Couple warn others after seized home is stripped bare by thieves

A COUPLE whose repossessed home was stripped clean by thieves have warned of measures needed to maintain and secure properties after courts hand them over to lenders.

After loosing their fight to hold onto their Tipperary home last December, the Burnetts were shocked after finding their seized home had been gutted by robbers.

The couple lost their modest bungalow to lender GE Capital Woodchester after falling into arrears on a €169,000 loan, originally taken out on the house in 2006 to pay for business debts.

The court last year heard how the mortgage had grown to €178,000 after husband John was made redundant as a truck driver.

The couple are now trying to get onto a housing list with their local authority.

But Patricia and John Burnett’s former home is now effectively a derelict site, after thieves stripped the place bare only days after the couple had moved out of the property in December on foot of a High Court order.

Ms Burnett said: “They pulled out the back door, the worktop, the light fittings. Even the radiators have been taken off the wall.

“I was only coming back from dropping my sister to a clinic when I saw it. They took the hall door off with an angle grinder, it looks like. I was coming back to pick up the post. We’re absolutely devastated.

“We’ve been claiming rent allowance, living in a rented place. If the government had stepped in and done something, we would have been still in the home and this would never have happened.”

Lender GE Capital when contacted refused to comment on the Burnetts’ case, other than to say: “When a repossession order is executed GE’s policy is to immediately secure the property and appoint a sales agent.”

However, it is understood that the lender is disputing possession of the home or that it was gutted while in their possession.

Despite the High Court order which granted repossession to GE capital, it is thought the lender may argue that the order was not executed by its solicitors and was not executed by them or the sheriff.

It also understood that the lender may argue that the couple never notified them that they were vacating the property.

Ms Burnett added: “We did what the court told us to do.”

The Burnetts are disputing whether it was necessary for the lender to secure an execution order beyond the initial court order which granted it possession of the property.

She added: “Everybody should be aware of what’s happening out there. It [a home] should be maintained and looked after. It’s a shambles, we put our hearts and souls into that house.”