Meanwhile, At The Four Courts



Martin and Violet Coyne, aged 73 and 61 respectively, who have been evicted from their rented home in Carpenterstown, Dublin this morning.

The Irish Times reports:

ACC Bank is seeking repossession of the home because the landlord Daragh Ward went into receivership in 2012 and they want to sell the house to reduce his debt.
In July, Ms Justice Linnane said an order for vacation of the property had been first made in September 2013. She had made her own order on March 27th and Mr Coyne had given a sworn undertaking to vacate the property when he came before the court on June 25th. She said the High Court had also refused a stay on her order as there was no legal grounds for it.

Mr Coyne told the court that he had made the sworn statement in “good faith”, but he had been unable to find alternative accommodation through Fingal County Council.
He said he and his wife had not been “sitting on our arses” doing nothing since the sworn statement had been made, but they lacked the money to seek alternative accommodation.

Dublin couple ‘evicted’ from home ahead of court hearing, TD says (Genevieve Carberry, Irish Times)

(Mark Stedman/Photocall Ireland)

Sponsored Link

76 thoughts on “Meanwhile, At The Four Courts

  1. Spartacus

    Reported elsewhere that Stephen Byrne SC, counsel for ACC bank sought to have the two pensioners committed to prison. Charming.

    1. Spartacus

      “In July, a judge refused to jail Martin and Violet, who faced prison for contempt of court by defying a judge’s order to have left their home by midnight two days previously.

      Following pleas in the circuit civil court by and on behalf of the Coynes, Judge Jacqueline Linnane adjourned an application to commit both of the Coynes to prison until today, August 27.

      At the hearing, Judge Linnane told Stephen Byrne, counsel for the receiver of assets of Daragh Ward, the house owner and the Coynes’ former landlord, that the county sheriff could be asked to execute the court order for possession of the property.”

  2. scottser

    most unfortunate. both on fingal’s senior citizen list, so chances are they’ll be housed relatively quickly from homelessness as long as there’s nothing dodgy showing up on estate management grounds. either way, they should hightail it back to fingal cc for placement asap.

  3. Starina

    and they’ve added 7 gardai to social welfare, no doubt to act as heavies when investigating welfare fraud. This is all headline-grabbing stuff to distract us from realising that the people who are really messing up this country are the rich. feed the rich to the poor!

    1. Jackdaw

      Act as heavies??? Sorry but Welfare Fraud is a scandal that must be tackled. If those committing fraud are dealt with we would have more money to help people like the Coynes. Garda Heavies .. Jesus give me patience!

      1. Paul

        Ah yes. Welfare fraud. Which has been shown to be a tiny percentage of the total budget. Still fraud is fraud I suppose.
        Now if only the state would have the same zeal in tackling corporate fraud we would have more money to help people like the coynes. But that shit is hard I suppose.

      1. Jock

        For not accepting the standard broadsheet narrative? For using my own mind?

        This guy is an ex developer that got into trouble. He’s renting a place now in Castleknock for 800 quid a month. It’s not his property the landlord is suffering his own financial trouble and sought to mitigate his losses legally. These two should be in jail for brrakijg a court order. They could have easily rented some kip up the road I Fingland but of course that is beneath them.

        1. Nessy

          Jock, you do realise that if you’re on social welfare/rent allowance you simply cannot up sticks and go rent “some kip up the road in Fingland” you thick c**t – you’re not allowed simply transfer the rent allowance like that from one borough to another. You need to have lived in the area before you’re eligible. Apart from that, would you like to live in a kip?! These are ordinary decent people, elderly people; pensioners. Finding “some kip up the road” wouldn’t be an option for any elderly person. If you think logically and long term, they’d need ground floor, or a place with a lift, central heating but to name a few.

          It’s ignorant fupping buffoons like you that sit on their holier than thou high horse looking down on the ordinary decent working folk with contempt, that I hate and detest. I hope for your own sake that you never fall on hard times, that you’re never backed into a corner with nowhere to go (or live)! Homelessness is a real and every day threat that is happening all over this city. I know this as my mother and her husband are in the same situation and she’s worked every day of her life.

          I suppose your advice to this couple, or anyone else would be to thrown them a sleeping bag and some cardboard to sleep on?!!!

