is why i would love if garda management simply clarified. It's not too much to ask, though I realise it won't happen.