Paisley finger pointed in wrong direction…
DESPITE what he said previously about possession being nine-tenths of the law, Ian Paisley Jr still doesn’t legally own the house he claims to have bought off controversial property developer Seymour Sweeney (after lobbying for it to be built – and there’s plenty more to come on the extent of Mr Paisley’s lobbying for Mr Sweeney). After describing it as “an administrative hiccup in Land Registry“, Mr Paisley’s cottage still seems to be registered in Mr Sweeney’s wife’s name. The Land Registry seems to think the fault is Mr Paisley’s, as the application “cannot be processed due to the fact that all the necessary documents are not attached”. The agency added: “This particular application has now been scrutinised and same is incomplete and will be returned to the lodging solicitor.” UPDATE: David Gordon reveals the sustained lobbying by Mr Paisley for the Sweeney Causeway centre, which seems to go somewhat beyond the call of duty to a constituent to me.To clear up any confusion about ownership on Mr Paisley’s part, LRNI’s statement said:
“Legal ownership rests with the person who is registered as owner on the Land Register. This is the only person who is able to legally deal with the lands – to sell, alter the property, mortgage or charge the property, carry out any works on same.
“Where purchase monies and keys have been exchanged the purchaser will have an equitable interest in the property, but legal ownership will not pass until registration has been effected.”
Land Registry is an agency of the Department of Finance, which is, of course, run by Mr Paisley’s DUP colleague, Peter Robinson.
Meanwhile, Ulster Unionist MEP Jim Nicholson has accused the DUP-controlled Department of the Environment’s Planning Service of “using the cloak of procedure” to avoid a freedom of information (FoI) request to publish documents relating to the Giant’s Causeway Visitors’ Centre discussions.
The News Letter reported:
The MEP asked to see the report, all other departmental documentation, on the Sweeney application, and any correspondence between Department of Enterprise Minister Nigel Dodds and Minister Foster on the future of the visitors’ centre (as Mr Dodds, also on September 10, withdrew support for a publicly backed venture).
Planning Service accepted “strong public interest” in the matter and the need for transparency and accountability, with regard to decisions by the DoE and minister.
But it also noted there had not been a final decision yet.
It said: “As regards the report from the Planning Service to the minister, I wish to advise you this is an internal document which, in our opinion, falls within the terms of the exception under regulation 12 (4) (e) of the Regulations which states that – ‘a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that the request involves the disclosure of internal communications’.”
The letter went on to say: “It is essential that the minister has the time and space required to fully consider all the issues and advice provided before reaching a fully- formed view on the issue at hand. The department believes that this process would be substantially prejudiced by disclosure of advice and guidance provided to the minister prior to a decision being taken.
“The department is therefore of the opinion that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosure at this time.”
Mr Nicholson said this raised more serious questions.
These included:
- DoE/Planning Service say the minister has not yet taken a final decision on the application. Why then did the minister disclose that she was of a mind to approve Seymour Sweeney’s application?
- If the DoE Minister has not made her mind up – why then did Tourism Minister Nigel Dodds, on the very same day as the DoE Minister made her announcement, withdraw DETI support for the DETI/NI Tourist Board plans for a visitors’ centre at the Giant’s Causeway?
- DoE has said it does not hold any correspondence between the DoE and the DETI Minister on the issue, yet both ministers made announcements on the visitors’ centre almost simultaneously in the Assembly, on the same day.
- Who are the DOE to decide what the public interest is? Just what are the department hiding?
Commenting further, Mr Nicholson said: “The department is hiding behind the cloak of procedure, refused to disclose the information I requested. In light of what has transpired in recent weeks I find this decision completely bizarre.”
In any normal democracy Jnr would have been forced out….
That reminds me of Brian Feeneys article last week about how people keep mistakenly refering to our democracy as though it were abnormal – its very normal in fact its what we voted for in the agreement.
There’s a debate there on whether an abnormal society can return a normal assembly. I’d say our (limited) democracy is pretty abnormal. Whether we voted for it or not is irrelevant. All those extra systems and checks in place to make sure it doesn’t fall to bits inside a week are not the hallmarks of a normally functioning democracy.
the fact that IPJ hasn’t had his solicitor release a statement to clarify ownership of the house speaks volumes i’m afraid.
Apparently his wife told Nolan it was all above board, so that’s ok then…
What kind of backwards institutions do you have there?
In Canada if you buy a piece of property the lawyers hold the money in trust and it is not distributed until such time as the title has been transfered and the bank has its claim to the title arranged with the land titles office.
Simply put if he was trying this in Canada he would be a bald faced liar but how do they work it there?
Kerb crawlers in South Belfast – and now ‘kerb’ developers!!
“Environment Minister Arlene Foster said she recognised the “public concern on this matter” …”
Beware, garden grabbers are about. That’s right, its garden not granny!!
Sean,
Canada must be great. Except for your blog sites obviously.
it is but its politics are about as interesting as watching the kettle boil
We have a modern mature democracy where people go to great lengths to tell you how much different they are from their the other guy while in reality the difference is infinitesimal
I just think its strange that you apparently can get a mortgage on a house you dont have clear title to. And that judging by the amount of remarks on here, its not exactly a unique problem. In Canada the bank would do a title search before it would agree to lend you the money and then the money all gets transfered under trust to ensure that no one absconded with funds. Infact if you were the seller any and all title claims would have to be settled before the vendor recieved the remaining balance. And banks have been known to do title searches during the life of the mortgage to ensure that no other liens or claims have been filed against it. The intial banks mortgage tanks precedence over any sundry claims except for the municipal taxes which take precedence over everything
or thats my understanding atleast
just because you have a bank statement showing a mortgage payment each month is evidence that you have a mortgage on a house somewhere,but where?
In Ref to #6 above and kerb developers. Aren’t we lucky the Minister of Finance sold of his garden to developers before his colleague passed the legislation – no doubt all others members of the DUP will be following suit now.