Since summer 2011 it is obligatory on the solicitor for the buyer of a property to register a house with the Property Registration Authority well in regard the houses referred to in the June Posting Finnegan’s Wake only one of those properties has been registered with the Property Registration Authority and even it is erroneous as the number attached to is not the number of the house it actually has no number, just a house name the number on the Folio Registration is in use by a house three doors down from it with was referred to in the Posting The K & C Axis September 2012 The Number used for it’s Planning Application was a number registered to another house with The Valuation Office again the same house name was used
Now the person- his American wife and three adult sons, in the house number attached to the Planning Application – as a solicitor worked in one of the oldest established originally protestant law firms in the country for twenty years between 1993-2003 Now this law firm also seem to be the solicitors for the estate of Louise Walshe’s biological father This now retired solicitor according to the ensign on is his car is member of the same yacht club that Barry White and his daughter Elgiva White are members. See Posting A Prop beside a Parapet The previous householder is the sister of one the persons who was flying out from Germany to meet up in Brussels with the 12 senior Irish businessmen who were killed in the Staines Air crash June 1972.
On 12th November 2913 The Petitioner was told by a person in the Property Registration Office that was the only house registered in the area So what about the other four properties referred to in The June Posting – Finnegan’s Wake – one for sale and sold April – August 2011 One for sale June 2010 sold June 2011 One for sale and sold October 2011 –March 2013, and one that went up for sale and sold twice in the last 2.5 years all on the same road
One more property which went for sale Spring 2013 that entire house is owned as already said by a company It had a sold sign up since last Tuesday 12th November 2013 Now one of the people in one of the other four flats in that house told the Petitioner October 2013 that They were all approached by the company that owns the property under it’s managing agent’s arm and asked for ID documents such as their PPS number and a passport or driving licence and the person asked why would the Company would need that from the other flat holders Well that is a good question
The Petitioner met someone on Sunday 10th November 2013 who asked how could that be let happen referring to the house with the erroneous registration now demolished and attached to another house The Petitioner said it was not for the want of trying It had been reported to the Planning Office To the local county councillor to the Planning Enforcement Officer and to the Ombudsman all to no avail The Ombudsman set a letter 7th November 2013 to the person owner of the house attached saying they would do nothing at present, well it is too late the house is now demolished
This person who owns a builders supply company asked had they done a condition survey on the house next door The Petitioner said yes however the result did not come back the way they wanted which was to either say the house next door refurbishment done 15 years ago caused the damage or it too was in bad order neither of which they found August 2013 As the term they were originally referring to the survey as was a dilapidation survey The title gives it away as to what they were hoping in the result. It was only after the survey was complete did they call it a Condition Survey again The builders merchants owner then said one of the reasons they will demolish a house like that when it is attached to another is if they have no deeds to the property and want to start from scratch as if a new build The Petitioner said well they had heard that the person who bought the house had no deeds to the property And it would explain why the person owner of the semi detached house next door was approached by the auctioneer who dealt with the sale of the now demolished property and offered to buy their house as someone else said “they are trying to buy that house for it’s deeds” However the demolition and new build would be a way of overcoming that So as the builders merchant said “ neither the Folio registration or the planning application are officially authorized as the house numbers are attached to two different properties” The Petitioner said “yes the investors acquisition of the property is questionable is trying to validate this dubious procurement by the manner in which he has demolished the property”
If the house now demolished had a house number it would be neither of the numbers used in the Folio Registration or in the Planning Application based on the properties either side of it Now the person a property developer and occupier of the house on the far side of this house and not attached to it back from Spain for a few days 23rd October 2013 appears to have put in an objection to the house extending to side by three metres and four months after the application was approved His intercession was upheld by Planning Enforcement The architect for the person in the house attached to the now demolished said on hearing that said the interpretation of the planning act is not consistent and there can be there be different implementations for the same application/approval
The Petitioner heard August 2012 that this property developer who put in a Planning Application March 2011 for an extension to his property with floating platform rough cost for the square footage involved €400,000 However the Petitioner was told August 2012 That he never got approval for that floating platform and no attempt has been made by the county council to remove it So again the implementation of the Planning Act has been interpreted in different ways However it does raise the question of double standards, As the property developer was quite happy with his own application going through the way it did, however it appears was prepared to challenge the unattached house next door four months after the application was given and accorded a hearing and agreed with by the Planning Office So again the implementation and interpretation of the planning act is not consistent
This property developer now spends much of his time out in Spain, and since this is the house that was referred to in the posting a Yield House hence the reason it was occupied by the Trinity lecturers
Nemesisone's Blog 