Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
koala_bear

Bbc: Titanic Quarter Builder Can't Force Man To Pay For Flat

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11094950

"A man who had agreed to buy a flat in Belfast's Titanic Quarter cannot be forced to honour the contract as he has no money, the High Court has ruled.

Neil Rowe, from Belfast, agreed in 2007 to buy a flat at the Arc complex.

He has since lost his job and cannot get a mortgage, but the developer was seeking a court order to make him pay.

Mr Justice Deeny refused to grant the order, ruling that Mr Rowe had "a clearly arguable case" that it would be impossible for him to pay.

However, the developer will retain Mr Rowe's deposit of £26,000 on the £264,500 flat. He may also have to pay damages of up to £30,000 to compensate the developer for breach of contract.

The developer is Titanic Quarter Ltd which is owned by Harcourt Developments Ltd, a company controlled by Donegal developer Pat Doherty."

This should add some more stress on the developers and potentially sets an interesting president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11094950

"A man who had agreed to buy a flat in Belfast's Titanic Quarter cannot be forced to honour the contract as he has no money, the High Court has ruled.

Neil Rowe, from Belfast, agreed in 2007 to buy a flat at the Arc complex.

He has since lost his job and cannot get a mortgage, but the developer was seeking a court order to make him pay.

Mr Justice Deeny refused to grant the order, ruling that Mr Rowe had "a clearly arguable case" that it would be impossible for him to pay.

However, the developer will retain Mr Rowe's deposit of £26,000 on the £264,500 flat. He may also have to pay damages of up to £30,000 to compensate the developer for breach of contract.

The developer is Titanic Quarter Ltd which is owned by Harcourt Developments Ltd, a company controlled by Donegal developer Pat Doherty."

This should add some more stress on the developers and potentially sets an interesting president.

Titanic Quarter-all will be lost I tell ye.

Edited by tomwatkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This should add some more stress on the developers and potentially sets an interesting president.

I think this could be seen as good for the developer, n'est pas?! They can keep the deposit (26k) and collect the damages (30k) sell the property at just over 200k and break even ... or am I looking at it from a too simplistic point of view??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11094950

"A man who had agreed to buy a flat in Belfast's Titanic Quarter cannot be forced to honour the contract as he has no money, the High Court has ruled.

Neil Rowe, from Belfast, agreed in 2007 to buy a flat at the Arc complex.

He has since lost his job and cannot get a mortgage, but the developer was seeking a court order to make him pay.

Mr Justice Deeny refused to grant the order, ruling that Mr Rowe had "a clearly arguable case" that it would be impossible for him to pay.

However, the developer will retain Mr Rowe's deposit of £26,000 on the £264,500 flat. He may also have to pay damages of up to £30,000 to compensate the developer for breach of contract.

The developer is Titanic Quarter Ltd which is owned by Harcourt Developments Ltd, a company controlled by Donegal developer Pat Doherty."

This should add some more stress on the developers and potentially sets an interesting president.

Obama perhaps?

Edited by tomwatkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this could be seen as good for the developer, n'est pas?! They can keep the deposit (26k) and collect the damages (30k) sell the property at just over 200k and break even ... or am I looking at it from a too simplistic point of view??

Scrub that - I have seen the problem ... in that there is no way they will manage to get even 200k in the current climate.

Note to self - think for a moment before posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe by using a big word the judge somehow thinks it will slip through unchallenged. The decision is daft. I had never heard of the word but it means having no money basically. So everybody that enters in to a contract, with no money, gets off scot free? Don't think so. The fact that your circumstances change after you enter in to the contract means sod all as far as I am concerned. Anybody?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh you've got to be kidding me! They called it 'The Titanic Quarter'. :lol:

It's going down baby. Nobody can stem the tide of foreclosurers. The developer needs a stern talking to as well. Was this a POSH development? "man the lifeboats!!" (forgot there isn't enough) Just thought I would get a few in to start the ball rolling here.

Edited by tomwatkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this could be seen as good for the developer, n'est pas?! They can keep the deposit (26k) and collect the damages (30k) sell the property at just over 200k and break even ... or am I looking at it from a too simplistic point of view??

Whether the developers get the damages (and if so how much) is yet to be decided at another hearing, the max has been set at 30k.

There is a long queue of others waiting to try and do the same for the TQ development, and plenty of other Belfast/NI developments where the same is happening.

If they sell for a lower price it puts a valuation in stone and they also need to find someone willing to buy it as well.

Also the spec. on the apartments was allegedly altered (down graded) after people had signed up so the lawyers will be kept busy for a long time yet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe by using a big word the judge somehow thinks it will slip through unchallenged. The decision is daft. I had never heard of the word but it means having no money basically. So everybody that enters in to a contract, with no money, gets off scot free? Don't think so. The fact that your circumstances change after you enter in to the contract means sod all as far as I am concerned. Anybody?

The next step is bankrupcy I would imagine - and under such a scenario it might be that the deposit etc would be seized and possibly given to other creditors.

