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



## Brendan Burgess

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) 



> Landlords with 21 homes will not be protected from eviction in the  same way as the average debt-hit householder, Minister for Finance  Michael Noonan warned.
> 
> 
> Brendan Kelly (71) and his German-born wife  Asta (63) were turned out of their home at St Matthias Wood, Killiney,  on Wednesday on foot of an eviction order granted to Irish Nationwide,  now Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, in June 2010. They have said they  will camp outside the property “indefinitely” until they are allowed  back in the house.
> 
> 
> “We must distinguish between people who can’t pay and people who won’t pay,” said Mr Noonan today.
> 
> 
> Mr  Noonan said systems in place to keep struggling householders in their  homes have been well thought through. He warned the Government was not  in the business of rescuing professional landlords who refuse to pay  debt.


----------



## Woodie

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.


----------



## potnoodler

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


----------



## RIAD_BSC

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)


 
plus 1. These people are trying to have their cake and eat it, property wise. They can't afford any cake at all.


----------



## thedaras

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..


----------



## DerKaiser

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.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

> I also understand that they were given a mortgage when the man was the ripe old age of 63.



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


----------



## thedaras

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)




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:





> 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.


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.


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.


----------



## DerKaiser

thedaras said:


> It probably should be noted that their house was on the market,and had it sold,the issue would never have arisen.
> 
> 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.


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


----------



## STEINER

I have zero sympathy for them.  Her German connections must be appalled at their actions.


----------



## Wishes

cashier said:


> Are you serious, those people look like they never did a day's work in their lives. In the normal scheme of events Mr Kelly and his like would look down his nose at these people and I am sure Occupy Dame St are well aware of that but I guess they getting some publicity out of it. Giving them a tent well I never, what is the world coming to!
> 
> Does anyone know what Mr Kelly did with all the money he received from the banks back in 2007 and 2008 when he remortgaged all his properties. he must have bought all of those pretty cheaply seeing he was able to remortgage them all.


 
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.


----------



## thedaras

DerKaiser said:


> 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.


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?


----------



## DerKaiser

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?



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?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

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



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


----------



## thedaras

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:





> The "professional" civil servant really got on my nerves. Just because a "substantial" amount of her savings into doing up her house (which I'm sure she bored her dinner guests with) and her income (which I'm sure is still pretty decent) has been reduced, she has decided not to pay her mortgage. If her salary had not been cut but instead interest rates went up, would she have stopped paying her mortgage also? It's people like her IMO who are not helping those in real need here....if someone like her were to get a writeoff then every Tom, Dick and Harry would stop repaying their mortgage.


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??


----------



## extopia

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.


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?


----------



## extopia

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.


----------



## MrEarl

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.


----------



## thedaras

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?


----------



## Bronte

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.


----------



## DerKaiser

I think that appears to be a very good summary of the situation Bronte.

The worst part of it is the abuse of the MARP process, people in genuine distress will now get that little bit less sympathy and have to deal with more scepticism.


----------



## Bronte

On further reflection of this, if he had agreed to sell in 2009 he would presumably have received a better price.  Now that this house is tainted (Ireland and eviction) it will be harder to sell so Kelly will owe more.  Since 2009 he has made the situation far worse for himself.  Now he owes the mortgage, the costs, 4 years of back payments,  the security costs of the men minding the house (to keep him out), the bailiff's etc they are going to throw the book at him, particularly as he has assets.  

I cannot for the life of me understand his standpoint.  Do people in D4/Killiney think that banks will not take their homes when they have other assets.  Is that people's actual thinking?


----------



## Deiseblue

Bronte said:


> 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.



An excellent summation of events & importantly the Kelly's increasingly marginalised position may prove a salutary lesson to others in " can pay , won't pay " situations .


----------



## Delboy

Bronte said:


> I cannot for the life of me understand his standpoint.  Do people in D4/Killiney think that banks will not take their homes when they have other assets.  Is that people's actual thinking?




of course people in D4 don't think they're above all this...what gave you that idea!!!!