          1. Jock

            Whats a borough? Please don’t try and sound like you know the legalities of rent allowance. They are under Fingal CC.

          2. scottser

            not true. you qualify for rent supplement if you:
            a – have been on rent supplement for 6 months out of previous 12
            b – have been renting for 6 months out of previous 12
            c – have your housing need assessed by local authority within past year.

            they can go and rent anywhere in the country on the strength of their rental history.

          3. Jock

            So in Scottser’s utopia there is no eviction and everyone lives rent free from a benevolent landlord. Get real you goose.

          4. Nessy

            Kill The Poor, by Jock’s logic this couple should be able to up sticks and rent any old kip in the country within the next few days. It’s not that easy. There are restrictions with the rent allowance. This couple can’t simply decide on a house in Donegal or Waterford and rent there immediately. They’ll be waiting weeks if not months before they would receive the allowance (and that’s even if they allow the transfer of the rent allowance from one council to another). By doing this they would also be taken off the housing list in their current area that they’re living in. It’s not as straight forward as people think

          5. Nessy

            Bejayziz, I’ve been looking for a place for someone in Dublin for the last 10 months. Hardly any properties that accept rent allowance which are on the southside and available for €950 or less are available. In fact looking at Daft now, there are 6 properties available, most of which are not suitable (ground floor, access to public transport to/from certain hospitals etc). I’ve previously emailed some of the properties that are listed and only one got back to me. It wasn’t suitable for the person/people in question. Back to square one again. There’s nothing out there for low income families.

          6. Bejayziz

            A quick scan of daft and I found a nice place in Moylaragh Mews, Balbriggan for 825 quid so there ye go…right beside a few bus stops, has a dunnes and butchers and cafes

          7. scottser

            jock, in my utopia i there would be enough for all and we wouldn’t have to suffer the bigoted nonsense you spout. however, the 1988 housing act is clearly applicable to this family which is why they should get to the council as quickly as possible for assessment and placement if they haven’t already done so.

          8. Nessy

            Bejayziz, as outlined previously, you cannot simply up and move out of once council to another when in receipt of rent allowance, the council can refuse to grant it to you on the basis that you’ve never lived in the area before. You’d have to pay full rent for at least six months and then apply for rent allowance from the start.

            The people I was looking for need to be around a main hospital on the southside in case of emergencies and regular appointments etc and rely on public transport. Balbriggan might suit the people in this story but not the situation I outlined in my last comment had you read it. Again to emphasise, there’s a lack of affordable housing in Dublin

          9. Bejayziz

            “Again to emphasise, there’s a lack of affordable housing in Dublin” – I dont think anyone would doubt that, rental prices are ridiculous at the moment, and i dont know the ins and outs of your case, I was referencing the balbriggan place with respect to the main story….

            Still, the landlord is perfectly entitled to sell his property, the couple doesnt own the place and refusing the leave wont make it there’s….

            whats the craic with your one wearing a robe to court? Bizarre!

          10. scottser

            nessy, you’re reading the rent supplement regulations incorrectly. firstly, the council does not pay rent supplement but first time applicants may need to provide a letter from the council confirming a housing need. in this case, their housing application – if eligible within income limits – is with fingal, they are free to live anywhere within the four dublin local authority areas.

        2. Ray Luna

          Every single time one of these stories breaks there is a rush to a conclusion when there are massive gaps in the story. Remember the couple evicted in Killiney who owned 21 houses across the city? The farce at that time was people before profit protesting in support of them!

          1. Nessy

            Jock there’s no point even responding to your comments any further as it’s clear from them you’re just an ignoramus

          2. Kill The Poor

            What about respond to the comments Nessy that proofed you too were talking out of your ass about rent allowance ?

    1. paul m

      just think of the poor landlord still having to take rent off them while the house had been repossessed by the bank. and just think of the poor bank losing out on the sale of the property where in the time since it was handed over until now its probably gone from negative equity to bubble 2.0 prices.

      a despicable couple is right.

  4. Selfie Sensation

    Back in March I happened to be in Court on one of the occasions Mr Coyne was appealing to Judge Linnane for as he put it “some sympathy.” Unfortunately he didn’t come across as a sympathetic character (although that might not have made much difference to Judge Linnane anyway.) The facts were that they had been legally evicted from the house but refused to leave, he couldn’t give any examples of what they had done to find alternative accommodation, I may be wrong but I seem to recall that they were no longer paying rent on the property either.

