Westport 1st to court targeting multiple property owners / developers / landlords.

[Frank]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the courts and if it will have the desired effect.

 

[delgirl]

Yes, very interesting indeed - they appear to be targeting multiple property owners / developers / landlords.

 

[truthseeker]

Yes, very interesting indeed - they appear to be targeting multiple property owners / developers / landlords.

Yeah its a calculated move. They are hoping cases going to court will frighten people into paying. No way are they going to bring someone who owns one small home, crippled by negative equity and having lost a job to court on this up front - that would mean negative media attention. Instead they go for the multiple owners so the media can spin how the greedy landlords wont pay.

 

[DrMoriarty]

Nice that they did it in Inda's back yard.

 

[Time]

They tried this in the UK. They could not lock up everyone who refused to pay.

 

[truthseeker]

They tried this in the UK. They could not lock up everyone who refused to pay.

I dont think they intend on locking people up. More like charging them the charge, plus interest, plus penalties, plus court costs? Maybe stopping it out of wages or social welfare. For someone like me with no income and no social welfare perhaps a judgement against the mortgage? Id laugh at that, Ill probably never be able to sell the property because of negative equity anyway, but certainly not in the next 12 years!

 

[Time]

Still the courts would not be able to process the volume of cases.

 

[Jim2007]

They tried this in the UK. They could not lock up everyone who refused to pay.

This is not the UK and the law is not exactly the same. People can not be allowed to flaunt the law irrespective of whether they agree with it or not.

 

[truthseeker]

Still the courts would not be able to process the volume of cases.

Yeah true, but the idea is to put fear into the hearts of those who havent paid.

 

[Dermot]

Surely the legal system cannot be seen to discriminate against one type of owner. I am not making any judgement about taking people to court or not. Surely they should have had a cross section of people before the court if they are going to have any at all. The next thing we will hear is that neighbours, friends and relations etc. of people in authority not being brought to court.

 

[ajapale]

Interesting that they are going for landlords with multiple holdings first.

 

[SarahMc]

Interesting that they are going for landlords with multiple holdings first.

Very unlikely to get protests outside the court from the left for landlords. Or newspaper articles which will elicit sympathy.

 

[truthseeker]

Very unlikely to get protests outside the court from the left for landlords. Or newspaper articles which will elicit sympathy.

Exactly, calculated move.

 

[Luternau]

There is no surprise here. Landlords were always going to be first to be summoned.
However, for balance, there are just as many landlords that cant pay, as there are homeowners. Sure, there are some landlords, maybe even those that are appearing before the courts in Mayo, that could pay, but refuse to pay. Time will tell how this plays out.
Meanwhile, it is fundamentaley wrong and discriminatory to go after one type of non payer over another. Even if its tactical, to send a strong message, in the long run, homeowners what cant/wont pay are still in breach of the legislation. They will have to face the same sanctions at some stage, or the law will not be seemed to be applied fairly, and then, everyone (homeowners/landlords) that are paying, will stop paying.
Landlords, while not having/getting the same sympathy as homeowners, are still as much victims of the banking mess as anyone else. Negitive equity, cant sell or banks wont let them sell. As Stan / Laurel hardy would say (to the Bankers) "Thats another fine mess you have gotten us (all) into". Somehow, landlords seem to be excluded by many from the 'us all' part.