"not a single payment made in 3 years" Judge grants possession with 6 month stay

Brendan, it is standard practice to grant a stay of 6 months. Nothing unusual there.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Surely they should have been able to pay something?
Click to expand...

Well reading through the article it appears that this is anything but a simple case of repossession! She switched PPR without telling the bank, some of mortgage money seems to have been spent on another property, there appears to be other unidentified people in addition to her family living there (rent free I doubt it), there is an other judgements on the property, she refused to accept a reasonable price for the property since it would not cover the additional judgement and she is looking for €2M in damages from the bank... does not sound like your typical borrower to me.
 
from dictionary.com

an official of a church charged with taking care of the edifice and its contents, ringing the bell, etc., and sometimes with burying the dead.
Click to expand...

My point is that he has a job and an income. And yet the bank received nothing.
 
He seems to have more strings to his bow than just helping out at the church!!!
http://www.herald.ie/news/furious-man-lashed-out-at-barrister-and-smashed-his-iphone-27965970.html

Also, from the court report yesterday:
In 2011 the bank held back on possession proceedings when Ms White put the property up for sale but she refused an offer of €600,000 because it was inadequate to pay off the mortgages and meet a judgment against the property by Sandford Park School, Ranelagh, and a High Court judgment against it by Paul Healy.
Click to expand...
Does this mean she is also sending her kids to a very expensive private school, while not paying the mortgage(s)!!!

Between this and the other report yesterday on the stud farm owner getting protected by the Freemen, you'd have to wonder is it worth getting out of bed every morning at 6.30, waking up the kids to send them into a 9 hour day in the creche etc etc. The working man/woman in this country is mad
 
Last edited:
There is definitely a sense of entitlement out there. No self awareness or a self of awareness that is completly biased. Me, Me Me all the way. I often wonder how these people behave when it comes to the small things like basic good manners or a consideration of others.
 
Given the link that delboy has provided Bronco Lane, it doesn't look like the evictee is bedfellows with good manners or consideration of others.
 
so-crates said:
Given the link that delboy has provided Bronco Lane, it doesn't look like the evictee is bedfellows with good manners or consideration of others.
Click to expand...

This is an odd case ok, but I wouldn't hold that court case against Mary White. After all, the judge did sum up with

Healy had no previous convictions and the judge accepted the incident was out of character. He said he would leave the defendant without convictions if he paid €250 compensation for the damage to the phone and another €250 to charity.
Click to expand...


Having said that, I am sure that the tabloid newspapers are checking them out.
 
In 2011 the bank held back on possession proceedings when Ms White put the property up for sale but she refused an offer of €600,000 because it was inadequate to pay off the mortgages and meet a judgment against the property by Sandford Park School, Ranelagh, and a High Court judgment against it by Paul Healy.
Click to expand...

So her partner has a judgment against her? Presumably he was well off enough to give her a loan, which he secured on the property.

I doubt if her children are still going to Sandford Park.
 
She said the bank sought to repossess and sell the house where Ms White’s four children, two of whom were dependent, lived with her partner [broken link removed].
Click to expand...

So she is on social welfare.
Paul Healy is living with her and is paying nothing towards the rent or else he is paying, but she is not passing it on.
Two independent children are living there as well.

So four adults have been living rent-free for 4 years.

This sort of case damages the cause of those who are in genuine trouble and who are trying.
 
I dont think it is fair to post that link. While it was published before, its not that relevant to the repossesion hearings. (Personal opinion)

I too was wondering about the school fees-it would seem that monies were owed too (not sure if this is related to the ref to the school). However, given that the school take a stand against non payment of fees, if the judgement relates to non payment of fees, it would be safe to say the child/children no longer attend the school.

The question must be asked, as to why someone that is unemployed since 2004 would be sending children to a school that costs up to 7000 a year? And in doing so, where was the money going to come from to pay for it, the mortgage plus day to day?

This case damages to notion that there are people out there struggling with no jobs, little or no support from the SW, with mortgages attached to modest properties in negaive equity plus other debt. They are trying to put their kids though normal schooling, can barely get by week to week and the banks are putting them under huge pressure to pay as much as they can towards the mortgage or face re-possession proceedings. (allowing for MARS etc). In that light, the stay is just plain wrong.

However, it must also be added that this lady is not the only person that has not/never made a payment on their mortgage and received the forebearance of the courts. A certain high profile developer of some noteriety did the same and remained ensconsed in a very nice dwelling in D4 for years while making no payments at all. The bank/NAMA has now repossesed.
 
There is also mention here of people living in the house of whom she does not know the names!

Is there an element of the Freemen at play here? I mean, she must know the names of people in her house but perhaps she does not 'recognise' surnames for court case purposes in the same way that the Freemen seem not to
Or perhaps there is a unit within the house that is rented out and her partner 'manages' all that?

A weird case this
 
There are many cases of people on SW who have not paid a penny in years, yet none of these make the papers. Also I have never heard of anyone not getting at least a 6 month stay either.
 
All we all want is a sense of fair-play. From reading this I think this Lady has got too much fair play ?
Am I wrong?
 
Time said:
There are many cases of people on SW who have not paid a penny in years, yet none of these make the papers.
Click to expand...

I have been thinking about this recently and wondering what is a fair amount for someone on Social Welfare to pay?

I strongly believe that everyone should make some contribution to their mortgage.

If I understand the differential rent system correctly, a local authority tenant must pay 15% of their income towards their rent. This seems fair to me.

So if someone is on €200 a week Social welfare, they should pay €30 of it towards their mortgage.

Brendan
 
There is a set rate that someone on basic Social Welfare is expected to pay before MIS makes up the balance of the interest payment. I think it is €35 per adult.
 
Hi Claire

That is MIS. I am drawing a comparison with rent on social housing.

Do you know how that works? Is someone on €200 a week expected to pay something towards their rent?

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Hi Claire

That is MIS. I am drawing a comparison with rent on social housing.

Do you know how that works? Is someone on €200 a week expected to pay something towards their rent?

Brendan
Click to expand...

For Rent Allowance it is the same as MIS, €35 per week. For Local Authority Housing I believe each Local Authority has their own test but everyone must pay some rent.
 
Hi Claire

OK, from this post, it seems to be €30 per single adult per week, or €35 per couple per week.

So that would be

|single|couple
Jobseekers|€188|€312
Min contribution|€30|€35
|16% |11%

If they have kids, the income would be higher, so the percentage would be a bit lower.

So my figure of suggesting that people should pay at least 10% of their net income seems reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top