Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Executive Sadman

How's This For Pain? Buy Off Plan And Pay 67K When You Can't Complete

Recommended Posts

How many people actually end up paying before their local MP intervenes, congratulates them on their idiocy, and gets the taxpayer to cough up instead?

I would love it if thousands of morons were bankrupted and on the streets because of their own stupidity and greed, but i just cant see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ouch.

So because he's unable to secure a mortgage he's now got to pay compensation. Has the nice judge organised a bank loan for this individual to pay the compensation. I would assume that this person hasn't got any significant assets and will now have to declare bankruptcy meaning the developer still doesn't get any money.

How many banks are going to give a personal for £67k?

You do wonder about the sanity of judges and what reality they live in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ouch.

So because he's unable to secure a mortgage he's now got to pay compensation. Has the nice judge organised a bank loan for this individual to pay the compensation. I would assume that this person hasn't got any significant assets and will now have to declare bankruptcy meaning the developer still doesn't get any money.

How many banks are going to give a personal for £67k?

You do wonder about the sanity of judges and what reality they live in.

Rarely do I agree with judges, but I might do in this case.

He had agreed to buy the flat, so he has to complete. He is getting out and paying suitable compensation for breaking the contract.

And the judge cant really take into account whether he can pay or not, that is irrelevant. There is a principle here that is important. If you let someone off because they say that they are a bit hard up, suddenly loads more people become a tad hard up as well. He will have the opportunity to go bankrupt of course, if his income is not sufficient to make inroads on his debts.

And if the developer didnt credit check the client when they made the contract, that is tough on them. No taxpayer compensation should be due under any circumstances for this sort of debacle.

The only element of doubt is whether the buyer actually understood that they were contractually obliged to pay the whole amount, rather than putting down a deposit, which would have been the only thing at risk. I can imagine how some could legitimately be duped by such a ploy, and I hope that the judge was satisfied that the risk the buyer was taken was made absolutely clear with this contract.

That said, we all know he was trying to make a fast buck. Well he was looking for a mug to sell on to, and couldnt find one. And when you are looking for a mug and you cannot see one, then its you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rarely do I agree with judges, but I might do in this case.

He had agreed to buy the flat, so he has to complete. He is getting out and paying suitable compensation for breaking the contract.

And the judge cant really take into account whether he can pay or not, that is irrelevant. There is a principle here that is important. If you let someone off because they say that they are a bit hard up, suddenly loads more people become a tad hard up as well. He will have the opportunity to go bankrupt of course, if his income is not sufficient to make inroads on his debts.

And if the developer didnt credit check the client when they made the contract, that is tough on them. No taxpayer compensation should be due under any circumstances for this sort of debacle.

The only element of doubt is whether the buyer actually understood that they were contractually obliged to pay the whole amount, rather than putting down a deposit, which would have been the only thing at risk. I can imagine how some could legitimately be duped by such a ploy, and I hope that the judge was satisfied that the risk the buyer was taken was made absolutely clear with this contract.

+1

If you exchange without a mortgage, you are gambling.

Sometimes, gamblers lose.

That said, we all know he was trying to make a fast buck. Well he was looking for a mug to sell on to, and couldnt find one. And when you are looking for a mug and you cannot see one, then its you.

+ 10

If he had found a greater mug to sell to, would he be weeping over the negative equity the mug was now in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

If you exchange without a mortgage, you are gambling.

Sometimes, gamblers lose.

Aren't the solicitors there to stop the gambling, surely they should be advising the seller the buyer hasn't got a mortgage so don't exchange until they can complete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't the solicitors there to stop the gambling, surely they should be advising the seller the buyer hasn't got a mortgage so don't exchange until they can complete?

The sols should advice the seller of this, but also that they are protected by the deposit and by the contract. As we have seen. Presumably, they were desperate to get shot to their greater fool.

The buyer's sol should advise him of the risk that he may not be able to complete and could lose his deposit and be sued, but is the buyer's choice at the end of the day. Presumably, he was blinded by greed and the belief that you can't go wrong with probertee.

