OnlyMe Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 When you pay your 10% deposit to a developer you "exchange contracts" at the same time.You often do this using their nominated solicitor so you don't get any impartial advice about the terms of the contract. If anything should change here that practice should be banned. tim Well we all know why that is, this playing field is most tilted towards the banks and developers so they will be on preferential terms every time. No chance in hell of winning in the courts, the judge(s) will fall down on the side of the status quo and screw the little man, lesson learned, you may be wanted to keep a ponzi schme going but you don't hold any of the cards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giordano Bruno Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 Charming individuals some of you round here...Honestly, these people are victims of lax regulation that allowed people to commit to buying a property in 2 years time, without being able to lock in financing for said timescale. The size of the bubble was the only thing that would ever convince people that committing to a purchase so far down the line was a good thing. Yes they were naive but they don't deserve what some of you are wishing on them. I hope that a solution that forces both the property developer and the buyer to take a reasonable hit to complete the deal is settled upon. Absolutely, LAX REGULATION, by what pathetically passes for government these days, is to blame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepLurker Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 Absolutely, LAX REGULATION, by what pathetically passes for government these days, is to blame. I hope that you are joking Or are you saying that we need regulation to stop businesses making unwise investment decisions? I'm happy to agree that banks mis-selling mortgages on a home need regulation (the majority of the population don't understand money or risk...), but we're talking here of investors, i.e. businesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomBear Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 I'm happy to agree that banks mis-selling mortgages on a home need regulation (the majority of the population don't understand money or risk...), but we're talking here of investors, i.e. businesses. These people aren't businesses. What you are calling "investors" is just a few idiots punting cash on BTL. And many of them MAY be owner-occupiers, we have no way to know. But it's not BUSINESSES as you say so vehemently - I would wager virtually none of the people caught up in this are actually running their BTL through a registered company. Neither of us have a clue though so it's a pretty stupid argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Alpha Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 These people aren't businesses. What you are calling "investors" is just a few idiots punting cash on BTL. And many of them MAY be owner-occupiers, we have no way to know. But it's not BUSINESSES as you say so vehemently - I would wager virtually none of the people caught up in this are actually running their BTL through a registered company.Neither of us have a clue though so it's a pretty stupid argument. Be that as it may, they should not be allowed to wriggle out of contracts they signed just cos house price movements went against them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepLurker Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 These people aren't businesses. What you are calling "investors" is just a few idiots punting cash on BTL. And many of them MAY be owner-occupiers, we have no way to know. But it's not BUSINESSES as you say so vehemently - I would wager virtually none of the people caught up in this are actually running their BTL through a registered company. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... These people sink hundreds of Ks into a physical asset, they have ongoing maintenance and depreciation to cope with, and they hope to make a profit through hiring out the asset to other people. Oh, and they have to advertise their product in order to bring in customers. Sounds like a business to me. Neither of us have a clue though so it's a pretty stupid argument. Well, the article that started this thread used the word "investor" several times Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest happy? Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Well we all know why that is, this playing field is most tilted towards the banks and developers so they will be on preferential terms every time.No chance in hell of winning in the courts, the judge(s) will fall down on the side of the status quo and screw the little man, lesson learned, you may be wanted to keep a ponzi schme going but you don't hold any of the cards. Let me see. I go into a tailors and order a suit. Tailor takes measurement, we agree price and style and cloth, tailor makes suit. Three weeks later I return and tell tailor I don't want the suit as the price for cloth has now fallen. Tailor says:- "No problem I'll just sell it to someone else and we can forget my costs and profit." Not going to happen. Not a case of little man being screwed - simple case of contract. Little man didn't buy an option - he bought the goods. Big difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bomberbrown Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Link to two developers suing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8237647.stm I blame myself for not getting the correct advice at the time. At least this one accepts responsibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim123 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Link to two developers suing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8237647.stm "have launched legal action" is company speak for "have engaged a solicitor to send threatening letters". It does not mean that they have served a writ (though they may have done). tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Punter Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 This NI development is called "The Titanic Quarter". We must be missing out on some puns here, surely! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest happy? Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 "have launched legal action" is company speak for "have engaged a solicitor to send threatening letters".It does not mean that they have served a writ (though they may have done). tim Given the overwhelming likelihood of winning, a writ probably isn't necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bomberbrown Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 (edited) Link to two developers suing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8237647.stm Blimey, look at this link juxtaposed with the link above. Particularly the photo. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/4017019.stm Edited September 9, 2009 by bomberbrown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peahead Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Surely the developer will only sue at the point whereby they legally complete on the sale of the property. Otherwise how can they put a figure on the loss that they have incurred as a result of the original purchaser failing to keep to the terms of the contract. Even if they went to court now and won (I would have thought unlikely), they would risk the award being less that the actual cost to them. Surely there is more chance of the developer going bankrupt first and then there is no company to pursue the purchasers?? Would the properties not end up in the hands of the receivers who would simply sell them along with any assets to reimburse creditors, which would mean the original purchasers losing their initial deposit?