4 adults now sleeping under a bridge after not paying their mortgage

breezy1985

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Why would they sleep under a bridge beside a river?

I could think of 100 warmer places to sleep than that.

Especially the Shannon. The wind off that would take the skin off you at times

ILoveYourVibes

BPKS wrote: »

Of course they would but then they would have no money for takeaways, cans and drugs:rolleyes:

Let's analyze this.

“I’m working all my life in the bar trade, and I was on a community employment scheme for three years and I got another job in a pub. I was there a week and it closed due to Covid,” Mr Johnson said.
“I’m entitled to the weekly Covid payment but I haven't received it in two weeks.”

This sounds like someone who tried hard in life.

And it would explain why he has no dole ...the pub is CLOSED because of covid ....and his payments are not being paid yet.


His wife may not be working. Or may be unable to work. It says in the article their other son died by suicide a few years ago. I am sure this took its toll on the family.

Mr Johnson’s late father had taken out a “lifetime” or “reverse” mortgage in 2007 as a condition for getting a loan of €52,700.

Sounds like he inherited a bad situation. Perhaps his father was given bad financial advice. Sounds like the family was.


Its unlikely ALL of them are drugging alcoholics. Although i certainly wouldn't blame them after losing a son to suicide.

It also seems he was a carer for his father. Perhaps this was the reason for the loan.

It’s my dad’s house, our family home for the last 60 years. My dad had Alzheimer's disease and I looked after him for the last five years of his life.”

They do look a bit like trolls in fairness

ILoveYourVibes

nj27 wrote: »

I don’t want to be unkind, but they’re not all there on first inspection.

I believe you.

However they lost their son to suicide not long ago. Then their father who had Alzheimer for a long time before. Then where saddles with his debt. Then the father lost his job and then they lost their home.

So all of that might account for some of that dazed look. I would be dazed.

RoryMac

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Let's analyze this.



This sounds like someone who tried hard in life.

And it would explain why he has no dole ...the pub is CLOSED because of covid ....and his payments are not being paid yet.


His wife may not be working. Or may be unable to work. It says in the article their other son died by suicide a few years ago. I am sure this took its toll on the family.




Sounds like he inherited a bad situation. Perhaps his father was given bad financial advice. Sounds like the family was.


Its unlikely ALL of them are drugging alcoholics. Although i certainly wouldn't blame them after losing a son to suicide.

It also seems he was a carer for his father. Perhaps this was the reason for the loan.

It wasn't 2 weeks of missed covid payment that caused the repossession as suggested in the article, the case which allowed the bank to take the house was made in Feb.

it's pretty clear they haven't made any attempt to find new accommodation since that owner of the house died 5 years ago and if they had made even the tiniest of effort with the bank to find a solution they wouldn't find themselves doing photo shoots under a bridge.

ILoveYourVibes

RoryMac wrote: »

It wasn't 2 weeks of missed covid payment that caused the repossession as suggested in the article, the case which allowed the bank to take the house was made in Feb.

it's pretty clear they haven't made any attempt to find new accommodation since that owner of the house died 5 years ago and if they had made even the tiniest of effort with the bank to find a solution they wouldn't find themselves doing photo shoots under a bridge.

Why would they do that?

They would still be responsible for the debt? Your suggestion makes no sense.

You can't necessarily sell under these conditions. It can be the conditions of such a mortgage.

They wouldn't be able to get a council house while owning that house. And they wouldn't be able to rent anywhere while still having to pay the mortgage.

Hector Savage

AlphaDelta1 wrote: »

Very rough situation for them all tbh. Not the place to be with Winter closing in around them. I hope they find something ASAP.

As an aside there is no way is the woman in that picture is 36??? She looks mid 50's to me.

Easily believe she's 36, amazing how drugs,booze and ciggies can age someone

RoryMac

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Why would they do that?

They would still be responsible for the debt? Your suggestion makes no sense.

Its not their debt, the grandfather mortgaged the house to be repaid out of his estate when he died. He died 5 years ago and a year later the bank started proceedings to take the house.

If they made an effort to come to some agreement with the bank potentially they could have taken a new loan agreement but the house was the banks once the grandfather died as agreed

walshb

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Read the article there this morning, as it's all over social media.




but how is this anyone elses fault?

What?

In this day and age, the ills of society are always someone else's fault.

Padre_Pio

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I believe you.