Of course, there were some Irish Sols who were part of the scam...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While this may be according to the law, it is not justice. The developer speculated as much as the buyer in this scenario, yet the buyer is taking all the pain and the developer gets guaranteed a peak price for their flat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While this may be according to the law, it is not justice. The developer speculated as much as the buyer in this scenario, yet the buyer is taking all the pain and the developer gets guaranteed a peak price for their flat.

The developer was taking the risk until the speculator took the risk on.

If the market had gone up, would the developer have got more money at completion?

Of course not. They had disposed of the risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The developer was taking the risk until the speculator took the risk on.

If the market had gone up, would the developer have got more money at completion?

Of course not. They had disposed of the risk.

Absolutely right. The developer had the risk until they signed the contract. They then had a counterparty risk, but that is far better than having the risk of no counterparty.

The developer doesnt seem to have done as well out of this as they might. I bet that flat isnt worth what the judge valued it at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While this may be according to the law, it is not justice. The developer speculated as much as the buyer in this scenario, yet the buyer is taking all the pain and the developer gets guaranteed a peak price for their flat.

Not in the slightest .. Yes this is a slightly complicated concept to explain to people .. and to say that people did not understand what they were getting into is wrong .. A neighbour of ours was complaining to Mrs Sheddweller a few years ago when they were buying their THREE off plan flats that they had to have a meeting with a solicitor LASTING two hours and all the guy did was "Bang on and on about how they would still have to pay if prices fell .. as if that was likely to happen !!!"

I believe they also had to sign a statement saying that they had sufficient funds to compleat ..

Buying off plan is a very risky buisness and the people who do it are aware of the risks, I think this fellow has got off quite lightly .. the judge has allowed him to have the funds he owes at 5% when in fact given the risk they should be at the 15 % the developer wanted. Additionally reading betweenthe lines as long as this fellow pays the developers £1000 a month or so they will be happy to lend him the balance at 5%.

The judge could have not acepted the valuation and ordered the flat sold at auction without reserve .. and the bill would have been way more than £52K!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noticed that they are now back to be called flats though?>>>

I bet they were marketed as executive apartments first. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but he was are going to make 67k without actually having to buy it ... do you know nothing about investing in off-plan properdee :lol::lol: here's how it's done 1. put down a deposit, 2. wait for six months 3. sell for 67k profit. Go back to 1.

Leverage...powerful on the way, even more so on the way down.

ask any bank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROFL, Darwinism in action!

I don't have any sympathy for the flat owner, he entered into a contract and should have to honour it!

Yes, essentially he has done no different to somebody who bought an already completed flat and then found that it had subsequently fallen in value. He would still be contractually obliged to pay what he had agreed to pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a bad fake its laughable. At about 30secs the video has clearly been edited - I presume to remove the lift car and install a mattress

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1318802/Korean-man-wheelchair-falls-death-missing-lift.html

I know, it just looks too surreal, especially how easy the lift doors seem to fall off.

Reported in the Mail and I think it was also picked up by the Metro, but I've not found any mention of it anywhere else on news sites.

Edited by interestrateripoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

?

You do wonder about the sanity of judges and what reality they live in.

Knee jerk reaction.

Unless he goes bankrupt, this debt will last as long as the developer keeps reminding him of it.

Who is to say that he may not become well off in the coming years, receive a large legacy etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No mention of whether the defendant has any other assets if not then the temptation is to go bankrupt, the plaintiff can take a run and jump.

You can only go bankrupt if you do not have enough assets and income after your living expenses have been taken into account, to pay back the debt and interest. If interest is mounting up quicker than you can pay it back, and there is no realistic prospect of an increase in income (say if you were a junior doctor, you might expect that you income would be rising soon), then you can go bankrupt.

There is a fair chance that this person might well be able to pay this debt, in which case bankruptcy isnt an option.

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 285 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.