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bank-calls-off-bailiff-raid-on-odonnells-3088282.html


----------



## ashambles

This is an end result of thinking that New Beginnings and many politicians have encouraged by arguing that the “family home” must be protected. At some point Mr. Kelly must have decided to gamble that he had implicit protection for his home and decided against a more sensible strategy of reducing debt by selling assets including that home.

  If the family home receives special treatment it’s an incentive for people to ensure that they concentrate their wealth and debts into that one asset. 

  It encourages risky behaviour. For example you’re worried you can’t maintain your current income – maybe where you work your company is slowly getting wiped out by competition, however your salary is good at the moment, if you listen to New Beginnings you should wade out and get the largest mortgage and most expensive home you can afford since if your income collapses – the taxpayer/ECB/Germans will pick up the tab.

  I think the multiple properties isn’t really the issue here, there needs to be some very modest limit on how valuable a “family home” can be for it to remain untouched regardless of how many properties someone owns.


----------



## JamesMorgan

Bronte said:


> On further reflection of this, if he had agreed to sell in 2009 he would presumably have received a better price.  Now that this house is tainted (Ireland and eviction) it will be harder to sell so Kelly will owe more.  Since 2009 he has made the situation far worse for himself.  Now he owes the mortgage, the costs, 4 years of back payments,  the security costs of the men minding the house (to keep him out), the bailiff's etc they are going to throw the book at him, particularly as he has assets.
> 
> I cannot for the life of me understand his standpoint.  Do people in D4/Killiney think that banks will not take their homes when they have other assets.  Is that people's actual thinking?



What makes you say they have assets?  They have 18 to 21 mortgages, but that doesn't mean they have any assets.  If you're in negative equity and you don't have any assets, the best thing to do is stop paying your mortgage.  You'll get a few years rent free which you can use to squirrel away the money you would have been giving as mortgage payments and you've got yourself a nice little nest egg at the end of it.  Even better if you can get a few months of collecting rent on your 18 houses and not passing that on to the bank.  You wouldn't care about falling property values as you're never planning on paying the money back - you just want to ride it out for as long as possible.  If you have a 20year mortgage on a 2million euro house, your repayments maybe as much as €10,000 a month (depending on LTV ratio).  If we assume he has the hasn't paid anything in the last three years, that means he's pocketed €360,000.  No way if he had moved out in 2009 and sold the house he would have made a €360,000 profit.


----------



## Bronte

Delboy I don't think we're allowed discuss the O' Donnell case as it's before the courts?

James if the Kelly's had the 10K to squirrel away then they had it to pay down the mortgage.  When he took out the Killiney mortgage he must have believed he was in a position to pay it.  But from where, that would be income from his profession or the rental on the other properies.  It wouldn't make sense for someone in their 70's to have 18 mortgages, more likely these were used for income.  But something other than property collapsing must have happened.


----------



## JamesMorgan

Bronte said:


> James if the Kelly's had the 10K to squirrel away then they had it to pay down the mortgage.


My point is that if you're in negative equity you're wasting money by paying your mortgage.  You'd be better off not paying it and living rent free for as long as possible - unless you have some assets to lose if they come looking for their money back.  You make more money living rent free than you will ever make my selling the property!



Bronte said:


> When he took out the Killiney mortgage he must have believed he was in a position to pay it.


Yeah, he bought the house pre-2007 thinking it was going to rise in value.  It didn't and he stopped paying the mortgage.



Bronte said:


> It wouldn't make sense for someone in their 70's to have 18 mortgages, more likely these were used for income.


Why not?  Leverage up and make more money.  Does it make any more sense for someone's in their 70's to need the rental income from 18 properties?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Bronte said:


> 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.





DerKaiser said:


> I think that appears to be a very good summary of the situation Bronte.
> 
> The worst part of it is the abuse of the MARP process, people in genuine distress will now get that little bit less sympathy and have to deal with more scepticism.



