Strokestown **Mod Note in Post #4461**

blinding

blueythebear wrote: »

He had previous it looks like but the bank would not necessarily have neen aware at the time.

Its ridiculous to say the bank should not make any effort to enforce its security and should give up if it seems difficult. The bank has already gone through years of court proceedings to get to this point. They will see this through to the end as they cannot be seen to back down. There is a simple solution... if the borrower paid his debts.

Could he do with another Loan ? The banks should ensure as much as practically possible not to give the likes of this fella money .

They are actually costing their customers ; borrowers and people with money in the Bank a load of money .

blueythebear

blinding wrote: »

They are actually costing their customers ; borrowers and people with money in the Bank a load of money .

Its funny that you would say the bank is costing people money when this guy refuses to repay his debts and ignores court orders...

blinding

blueythebear wrote: »

Its funny that you would say the bank is costing people money when this guy refuses to repay his debts and ignores court orders...

Had the bank not been foolish enough to give him money in the first place , Everybody including taxpayers would be much better off except perhaps the guy the bank was foolish enough to give money to .

blueythebear

blinding wrote: »

Had the bank not been foolish enough to give him money in the first place , Everybody including taxpayers would be much better off except perhaps the guy the bank was foolish enough to give money to .

Sorry, i cant accept its the banks fault for lending the money. It was many years ago and it is likely his paperwork was in order at the time. If there was nothing to suggest that the borrower might default why would the bank not have loaned money to him

blinding

blueythebear wrote: »

Sorry, i cant accept its the banks fault for lending the money. It was many years ago and it is likely his paperwork was in order at the time. If there was nothing to suggest that the borrower might default why would the bank not have loaned money to him

They took a bad risk . Why should it be costing me money as a taxpayer .

For all we know they did Zero checks on the guy ! Maybe he was in on it with some insider in the Bank .

Shouldn’t the bank be paying for all the Taxpayers money for this . Court / Gardai’s etc etc etc .

Its not my fault the bank does not know how to run its affairs .

pablo128

blinding wrote: »

Had the bank not been foolish enough to give him money in the first place , Everybody including taxpayers would be much better off except perhaps the guy the bank was foolish enough to give money to .

There is a risk giving anyone a loan of a large amount of money. That's why they ask for an asset, such as a house, as security. If you get into difficulty with a loan, you can sell the house and pay back the bank, and find somewhere to rent.

blinding

pablo128 wrote: »

There is a risk giving anyone a loan of a large amount of money. That's why they ask for an asset, such as a house, as security. If you get into difficulty with a loan, you can sell the house and pay back the bank, and find somewhere to rent.

The bank are making a poor job of doing their business .

pablo128

blinding wrote: »

The bank are making a poor job of doing their business .

Well they are not helped by hordes of idiots camping in houses to prevent them from being repossessed.

BattleCorp

All the comments giving out about the banks but very few people criticising yer man for acting the bollix and not bothering to pay his debts.

There should be no issue here. The guy didn't bother paying his debts. He didn't even make an effort. He has a history of this. The bank should be able, unhindered, to repossess the property and sell it to recover some/all of their debts.

I could understand people having sympathy if it was someone who was doing their best to pay their debts, but this lad has done fcukall. It's not like they will be homeless living on the side of the road either. The family have other property.

This guy from Strokestown is pulling a stroke......... pun intended, and people are being stupid enough to turn a blind eye to his actions but are very quick to blame the banks.

Lewis_Benson

BattleCorp wrote: »

All the comments giving out about the banks but very few people criticising yer man for acting the bollix and not bothering to pay his debts.

There should be no issue here. The guy didn't bother paying his debts. He didn't even make an effort. He has a history of this. The bank should be able, unhindered, to repossess the property and sell it to recover some/all of their debts.

I could understand people having sympathy if it was someone who was doing their best to pay their debts, but this lad has done fcukall. It's not like they will be homeless living on the side of the road either. The family have other property.

This guy from Strokestown is pulling a stroke......... pun intended, and people are being stupid enough to turn a blind eye to his actions but are very quick to blame the banks.

Exactly, he should be ****ed out.

frosty123

Blame the banks blame everyone else under the sun....typical irish victomhood bolloxology that dates back to colonianal times, and its getting tiresome tbh

windy shepard henderson

blinding wrote: »

Had the bank not been foolish enough to give him money in the first place , Everybody including taxpayers would be much better off except perhaps the guy the bank was foolish enough to give money to .