However they lost their son to suicide not long ago. Then their father who had Alzheimer for a long time before. Then where saddles with his debt. Then the father lost his job and then they lost their home.

So all of that might account for some of that dazed look. I would be dazed.

Brother and uncle, not son.

So the house wasn't their house. It was the late father's house and was to be sold to pay the balance of the loan he took out.
The son says he was in the pub trade, then says he was on a CE scheme for three years and unemployed. So probably 4+ years on social.

No mention of what the grandchildren are doing with themselves, but seeing as they're under a bridge, probably not much of anything.

So you have 5 adults, all working age, all capable of claiming jobseekers, who were living rent free in a house that didn't belong to them for 5 years at least.
They may have known about the reverse mortgage for 13 years, definitely the last 5, as I'm sure someone engaged with them about selling the house.
They had a court action against them n February, so they were aware of the pending eviction for at least 8 months, yet nothing was done.

It's hard to feel sympathy.

breezy1985

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Why would they do that?

They would still be responsible for the debt? Your suggestion makes no sense.

You can't necessarily sell under these conditions. It can be the conditions of such a mortgage.

They wouldn't be able to get a council house while owning that house. And they wouldn't be able to rent anywhere while still having to pay the mortgage.

They have no debt or mortgage. Read the IT article posted rather than that info crap that can't even get the address right

ILoveYourVibes

breezy1985 wrote: »

They have no debt or mortgage. Read the IT article posted rather than that info crap that can't even get the address right

Then why were they kicked out of the house if there is no mortgage to be paid on it?

ILoveYourVibes

Hector Savage wrote: »

Easily believe she's 36, amazing how drugs,booze and ciggies can age someone

You keep slandering her without evidence of this.

RoryMac

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Then why were they kicked out of the house if there is no mortgage to be paid on it?

Because they don't own it and never did!!

Did you read the articles?

BattleCorp

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Let's analyze this.

I'll analyze this in a different way.

I'm working all my life in the bar trade. Why was he on a CE scheme for three years then if he was an experienced barman?

If he was working all his life, why didn't he have any savings? It's not like he was spending all of his money on a mortgage. Why didn't they look to stand on their own feet and organise housing for themselves? He at least had 5 years rent free, and probably decades rent free before that. My guess is they are the type that like to party hard and to hell with personal responsibility.

He said he only had half an hour's notice to leave. He had 5 years notice that this day was going to come and didn't bother his hole trying to find somewhere else. They knew in Febraury that the bank had the house and that they had to get out.

I've three sons living with me and one of their girlfriends. 5 adults in the house and none of them did anything to address the fact that they were living in a house that they didn't own and that they would eventually get fcuked out.

He asked about COVID-19. That's only around since March. They had 4.5 years to do something about their housing situation.

Mentioning that he's entitled to the COVID-19 payment but hasn't had it in two weeks. He had it up to two weeks ago. He'd be entitled to social welfare from then on. He'd probably actually be on more money on the COVID payment than he was on the CE scheme. Still, this has nothing to do with why he's homeless.

I'm freezing. And his son in a pair of shorts. There's a 1000 places in Limerick that's better than sleeping under a bridge. He knows he'll get more sympathy if he's sleeping under the bridge. I'd bet a fiver that they didn't spend one single night under that bridge.

It's my dad's house, our family home for the last 60 years. No, it's the banks house and you've lived there on the cheap for donkeys years.

My dad had Alzheimer's disease and I looked after him for the last five years of his life.” This translates to I want your sympathy and a free house please.

BattleCorp

RoryMac wrote: »

If they made an effort to come to some agreement with the bank potentially they could have taken a new loan agreement but the house was the banks once the grandfather died as agreed

I wouldn't loan them a fiver, much less a mortgage.

ILoveYourVibes

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'll analyze this in a different way.

I'm working all my life in the bar trade. Why was he on a CE scheme for three years then if he was an experienced barman?

If he was working all his life, why didn't he have any savings?

I would assume since he was a carer that made things more difficult.

Alzheimer's can be expensive.

CE schemes are not just for long term unemployed. They are for people who need social welfare assistance while trying to work part time.

You only need be unemployed 12 months.

Because they don't own it and never did!!

Did you read the articles?

Clearly you didn't.

ILoveYourVibes

BattleCorp wrote: »

I wouldn't loan them a fiver, much less a mortgage.

THEY DIDNT GET THE MORTGAGE


For the love of god!

NBalfe

between the four of them they should have had enough to pay

RoryMac

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Clearly you didn't.