Superb summary Bronte

DerKaiser

This is the real cost of the Kelly's abuse of the process. Is it any wonder that lenders are so suspicious of borrowers?


----------



## Swyper

If someone had told me a month ago that Occupy and SF would be advocating the position that it is morally right for the Irish taxpayer to use funds (which could otherwise be used for health, education and welfare) to subsidise a professional landlord to the tune of an estimated €14,000 per month, I would have questioned their sanity.

With 21-ish properties, these guys are more likely than not to be in the top decile of income in the country - the same group that SF/Occupy would advocate a super-tax on. So, they want to tax this couple more, while subsidising them 14k a month!


----------



## AgathaC

Brendan Burgess said:


> Superb summary Bronte
> 
> DerKaiser
> 
> This is the real cost of the Kelly's abuse of the process. Is it any wonder that lenders are so suspicious of borrowers?


 
Well put, Bronte. As an aside, may I add that the people who bought in Priory Hall-who, in my opinion are far more deserving of public and media support- have received nowhere near the equivalent amount of air time and media attention as this couple.


----------



## extopia

Swyper said:


> If someone had told me a month ago that Occupy and SF would be....  etc etc



Whatever about the Occupy movement, I don't see any evidence for dragging SF into this (I am not a SF supporter, but I can't see where this association is coming from. See above).


----------



## extopia

AgathaC said:


> Well put, Bronte. As an aside, may I add that the people who bought in Priory Hall-who, in my opinion are far more deserving of public and media support- have received nowhere near the equivalent amount of air time and media attention as this couple.



To be fair, the Priory Hall story was exhaustively covered by the media, and continues to be. The Kelly story looks dead in the water already.


----------



## AgathaC

extopia said:


> To be fair, the Priory Hall story was exhaustively covered by the media, and continues to be. The Kelly story looks dead in the water already.


 
I don't agree. I think that the Priory Hall people are being brushed under the carpet-in the hope that they might just go away- and they are far far more deserving of sustained public and media attention than this pair.


----------



## extopia

I agree completely with that. I'm just saying that Priory Hall is a significant media story and has not been ignored.


----------



## Bronte

JamesMorgan said:


> Why not? Leverage up and make more money. Does it make any more sense for someone's in their 70's to need the rental income from 18 properties?


 
Trying to understand where you are coming from James.  The leveraging up might make sense when you start out as a young man, but don't see how this makes sense for someone in retirement.  You are saying that he leveraged (took equity out of supposed capital appreciation) to purchase a large property portfolio in the expectation that property would go even higher and he would then sell and realise the gain. Did he not invest the large profits they made in Germany into property.  What you are describing is a house of cards set up.  

Also surely he needed a large income.  Used to a certain standard of living that goes with living in a 4 million euro house in Killiney (not sure of purchase price).  By your logic this income was to come soley from selling property for a profit.  Maybe you're right, at one stage he had 21 properties reduced to 18 so maybe that was what he was doing.  Another case of celtic tiger madness.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

They own 13 flats in London as well as their 21 properties in Dublin according to the Irish Times

[broken link removed]

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess

extopia said:


> Whatever about the Occupy movement, I don't see any evidence for dragging SF into this (I am not a SF supporter, but I can't see where this association is coming from. See above).



Hi Extopia

Both Mary Lou McDonald and Richard Boyd Barrett expressed concern about the eviction. They are simply  coming from the populist angle "eviction = bad banks exploiting the people". 

Fair play again to Noonan and Kenny for supporting it.  It's disappointing to see that Gilmore was unable to take the right stand here. It is an inevitable consequence of his mantra "no one should ever lose their family home".


----------



## extopia

Brendan Burgess said:


> Both Mary Lou McDonald and Richard Boyd Barrett expressed concern about the eviction.



I don't agree. Their comments, as I understood them, were circumspect at best. Did I miss direct comments from MLMcD and RBB in sympathetic support of the Kellys?