Nonsense if you're paper work is in order then you qualify for a loan, the idea that this is the banks fault is rubbish

He remortgaged his family home to the value of 300000 then refused to pay, its his fault he is being thrown out on the street, the bank get the house as a result

That's how life works

windy shepard henderson

frosty123 wrote: »

Blame the banks blame everyone else under the sun....typical irish victomhood bolloxology that dates back to colonianal times, and its getting tiresome tbh

The idea of comparing the eviction to say time of the famine for example is an insult to the people of that time that were forced from their home

They had no choice in the matter, they were left on the road to die
This guy in roscommon has land all over the place and plenty of assets to pay off his loan but won't

If people evicted from their homes in the 1800s had even the slightest chance to save there homes they would have,

The only thing simular is the bunch of loyalists hired to carry out the eviction, this is the only flaw made by the bank

windy shepard henderson

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

Nonsense if you're paper work is in order then you qualify for a loan, the idea that this is the banks fault is rubbish

He remortgaged his family home to the value of 300000 then refused to pay, its his fault he is being thrown out on the street, the bank get the house as a result

That's how life works

Trouble is that he’s not out on the street. He doesn’t even live there, nor does the sister.

It wasn’t just the house mortgaged, but the farm too.

Ardillaun

mgn wrote: »

Yes, Read post 4159.

Thanks very much. I missed that story. It raises a lot more questions, as they say.

Ardillaun

I wonder how these lads found each other?

JCJCJC

Ardillaun wrote: »

I wonder how these lads found each other?

Probably met up at the Ard Fheis in the bold corner.

downtown3858

Any word of this trail today

windy shepard henderson

downtown3858 wrote: »

Any word of this trail today

no word yet , but if i was a betting man (or on drugs :pac:) the case went like this....

....the judge agreed after watching some youtube video that money dose not exist we can now all borrow what we like off the greedy banks and not pay a single penny back as of 12 o'clock tonight we are all mortgagee free :rolleyes::rolleyes:

ben gilroy is to be giving the keys to the city of dublin for his efforts in the case lets hope he dose a better job looking after them then he did the keys of his house :D:D

caff

Warren for arrest now https://www.thejournal.ie/mcgann-strokestown-eviction-arrest-5040148-Mar2020/

Brendan Bendar

caff wrote: »

Warren for arrest now https://www.thejournal.ie/mcgann-strokestown-eviction-arrest-5040148-Mar2020/

Bit of a movement is there...

BattleCorp

caff wrote: »

Warren for arrest now https://www.thejournal.ie/mcgann-strokestown-eviction-arrest-5040148-Mar2020/

I've no problem with this. The Strokestown lad has a long history of not bothering his hole paying for stuff and obviously doesn't give a fcuk about the law.

eagle eye

BattleCorp wrote:

I've no problem with this. The Strokestown lad has a long history of not bothering his hole paying for stuff and obviously doesn't give a fcuk about the law.

There are two pretty harmless people involved who are gonna pay for their brothers misdeeds. How do you feel about them?
I've been told that in their father's will it was stated that they were to have use of the house until their deaths.

BattleCorp

eagle eye wrote: »

There are two pretty harmless people involved who are gonna pay for their brothers misdeeds. How do you feel about them?
I've been told that in their father's will it was stated that they were to have use of the house until their deaths.

I'm not that sympathetic to be honest.

It's the bank/lenders house so they have no right to be there. Apparently the courts agree.

If my father left me a right to live in the family home until my death, does that mean that the mortgage doesn't have to be paid any more? Not a chance.

And don't forget that if the guy in Strokestown doesn't pay his mortgage, someone else has to pay it.

fullstop

eagle eye wrote: »

There are two pretty harmless people involved who are gonna pay for their brothers misdeeds. How do you feel about them?
I've been told that in their father's will it was stated that they were to have use of the house until their deaths.

You’ve been told? By who?

Does their father’s will trump the law of the land and because he says so they don’t have to bother their hole paying the mortgage?

tayto lover

eagle eye wrote: »

There are two pretty harmless people involved who are gonna pay for their brothers misdeeds. How do you feel about them?
I've been told that in their father's will it was stated that they were to have use of the house until their deaths.

If everyone stopped paying their mortgages the country would be in a very bad state. They didn’t keep the agreement with the bank or building society and were evicted.
That’s what happens.