    Not that anybody wants to see elderly people evicted in their dressing gowns but the initial order for their eviction was made more than 6 months ago and they have simply refused to leave. Should they be allowed to stay indefinitely? Where is the justice in that?

    1. Jock

      I seriously doubt the bailiffs put these people out on the street in their dressing gowns. That’s a gross slur against their professionalism and a clear attempt to win some public sympathy.
      She’s only 61 so not a defenceless OAP by any means. She should look for a job.

        1. Spartacus


          Anyway, it doesn’t really matter. They’re old, the winter is on its way. They’ll probably die from hypothermia in a doorway somewhere, and Jock can smile his little smug smile. In his lonely little room over a takeaway somewhere in Roscommon.

      1. postmanpat

        I’m with you Jock. . nobody should have any sympathy for the likes of her or her husband. You know these snakes have tens of thousand squirreled away that they could easily dig into to pay first,last & deposit on any property. .but .. a dressing gown is cheaper. Maybe some sympathetic commenter can put them up for the night?

        1. postmanpat

          that came across as a bit sarcastic. so Ill just clear things up. I don’t believe these people are in the sh!t as much as they are letting on . Saps here are eating their poor me story up. These people will not and have not ever slept rough in their lives. .

          1. Spartacus

            Which is another way of saying that you’re basing your comments on unfounded speculation, yes?

    2. scottser

      a notice to quit is simply a written indication on the part of the property owner to terminate a tenancy. every tenant has a right to contest that notice through the courts as only a judge can issue an eviction notice. they were perfectly within their rights to stay in the property until this issue is resolved but its a no brainer that they were going to lose and they will end up paying the costs themselves.

      1. selfie sensation

        A court order to vacate the property was made back in February or March of this year.

  5. Kill The Poor

    They were also turned down for legal aid assisstence so must have funds of some sort.

    Odd that he couldnt find accomodation in the last 2 years, I found them lots after a quick daft search.

    Next he’ll be a TD with Mick ‘man of the people’ Wallace and people will forget all about the tax payer paying off their peoperty development gambles

    1. Selfie Sensation

      I think the reason they couldn’t get accommodation from the council was because they weren’t entitled to it because of their income.

  6. Outta me Bento Box

    what part of ” Mr Coyne had given a sworn undertaking to vacate the property when he came before the court on June 25th” is confusing?

    Once again the trots are making a so called “elderly couple” out to be something they’re not!

    If memory serves correctly you muppets went to town on the Killiney landlord couple too – until it turned out they were a nasty bunch of liars.

  7. Serv

    Also guessing that these legal costs will be taken from the landlord, so he’s going to lose 30,000 because of there unwillingness to move.

      1. Serv

        Eh no, if they don’t pay, which let’s face it they won’t. Then the landlord will have to pay.

        1. scottser

          how so? what did the judge rule – it’s not clear from any article i’ve read on it so far? costs are usually incurred by the loser. especially, if it’s the case that lots of commentators here have stated, that the coynes have an income or the private means to challenge a previous decision made against them.

  8. Owen O'F

    As a renter I’m in favour of extending tenants’ rights – longer leases, better security of tenure, deposits held in interest-bearing escrow, etc. But cases like those of this couple aren’t helping matters. Undertook to leave over a year ago? And refused free accommodation because it wasn’t as convenient? Does this mean that anyone can live anywhere they want to for as long as they want to? Where do I sign up?

  9. Buzz

    I feel sorry for them. No one would go through this circus if they could find suitable alternative accommodation just like that.

    1. Outta me Bento Box

      they were offered a place in Navan, but turned it down as it wasn’t close to family.

      Did you swallow the BS deployed by the Killiney couple and their Trot allies?

      1. Buzz

        Ok, I wasn’t aware of that. And no, I had no sympathy for the Killiney couple.

        All the same, people are feeling the pinch. Many have no money to spare, and the only relief they get is being able to hang out with family and friends. I don’t know anything about this couple but in general, when the chips are down, most people want to stay put, not to be shunted elsewhere like animals.

    2. Reegore

      They’re causing the circus show themselves. I hardly think that the press just stumbled upon their story.