Lol can you explain what i have wrong?

banie01

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

THEY DIDNT GET THE MORTGAGE


For the love of god!

No, they didn't.
They did however live rent free in a house they didn't own for 5 yrs.

The grandfather sold the house and retained a life interest in it.
On the grandfather's death ownership of the house passes to the bank.
If the folk in question wished to keep the house, they would have to discharge the outstanding debt.

The Grandfather in this instance, made out like Trump in a Deutsche Bank fire sale :pac:
52k for a house down there even at absolute peak boom is madness!

BattleCorp

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I would assume since he was a carer that made things more difficult.

Did you ever hear the expression 'Paper never refused ink'? He's looking for sympathy and a free house.

Who knows if he was a carer and even if he was, sorry to say but he stopped being a carer 5 years ago.

Given what he's said, it looks like him and his family are those who expect social welfare to provide everything and not take personal responsibility for looking after themselves.

Clearly you didn't.

Clearly I didn't what?

BattleCorp

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

THEY DIDNT GET THE MORTGAGE


For the love of god!

I know that. I wasn't replying to you. I was replying to the person I quoted. See below.

My point being that even if they made an effort to come to some sort of agreement with the bank, I can't see the bank agreeing to anything as they are a family that you wouldn't typically give a mortgage to.

Like I said, I wouldn't even think they'd be good for paying back a fiver.

Now go relax and take some deep breaths.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoryMac
If they made an effort to come to some agreement with the bank potentially they could have taken a new loan agreement but the house was the banks once the grandfather died as agreed

Quin_Dub

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

THEY DIDNT GET THE MORTGAGE


For the love of god!

The Grandfather SOLD the house to a Financial institution in 2007 for €52,700 with the agreement that they would take possession of the house on his death or they would accept a lump sum payment to settle the debt in lieu.

That is the basic fact.

His family - Son and several grand children were living in the house at the time of his death.

They did not own the house when he died, so from the moment he died , they became squatters.

The choices available to them were (and still are) - Return the house to it's owners (The Bank) or pay the money to settle the bill.

Clearly they don't have the money and don't have a way of getting it so the only path open to them is to leave the house they are illegally occupying and finding somewhere else.

They have had 5 years to make these plans and specifically they lost a case in the high court in February when they attempted to challenge the facts of the case.

Covid , it being cold , them apparently living under a bridge etc. are all irrelevant to the facts of the case.

They have been illegally squatting in a house they never owned for 5 years and were told in the high court 8 months ago to get out.

breezy1985

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Then why were they kicked out of the house if there is no mortgage to be paid on it?

The grandfather in exchange for a substantial sum agreed to a deal that would hand the house over to the bank upon his death.

The people living under the bridge never owned the house. It's possible the grandfather never told them and they assumed it was their by inheritance but that was cleared up long before the eviction.

BattleCorp

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The choices available to them were (and still are) - Return the house to it's owners (The Bank) or pay the money to settle the bill.

They haven't had the option to pay the outstanding balance of the mortgage since February 2020. Not that they would have eitherways.

It would have to be a new arrangement and there's not a chance in hell the bank would mortgage the property to them. They are not creditworthy.

Quin_Dub

breezy1985 wrote: »

The grandfather in exchange for a substantial sum agreed to a deal that would hand the house over to the bank upon his death.

The people living under the bridge never owned the house. It's possible the grandfather never told them and they assumed it was their by inheritance but that was cleared up long before the eviction.

Indeed - Quite possible , there's been no mention of what the €52.7K was spent on.

Five years ago there would have been sympathy for someone finding out that the house they were living in had been sold out from under them by a Parent , but that was then.

They've had plenty of time to come to terms with it and make alternative arrangements and so on.

They didn't , even after they had been explicitly told to get out by the high court back in February so all the sympathy is used up now.

BattleCorp

breezy1985 wrote: »

T
The people living under the bridge never owned the house.

Does anybody actually believe that they are living under a bridge? I'd say they spent the time to take that photo and do that interview there and that's about it really.

ILoveYourVibes

BattleCorp wrote: »

Does anybody actually believe that they are living under a bridge? I'd say they spent the time to take that photo and do that interview there and that's about it really.

Good for them.

BattleCorp

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Good for them.

The problem though is that those of us who are working will get saddled with the bill for looking after them. No such thing as free stuff, someone eventually has to pay the bill.

And I believe nobody should get anything and I mean anything for nothing.