Would someone not tell them to ignore the eegit who is their eyes and ears. They’re being fed nonsense.

eagle eye

BattleCorp wrote:

I'm not that sympathetic to be honest.

fullstop wrote:

Does their father’s will trump the law of the land and because he says so they don’t have to bother their hole paying the mortgage?

tayto lover wrote:

If everyone stopped paying their mortgages the country would be in a very bad state. They didn’t keep the agreement with the bank or building society and were evicted. That’s what happens.

I'm talking about harmless people here in that they are not that capable of looking after themselves.
There originally wasn't a mortgage, the other brother re-mortgaged the property. He deserves nothing, he deserves to be turfed out on the street. I'm talking about two very poor, very harmless siblings.
If you don't have any sympathy for them then imo you are deserving of any bad luck that comes your way.

Brendan Bendar

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm talking about harmless people here in that they are not that capable of looking after themselves.
There originally wasn't a mortgage, the other brother re-mortgaged the property. He deserves nothing, he deserves to be turfed out on the street. I'm talking about two very poor, very harmless siblings.
If you don't have any sympathy for them then imo you are deserving of any bad luck that comes your way.

What about the big sheds...what’s in those bad boys.

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm talking about harmless people here in that they are not that capable of looking after themselves.
There originally wasn't a mortgage, the other brother re-mortgaged the property. He deserves nothing, he deserves to be turfed out on the street. I'm talking about two very poor, very harmless siblings.
If you don't have any sympathy for them then imo you are deserving of any bad luck that comes your way.

People can have sympathy for these two people, but it's the fault of the brother that they are losing their home.
If they cannot look after themselves it's now the job of the state to look after them
That's also the brothers fault.
So, yeah, I'm sure most people do have sympathy for them, but they can't stay in the house, that their brother didn't pay for.

eagle eye

Brendan Bendar wrote:

What about the big sheds...what’s in those bad boys.

I'm not sure talking about the whole property. I'm talking only about the house.

Fritzbox

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm talking about harmless people here in that they are not that capable of looking after themselves.
There originally wasn't a mortgage, the other brother re-mortgaged the property. He deserves nothing, he deserves to be turfed out on the street. I'm talking about two very poor, very harmless siblings.
If you don't have any sympathy for them then imo you are deserving of any bad luck that comes your way.

I'm pretty sure the social welfare system will look after all 3 of them - especially in a high-profile case like this where they'll be seen as a high priority. It shouldn't be difficult to find an empty 3-bedroom bungalow in rural Roscommon, surely?

Brendan Bendar

Fritzbox wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the social welfare system will look after all 3 of them - especially in a high-profile case like this where they'll be seen as a high priority. It shouldn't be difficult to find an empty 3-bedroom bungalow in rural Roscommon, surely?

With a few big sheds down the back?

Might be...

eagle eye

bubblypop wrote:

People can have sympathy for these two people, but it's the fault of the brother that they are losing their home. If they cannot look after themselves it's now the job of the state to look after them That's also the brothers fault. So, yeah, I'm sure most people do have sympathy for them, but they can't stay in the house, that their brother didn't pay for.

While that's one way if looking at it, it's also the case that the house should never have been included in any re-mortgage due to their lifetime part ownership of it.

pablo128

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm talking about harmless people here in that they are not that capable of looking after themselves.
There originally wasn't a mortgage, the other brother re-mortgaged the property. He deserves nothing, he deserves to be turfed out on the street. I'm talking about two very poor, very harmless siblings.
If you don't have any sympathy for them then imo you are deserving of any bad luck that comes your way.

They have other properties. The sister lives elsewhere and only moved in while this sh1te was happening.

Brendan, you've mentioned sheds are few times in the thread now. Could you enlighten us as to what relevance sheds have?

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

While that's one way if looking at it, it's also the case that the house should never have been included in any re-mortgage due to their lifetime part ownership of it.

Well legally that's not true.
My grandfather left the house to one of my uncles, my grandmother had lifetime rights to live there.
That was no barrier to my uncle borrowing against the house, it was his responsibility to make payments. His responsibility to make sure his mother was not thrown out on the streets.
Luckily my uncle did actually pay his debts, so my grandmother lived there till she died.

Brendan Bendar

pablo128 wrote: »

They have other properties. The sister lives elsewhere and only moved in while this sh1te was happening.

Brendan, you've mentioned sheds are few times in the thread now. Could you enlighten us as to what relevance sheds have?

That’s what I’m trying to find out Pablo, very big impressive edifices attached to a rather run down dwelling.....duddn’t kind of click if you get my drift.


Jus wondering....

pablo128

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

That’s what I’m trying to find out Pablo, very big impressive edifices attached to a rather run down dwelling.....duddn’t kind of click if you get my drift.