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moley Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Surely the developer will only sue at the point whereby they legally complete on the sale of the property. Otherwise how can they put a figure on the loss that they have incurred as a result of the original purchaser failing to keep to the terms of the contract. Even if they went to court now and won (I would have thought unlikely), they would risk the award being less that the actual cost to them. Surely there is more chance of the developer going bankrupt first and then there is no company to pursue the purchasers?? Would the properties not end up in the hands of the receivers who would simply sell them along with any assets to reimburse creditors, which would mean the original purchasers losing their initial deposit?? I seem to remember this is what happened during the last HPC. People had put down deposits on flats in Docklands hoping to flip them and then several contractors went bust and they lost them. Sueing only enriches lawyers in the long run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim123 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Given the overwhelming likelihood of winning, a writ probably isn't necessary. Of winning what? If the purchasor doesn't have the funds to buy (or pay compensation) what help is winning and order in court that they should do so? tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest happy? Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Of winning what?If the purchasor doesn't have the funds to buy (or pay compensation) what help is winning and order in court that they should do so? tim Ah, now spoken like a lawyer. Never any point in suing if they don't have any money. Nevertheless, I'll be very interested in the defence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeine Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Blimey, look at this link juxtaposed with the link above. Particularly the photo. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/4017019.stm And still people flocked to buy those new age council slums. It's amazing. Call a turd an executive suite and you will have people bragging about living there. Oh, and these flippers deserve to lose their first home for trying to price me out of my first home. I hope they end up on the dole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Oh, and these flippers deserve to lose their first home for trying to price me out of my first home. I hope they end up on the dole. +1 I agree with the sentiment, although I wouldn't wish them the luxury of the dole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 "have launched legal action" is company speak for "have engaged a solicitor to send threatening letters".It does not mean that they have served a writ (though they may have done). tim Try this story then: BBC: Developer defends writ decision A developer who issued writs against people who have yet to complete on apartments they booked at the time of the housing boom has defended the move.Barry Gilligan, who owns Big Picture Developments, said they had signed contracts for apartments, but failed to meet the deadline to complete the deal. and a second developer too.... PBN Property Limited , who built the Woodlands Manor development at Stockman's Way in Belfast, is also suing clients who have not completed on contracted sales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fozman71 Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Luxury flat row goes in to court PROPERTY, buyers being sued over outstanding contracts to buy apartments are now beginning to complete on deals, the High Court heard yesterday. Writs were issued against more than 20 people who booked flats on the site of the old Ormeau Bakery in South Belfast. Following the commencement of proceedings by Big Picture Developments, a judge was told that at least three clients were now close to completing the transactions. However, lawyers for more than 10 others confirmed their intention to file counterclaims in a bid to win back deposits paid out. It is understood those close to completing were not offered reduced prices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lurker07 Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 But house prices are on the up surely?? cue kenny rogers...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piece of paper Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Good to see this on the front page of the BBC news site today. p-o-p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonriver Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Try this story then: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8237366.stm The quote from the developer in that article has a good point here "In all the time I have been developing, I have never had a situation where I sold someone an apartment for £150,000, they sold it on for £250,000 and they have come back to me and said here is £50,000 back, thank you very much. The "inverstors" buying these places seem to forget they were gambling on the property market. There is no point complaining when their "investment" goes down, None of them would of complained if they had gone up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xux42 Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 The "inverstors" buying these places seem to forget they were gambling on the property market. Well surely not all of them? 4 things strike me about this affair. 1. Why don't the buyers who have the full purchase price just buy it and take the 'loss' on the chin? 2. Why don't the buyers who have lots of equity so can still raise a mortgage for the balance just buy it and take the 'loss' on the chin? 3. What's the deposit for if not to prevent people from walking away? Why wasn't it high enough, e.g. £100k on a £300k flat to cover the largest feasible price drop? 4. If the deposits were large and the construction costs less than the current value of the properties, why doesn't the developer just shrug, keep the deposits and sell for a small profit? Why fund blood sucking lawyers instead? Just feels like people make things really complicated and aggravating because they have to be seen to be a 'winner' and never a 'loser'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingsgate Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Well surely not all of them? 4 things strike me about this affair. 1. Why don't the buyers who have the full purchase price just buy it and take the 'loss' on the chin? 2. Why don't the buyers who have lots of equity so can still raise a mortgage for the balance just buy it and take the 'loss' on the chin? 3. What's the deposit for if not to prevent people from walking away? Why wasn't it high enough, e.g. £100k on a £300k flat to cover the largest feasible price drop? 4. If the deposits were large and the construction costs less than the current value of the properties, why doesn't the developer just shrug, keep the deposits and sell for a small profit? Why fund blood sucking lawyers instead? Just feels like people make things really complicated and aggravating because they have to be seen to be a 'winner' and never a 'loser'. 1. Because no-one wants to lose money if there is any way that they can afford it. 2. See 1. 3. The deposit is a down-payment to show that the buyer is serious and committed. The reason it isn't much higher is that most people are getting mortgages when they buy, and they cannot get the mortgage money until completion, so wouldn't be able to afford a 33% deposit. 4. Because they did their maths based on the intended sale price. They then signed a binding contract to sell the apartments to the buyers for a price both were happy with. Why should they have to lose out now? The buyer has committed legally to buy for the agreed price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.