Noonan warns that people who own 21 properties will not be saved from eviction

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,803
Fair play to him. A bit of [broken link removed]. But Noonan has a fight on his hands as Brendan Kelly is being supported by Sinn Féin and Occupy Dame Street (apparently they lent him the tent he is living in outside his repossessed home)

 
Absolutely, could not agree more. The operative phrase here Brendan is "We must distinguish between people who can’t pay and people who won’t pay."

They took a risk on a business venture, they lost, they should pay. No one is saying the Kellys should be made homeless but they should not believe that it is the taxpayers responsibility to support the continuance of their existing living arrangements without some "modest" alteration.
 
Some neck on this pair , 18 other houses and they equating themselves
To Irish famine evictions.
Fair play to noonan , blueshirts dismissing large scale landlord while been supported by occupy dame St org
Crazy times
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Fair play to him. A bit of [broken link removed]. But Noonan has a fight on his hands as Brendan Kelly is being supported by Sinn Féin and Occupy Dame Street (apparently they lent him the tent he is living in outside his repossessed home)
Click to expand...

plus 1. These people are trying to have their cake and eat it, property wise. They can't afford any cake at all.
 
I have a new respect for The Occupy Dame st movement:
http://www.independent.ie/national-...acks-landlord-with-21-properties-3087860.html
I think its correct to say that the people involved have had their home for sale .And the mortgages on their other properties are with a different bank.
I understand that they are not "Rich" enough to be in NAMA.
I also understand that they were given a mortgage when the man was the ripe old age of 63.
Eviction is eviction and at least the group mentioned above have the courage of their convictions which I greatly admire.
To take it to its logical conclusion, if they were living in a different area,there would be a lot more support for them,equating them having properties and those who live in a four bed semi who happen to have a flat screen TV which they may have been able to sell to pay some of the mortgage seems in order.
It seems that all of their properties may well be in negative equity and if they did manage to sell them, PTSB have first dibs on the money.I would think that the fact that the house they were living in is for sale shows some sort of effort..
 
There no need for them to live in a house worth €2m. You'd get a fairly plush apartment in south dublin for €200k.

Let not forget that €2m they owe is to the country, I can't see how anyone would think them not giving up their house is for the greater good.

Maybe a bit of legislation on evictions not being allowed at all on modest homes would clarify the issue in peoples minds i.e. you'll only be asked to leave if your home is far more opulent than is really necessary. I suspect the banks do this already though, and people in high value homes know better than to try look for sympathy in most cases.
 
I also understand that they were given a mortgage when the man was the ripe old age of 63.
Click to expand...

That is irrelevant in the context of someone with considerable wealth.

The reason the banks don't give mortgages beyond 65 in normal circumstances, is that that is usually the age people stop earning.

This guy had loads of assets.

He obviously assumed that he didn't have to make any payments to the bank because they wouldn't have the nerve to evict him. He thought he would get sympathy as a 70 year old.

If we don't allow people who default on their mortgages to be evicted, then the cost of mortgages will rise for everyone (except those on trackers of course)

Brendan
 
well that is partly my point, he appears to be assest rich..however it has been said in the public domain that if they sell those assets, that PTSB will have first call on the monies,I would have thought that anyone with 21 properties is in massive negative equity,they have mortgages on these houses and its not exactly a sellers market.But lets say he sells all other properties and pays off his PTSB mortgages and still owes them a lot more,then sells his home (Which I gather was on the market for 2.2m but hasnt sold) and pays off his home mortgage,that leaves him homeless , penniless and still owing a fortune,at 73.Ok fair enough,however I think that as it has been said ,any/all assets should be sold,that this should apply to everyone..even when it comes to evicting a couple in a three bed semi in Mullingar.
It probably should be noted that their house was on the market,and had it sold,the issue would never have arisen.
Brendan Burgess:
If we don't allow people who default on their mortgages to be evicted, then the cost of mortgages will rise for everyone (except those on trackers of course)
Click to expand...


People say that we should make a distinction between those who can pay and those who wont pay,and I agree..its the definition of those who cant pay that needs to be looked at.
Just because someone lives in Killiney doesnt not mean they can pay,just because they have other propeties doesnt mean they can pay..Fundamentally this is the issue.
Therefore how come there have been so few evictions on those who default?


DerKeiser: So what about those who live in so called mansions which they built themselves in the country,( Much cheaper than the same one in a city) or those who have a three bed on Dublins southside should they be targeted as well,as a house in Mullingar would be lot less expensive.
I hope you see where I am coming from..that the idea of being selective as to where someone lives/works,what car they drive,what income/assets they have ,what size the house is should be taken into account in everyones case not just in those who we feel are living in a particular area.
DerKieser:
There no need for them to live in a house worth €2m. You'd get a fairly plush apartment in south dublin for €200k.
Click to expand...
Correct me if Im wrong but wasnt this house on the market?And had it sold ,would have paid the debt?
All that being said, I agree that those who can pay should pay or face eviction,and this is what appears to have happened in this case,but definitely not in other cases.
If you break the rules you should suffer the consequences,but lets not be so selective about who this applies too.
 
Putting a for sale sign up to keep the banks off your back is no evidence of willingness to sell at current market prices.

I was quite careful in my post to check out the price of apartments in Killiney. They could move to a more modest home within a mile of their house and free up almost €2m to pay off their debts - is there any argument at all against this??