Jus wondering....

Imagine having farm buildings on a farm. I still don't understand what relevance it has to this thread.

Odelay

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm talking about harmless people here in that they are not that capable of looking after themselves.
There originally wasn't a mortgage, the other brother re-mortgaged the property. He deserves nothing, he deserves to be turfed out on the street. I'm talking about two very poor, very harmless siblings.
If you don't have any sympathy for them then imo you are deserving of any bad luck that comes your way.

What do you suggest the bank should do?

Brendan Bendar

pablo128 wrote: »

Imagine having farm buildings on a farm. I still don't understand what relevance it has to this thread.

Sorry bout that Pablo, the incongruity between the farm buildings and the dwelling is palpable .

Hope that clears things up.

pablo128

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Sorry bout that Pablo, the incongruity between the farm buildings and the dwelling is palpable .

Hope that clears things up.

No it doesn't clear up what relevance it has to this thread. You have made numerous references to sheds, and for the life of me I can't understand why.

Brendan Bendar

pablo128 wrote: »

No it doesn't clear up what relevance it has to this thread. You have made numerous references to sheds, and for the life of me I can't understand why.

Okey dokey so.......

hatrickpatrick

While I still don't approve of the eviction, this is absolutely the way it should be handled and should have been handled from the beginning, with state enforcement of court orders rather than lawless thugs from private security firms. It's repulsive that they're allowed to be involved to begin with, IMO.

Snickers Man

Odelay wrote: »

What do you suggest the bank should do?

Make it much harder for everyone else who wants to borrow money against a residential asset (ie obtain a mortgage) by demanding huge up front deposits;

screw them on interest rates even though money is practically free in the Euro zone at the moment thanks to "quantitive easing" so that they, the banks, can leech off people who ARE paying their mortgages to cover the costs of shysters like the Strokestown Stroke pullers;

Obtain Government support by allowing speculators to sit on vacant properties or undeveloped sites without any tax liability so that the market remains starved of property and prices soar for those who already have property, or indeed propertIES;

oh wait.....isn't that all happening already?

Happy now, Eagle Eye? :rolleyes:

caff

Fritzbox wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the social welfare system will look after all 3 of them - especially in a high-profile case like this where they'll be seen as a high priority. It shouldn't be difficult to find an empty 3-bedroom bungalow in rural Roscommon, surely?

The brother owns a guest house aswell no reason for the to be homeless

Snickers Man

Report in the Irish Times today says that the army will be buying 120 trucks at a cost of nearly €25m from a company based in Strokestown!!!!

For those not paying to enter the paywall:
The Defence Forces are to receive 120 new 4x4 vehicles at a cost of almost €25 million to the State.

Minister with Responsibility for Defence Paul Kehoe awarded the contract for the provision of vehicles to Westward Scania, which is a company based in Strokestown, Co Roscommon. The cost of the contract will be €24.6 million including VAT.

So each truck costs 200 grand!! Isn't that rather a lot? And it goes to a company in Strokestown of all places.

A political move?

ohnonotgmail

Snickers Man wrote: »

Report in the Irish Times today says that the army will be buying 120 trucks at a cost of nearly €25m from a company based in Strokestown!!!!

For those not paying to enter the paywall:
The Defence Forces are to receive 120 new 4x4 vehicles at a cost of almost €25 million to the State.

Minister with Responsibility for Defence Paul Kehoe awarded the contract for the provision of vehicles to Westward Scania, which is a company based in Strokestown, Co Roscommon. The cost of the contract will be €24.6 million including VAT.

So each truck costs 200 grand!! Isn't that rather a lot? And it goes to a company in Strokestown of all places.

A political move?

Westward scania are the biggest scania dealer in the country. I cant comment on the price because i dont know how much they cost new but if you are buying scania trucks they are the place to buy them from. I think you're reading too much into a coincidence. they didnt decide to buy these trucks yesterday.

eagle eye

Snickers Man wrote:

So each truck costs 200 grand!! Isn't that rather a lot? And it goes to a company in Strokestown of all places.

They own the rights to Scania in Ireland. Two brothers, very wealthy men.

ohnonotgmail

eagle eye wrote: »

They own the rights to Scania in Ireland. Two brothers, very wealthy men.

they have a massive operation down there. I wonder if they are still using the computer system i installed for them back in 1998.

Brendan Bendar

I wonder did they store some of them in the ‘big sheds’.

Things are hotting up here.