    3. Papa P

      “No one would go through this circus if they could find suitable alternative accommodation just like that”

      How long have they been getting free accomodation?
      I’d go to court in my socks if it meant I had years of living rent free.

        1. postmanpat

          Probably came to the conclusion by reading the article Spartacus, you know, putting two and two together with the aid of critical thinking. Landlord wants tenants out. why? because they are not paying up money. Therefore, the tenants weren’t paying the landlord the rent money. or to put it another way : they were getting free accommodation. I cant think of any other reason the landlord wanted them out. they don’t look like they are wrecking the gaff with house parties, now do they Sparticus?. Speculation sure , unfounded speculation? not really. These scabs were living rent free. Just like you do in your folks house.( Now that’s unfounded speculation based on your troll like comments , now do you see the difference son shine ?)

          1. Spartacus

            See? There you go again. The information freely available in the public domain suggests that the landlord (ACC bank) sought to evict them because it wanted to sell the property. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

            Spartacus Mansions are mortgage-free and the deepwater moats are full of flesh-eating pirhana.

  10. Reegore

    Whatever little sympathy I might have felt is out the window after that stunt with the slippers and dressing gown. What exactly do these people want? Can’t have it every way.

    1. Ron

      the bailiffs threw them out of the house at 7.30 am and refused to allow her yo go upstairs to get dressed apparently

      1. Robert

        This has been going on for ages.
        They knew full well it was coming, but decided to make a show of it regardless.

        What amazes me is how easy it is to manipulate gullible people like yourself.
        They believe what they are told and don’t question anything.

        Ever wonder what happened to the free accommodation they were offered ?

  11. Mr. T.

    The problem is a lack of sustainable and fair rental legislation for both renters and letters. There is an assumption that if you rent, you should be at the mercy of a letter because you must be doing something wrong not to own or try to own your own house. It’s a parochial small minded snobbery particular to Ireland and Britain.

    Renting a home all your life is very common and normal in Europe. But there are good solid laws there which are not at the mercy of 5 yearly elections.

  12. DazzaMazza

    Its sad to see people of this age turfed out on the streets but several things don’t sit well with me

    1. We’re linking this with mortgage stories, defaults and debt forgiveness. This is about an owner selling a house and the renters being asked to vacate. Yes the property is in the ownership of the banks but what if it was the landlord who was selling up? I cant help but feel that if the house was being sold by an individual then this couple would have moved on a long time ago and this wouldn’t be a story.

    2. 800 for a house in Castleknock, 400+ of which is being paid for the taxpayer since 99. Again I think part of the issue here is that reality is kicking in for the couple in that they will not get a similar property in the area for that price. It must be heart-breaking for them and I hope I never end up in that situation but renting is not ownership.

    3. They have been given a long time to sort this out. I’m not sure I believe some of the claims about not being able to find property elsewhere in Dublin or further afield. The judge in charge of the case has pointed this out at previous hearings.

    4. There appears to be some brinkmanship here. I mean the woman did not have to turn up in her nightgown. Im not sure if its the AAA or social party or some other groups advising them, but I feel that they have been ill advised. Courts are (believe it or not) very slow to throw people out of their homes. I cant be help feel that these two have pushed the situation to the brink of crisis in the hope of some reprieve.

    Its not that I’m unsympathetic. People of this age shouldn’t have this level of stress and hardship delivered on them. I hope none of us end up loosing our homes in similar circumstances. Yes there should be more rights for tenants. Yes we should have a better social housing system. But some cases just don’t look right (Kilkenny etc) and I think this may be one of them.

  13. Markus

    Before a court will even entertain the idea of granting an order like this the landlord has to have exhausted all other options. These would include serving notice on the tenant (likely 3 – 6 months given tenure) followed by taking it to the prtb who are known to take upwards of 6 months.

    It isn’t today or yesterday that they were asked to vacate the property.

    Arriving in a dressing gown was merely an attempt to get publicity and inject emotion in to the case. no bailiff would kick someone out witg I it even clothes on their back.

    The fact that they weren’t granted legal aid also seems odd and would suggest they may not be as poor as we are lead to believe.

      1. Markus

        a good question which i dont know the answer to. although in that today was a contempt hearing it would no longer be considered solely a civil hearing

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link