If someone lived in a 5 bedroom place worth €400k in mullingar and had a €300k debt they couldn't service, I'd be recommending they move down the street into a €60k two bedroom apartment.

If anything, my suggestion (which acknowledged the right to move to a more modest accommodation in their locality) is cutting an enormous amount of slack to people living in more expensive localities
 
I have zero sympathy for them. Her German connections must be appalled at their actions.
 

Totally agree.

I doubt very well that Kelly's ilk would ever have been seen mixing with the Dame Street brigade or the Shinners for that matter when things were going well for him, how times have changed.

It is stories like this that make me so angry. Genuinely trying to deal with a mortgage, pittence compared to this crowd and feel the bank are treating me like a criminal. I worked two weeks last year in another job and the bank is making a song and dance about it, you would think it was the Kelly family they were dealing with.

Agree with you Brendan. A bit of common sense out of Nonnan for once.
 
There is just one problem with your argument,and that is ,how?
I would have thought that a lot of people would choose that route if it were that easy..the problem is they have to sell their homes first?
Take "wishes" scenario above,if it were that simple why doesnt he/she sell the property they are in and move to more modest/affordable accommodation?
 
Last edited:
thedaras said:
There is just one problem with your argument,and that is ,how?
I would have thought that a lot of people would choose that route if it were that easy..the problem is they have to sell their homes first?
Click to expand...

Houses in south dublin sell pretty quick if they're priced correctly.

I can only assume with current legislation that they had at least a year to either sell or move out.

It just seems odd that given an entire year (at least) they failed to manage to make any progress i.e. could not sell any of 18 properties including their home or could not find alternative accommodation for when the bank moved in.

I don't want to get sucked in to a big debate on this as I'm sure more detail will emerge.

For now though, particularly if they honestly tried to sell it, I don't see why they wouldn't just hand over the keys and move to a more modest place.

As you say it's hard to see why they wouldn't take the simple option of selling it (if that option was available), and if that option wasn't available is it not equally hard to see why they wouldn't just hand over they keys?
 
I can only assume with current legislation that they had at least a year to either sell or move out.
Click to expand...

It would be more like three years from when they started missing payments.

The lenders, even the Irish Nationwide, try to engage with the borrower and taking action is a very last resort. They probably don't start it for at least a year after the first payment is missed. This is now enshrined in the Mortgage Arrears Code.

Then it takes time to get to court. Most cases get deferred for various different reasons.

The judge will only grant a repossession order if it's absolutely justified. And even then, they will grant a stay for anything from 3 months.

I doubt if the judge would have any sympathy for someone in a €3m house who had taken no steps to deal with the problem.

Brendan
 
Nor do I, and Im not on to defend the Kellys either,my main point is that we seem to have one rule for them but are a little bit more lenient on others:As I posted earlier even if they had sold all their other properties ,PTSB hold the mortgages on them,so it would have made zero difference.
I would think that for lots of people ,handing over the keys is not an option..
Take this for example in relation to a woman who claims she can no longer afford her mortgage,I don't believe she is has been evicted.:
Firefly: At that time there were many who objected to her being given an allowance of 50e a week for make up and clothing,(2.400 per year) ,which brings us back to the definition of who can pay??
 
battybrennan said:
It's a thumbs up for FG/Labour for speaking up on this subject and a huge thumbs down for Sinn Fein supporting that couple.
Click to expand...
How did Sinn Fein support the couple exactly? AFAIK Mary Lou McDonald described the incident as "symptomatic of the state's housing crisis" but little else?
 
No direct SF support then? I think it is a stretch to claim that MLMcD's comments are supportive of the Kellys. Just to keep the record straight.
 
This situation was shameful.

There are genuine cases of hardship which we hear about every day, people who genuinely have financial problems, have modest homes and are struggling to retain them. These genuine cases deserve help.

However, allowing people retain their "homes" when the properties are worth millions, is simply wrong. Half the people on the likes of Ailesbury Road should be evicted from their houses for not paying their mortgages .... and if they genuinely have no where to live, then perhaps put living in a small, modest house somewhere else. There is no reason for people to be permitted to stay living in very expensive houses, just because they claim it's their home - let them live in a 3 or 4 bed house in Leixlip etc.
 
Someone else may consider a four bed house in leixlip to be extravagant..Someone who has no children for example may say that people living in a four bed in Leixlip should be put in a one bed apartment..
Apply the rules to everyone,and the logical conclusion is that those who are in arrears should be put in accommodation suitable only for the members of their family,ie a couple with one child in a two bed in the cheapest possible location?
 
The Kelly's actions were shameful and not the banks. They have stayed in a property that they were making no repayments on and abused the MARP process to do so. The mortgage is about equal to the property value. They had a choice of living in any one of 18 different properties. He said he could not move into the rented properties because of leases. Leases come up for renewal all the time, in addition one of the reaons that a landlord can move into a rented property is for his own use. As a landlord of many properties he of all people must be well versed on his rights as a landlord. He refused to sell the investment properties because he expected the bank to wait until property values go back to the level he purchased them at. He alerted the media to the eviction and played to the cameras. And people fell for it. I am sorry that anyone would get evicted but this case is not one deserving of sympathy. I thought the bailiffs did nothing wrong. The house belongs to the bank and the Kellys had many years of notice to leave in a dignified manner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register