----------



## mtk

Brendan Burgess said:


> They own 13 flats in London as well as their 21 properties in Dublin according to the Irish Times
> 
> [broken link removed]
> 
> Brendan


 
These peole are a disgrace and deserve no sympathy in my view. should hav been thrown out long ago
The you tube video of eviction with screaming "ladies who lunch" in background is like Ross O'carroll Kelly satire!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw51gNmNs9s&feature=related


----------



## Brendan Burgess

extopia said:


> I don't agree. Their comments, as I understood them, were circumspect at best. Did I miss direct comments from MLMcD and RBB in sympathetic support of the Kellys?



From the Irish Independent



> Tanaiste Eamon Gilmore has promised to contact the elderly couple evicted from their home on millionaires' row.
> 
> 
> [broken link removed]'s Mary-Lou McDonald and People Before Profit TD [broken link removed] also expressed concerns about the eviction.
> 
> 
> Brendan and Asta Kelly, from Killiney, are constituents of Mr Gilmore's in Dun Laoghaire.
> 
> 
> The [broken link removed] leader said he was surprised by the force used to evict them.



This is nonsense. Fair play to Kenny and Noonan for being straight and saying clearly that they had no sympathy for these people. 

When people are clearly in the wrong, politicians shouldn't be afraid to say it even if they are their constituents.


----------



## serotoninsid

Brendan Burgess said:


> Both Mary Lou McDonald and Richard Boyd Barrett expressed concern about the eviction. They are simply  coming from the populist angle "eviction = bad banks exploiting the people".


Putting this in it's proper context, she was sensitive to the subject - mindful of how repossession could affect others in Irish society as she when on to articultate;

_"But it is symptomatic of a broader crisis in society. More than 100,000 households were in mortgage distress at the end of December and over 90 households fall into distress every day"._

Being 'concerned' is very much on the milder end of the scale.  Did she express full-on support for the Kelly's?  I don't think so.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

http://searchtopics.independent.ie/topic/Sinn_Fein


> [broken link removed]'s Mary-Lou McDonald and People Before Profit TD [broken link removed] also expressed concerns about the eviction.



They expressed concern while Michael Noonan and Enda Kenny said that they had no sympathy.   If Mary-Lou wanted to comment, she should have been equally harsh on the Kellys.  But Irish politicians don't want to criticise people - it's much more popular to bash the evil banks for using so much force to evict a poor 70 year old from his home (even if he has 31 other properties)


----------



## serotoninsid

Brendan Burgess said:


> They expressed concern while Michael Noonan and Enda Kenny said that they had no sympathy.


They expressed *concern* at the unfolding situation (mindful of the sensitivies of others who are potentially exposed to repossession).  *Concern* ...NOT sympathy.


Brendan Burgess said:


> If Mary-Lou wanted to comment, she should have been equally harsh on the Kellys.


Do we know what information MLmcD had at the time she was asked to comment (particularly in relation to the Kelly's property portfolio) or are we making assumptions about that?  As outlined above, it's with empathy towards all others in Ireland who are faced with this prospect that she expressed 'concern' - and not with the Kellys.



Brendan Burgess said:


> While Michael Noonan and Enda Kenny said that they had no sympathy.


I whole-heartedly welcomed what Michael Noonan had to say on the subject and the way in which he expressed it.


----------



## thedaras

BOI to appoint "Rent Receivers "..This looks like it could be a solution?


----------



## 44brendan

Nothing new. Banks are regularly appoint property receivers. Only issue is that the costs reduce the amounts available to pay back the loans. Better if the creditor voluntarily applies the net rent to the loan.


----------



## Complainer

Brendan Burgess said:


> . It is an inevitable consequence of his mantra "no one should ever lose their family home".



WHen exactly did Gilmore say that  "no one should ever lose their family home"?


----------



## itsallwrong

At what point did everyone concerned become aware of the fact these people own a small village worth of houses. 
The second they knew they were owners of that many units, they should have been given a very short 
time to sell some of them if they wanted to keep their family home.
Failing to do that - eject them pronto.
Many famillies are close to the line with eviction/reposession.


----------

