The receiver of five properties in Co Clare has said the tenants will not be evicted and that they have been asked to vacate on safety grounds.
Residents of Abbeywest Cottages in Bellharbour in Co Clare received letters last Tuesday from representatives of receivers Ernst and Young (EY) in which they were asked to vacate the five homes by noon on Friday stating that the properties were "in breach of certain health and safety standards". *
EY has said that while they haven’t taken the decision “lightly”, no one will be evicted or forced to leave their homes. If they do leave, EY has committed to fund alternative accommodation and provide financial assistance.
Residents have already held a meeting and said they will not move while they are also seeking legal advice. The tenants of the five properties are three families and two individuals.
“I arrived home at 7pm (Tuesday) to be met with an eviction notice by a lady, a man and a security guard representing Ernst and Young. My 13 year old son witnessed the whole thing. Their timing is disgusting,” said artist and musician Jim McKee.
The residents claim they were previously informed that although under receivership, their tenancy was secure and they would be given an opportunity to buy in the near future.
“I’ve nowhere to go. Where do you go this close to Christmas. I’ve a lot of stuff in my house and nowhere to put it. This eviction, on the eve of the festive season, is both shocking and ruthless,” Mr McKee added.
Ernst and Young have said that no one is being evicted and that the tenants are free to stay in the properties “at their own risk.”
EY partner Marcus Purcell said: "As a result of a standard Health and Safety review carried out, the properties at Belharbour, were assessed as being unsafe for habitation due to failing fire safety standards."
He added: “Therefore, for the safety and protection of the occupiers, the receivers had to take the decision, to ask tenants to vacate the properties. The receivers informed occupiers they will fund alternative accommodation and provide additional financial support recognising the difficulties this required action will cause.”
The receivers “did not take this decision lightly, particularly at this time of year, but considered the safety of the occupiers to be the priority,” a statement said.
* This article was edited on December 21st, 2014 to correct a factual error.