As for not being able to finish a contract due to circumstance beyond your control - yes, that should cancel all contracts. Impossibile to finish contracts which are forcibly pursued anyway seems like a daft idea to me. If a freak wind blew the house down it'd be called off, why would a freak economic condition be any different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh you've got to be kidding me! They called it 'The Titanic Quarter'. :lol:

yes, its on a Sink Estate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe by using a big word the judge somehow thinks it will slip through unchallenged. The decision is daft. I had never heard of the word but it means having no money basically. So everybody that enters in to a contract, with no money, gets off scot free? Don't think so. The fact that your circumstances change after you enter in to the contract means sod all as far as I am concerned. Anybody?

he didnt get off scot free.

he was able to withdraw from the contract. he still is paying the deposit and can be sued for the loss of profits.

its a sensible decision...indeed, had the judge gone further and said the contract was void, then the "investor" would be dancing in the streets and developers would be soiling their undies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe by using a big word the judge somehow thinks it will slip through unchallenged. The decision is daft. I had never heard of the word but it means having no money basically. So everybody that enters in to a contract, with no money, gets off scot free? Don't think so. The fact that your circumstances change after you enter in to the contract means sod all as far as I am concerned. Anybody?

This is fairly standard - the court won't make an order that can't be complied with. Doesn't mean the liability has disappeared, just that the contract won't be forced to completion as originally intended. The developer will get its judgment for whatever amount, and then probably flog it for a fraction to a debt recovery company who will hound this guy for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This judgement will be good news for all the "Off Plan" investors (Pan Peninsular and so on). Can wriggle out of their contracts if they can persuade the judge they are penniless.

Edited by Sir John Steed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh you've got to be kidding me! They called it 'The Titanic Quarter'. :lol:

Are the investors already underwater?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This judgement will be good news for all the "Off Plan" investors (Pan Peninsular and so on). Can wriggle out of their contracts if they can persuade the judge they are penniless.

no, they havent wriggled out of their contracts, they have been told they can break them.

which,of course, is a basic human right.

they will still be liable for penalties under the contract for breach...so they will lose their deposits and can be persued for damages, ie the builder can seek recompense for loss of profits, costs of persual, to make him "whole" again.

The builder is of course now free to sell the plots....he wasnt free to do so before becuase the very same contract tied HIM too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The next step is bankrupcy I would imagine - and under such a scenario it might be that the deposit etc would be seized and possibly given to other creditors.

As for not being able to finish a contract due to circumstance beyond your control - yes, that should cancel all contracts. Impossibile to finish contracts which are forcibly pursued anyway seems like a daft idea to me. If a freak wind blew the house down it'd be called off, why would a freak economic condition be any different?

I think that' stretching a point. One (house blowing down) I would agree negates the contract as it can't possibly be enforced. An economic circumstance can change daily surely? The guy could win the lottery or, even, get a job. To negate contracts on affordability is a slippery slope and not just for houses. The repucussions for the Law of Contract are what bothers me. You don't like a contract? Put the money in your Missus's name and say you are skint. Nope I think this is open to challenge despite Mlud. The fact that you have no chance of collecting the money (at this moment anyway) shouldn't negate the fact that the developer should at least get judgment for his money. The fact that it is a developer (which gives me some delight) shouldn't cloud the issue.

Edited by tomwatkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that' stretching a point. One (house blowing down) I would agree negates the contract as it can't possibly be enforced. An economic circumstance can change daily surely? The guy could win the lottery or, even, get a job. To negate contracts on affordability is a slippery slope and not just for houses. The repucussions for the Law of Contract are what bothers me. You don't like a contract? Put the money in your Missus's name and say you are skint. Nope I think this is open to challenge despite Mlud. The fact that you have no chance of collecting the money (at this moment anyway) shouldn't negate the fact that the developer should at least get judgment for his money. The fact that it is a developer (which gives me some delight) shouldn't cloud the issue.

no. he isnt being forced to complete. anyone can break any contract. Its called breach of contract....the developers were demanding there could be no breach. thats nonsense.

the court agrees.

Edited by Bloo Loo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that' stretching a point. One (house blowing down) I would agree negates the contract as it can't possibly be enforced.

Of course it can be enforced - you can force them to rebuild the house.

An economic circumstance can change daily surely?

liek you didn't know that when signing the contract. Pfft.

The guy could win the lottery or, even, get a job. To negate contracts on affordability is a slippery slope and not just for houses. The repucussions for the Law of Contract are what bothers me. You don't like a contract? Put the money in your Missus's name and say you are skint.

You can check that everythign reasonable has been done to fulfill you know. Stuff like "my missus has just suddenyl acquired a house" is easy to check.

Nope I think this is open to challenge despite Mlud. The fact that you have no chance of collecting the money (at this moment anyway) shouldn't negate the fact that the developer should at least get judgment for his money. The fact that it is a developer (which gives me some delight) shouldn't cloud the issue.

It doesn't.

Contract is for a date and time. it failed due to circumstances beyond anyones control. I fail to see how it;s different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 144 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.