# Builders sue buyers to complete contracts



## Brendan Burgess (15 Mar 2009)

Mark Tighe has an article in page 5 of today's Sunday Times. (Anyone able to find a link?) .

Over 100 buyers have been served with writs to complete their contracts. 

Laragan Developments account for 40 of these. 

Separately, 25 buyers are planning legal action against Laragan to get their deposits back because of the delay in finishing the apartments. 

Brendan


----------



## Chocks away (15 Mar 2009)

Hi, this I found earlier.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article5908617.ece


----------



## CCOVICH (15 Mar 2009)

I wonder have any of the banks who financed Laragan written down/off their debts?


----------



## Senna (15 Mar 2009)

Buyer being served is along way from being legally forced to complete.  I'd rather be in the buyers situation than the developers, developers are just panicking and hoping some will complete under an idle threat.


----------



## Bronte (16 Mar 2009)

Maybe the court will agree that the building being late by 1 year is not a 'reasonable delay.'

If they've changed the method of construction would that be grounds for breaking the contract if it's specified in the contract the method of construction is not precast.

Also wonder would Laragan's bank be willing to give the mortgages to the buyers who now do not have mortgage approval.


----------



## Meathman99 (16 Mar 2009)

I wonder would any of these purchasers be willing to complete even if the money was available?


----------



## foxylady (16 Mar 2009)

Meathman99 said:


> I wonder would any of these purchasers be willing to complete even if the money was available?


 
Do you think these people *should* complete after being made to wait so long and having their lives put on hold for almost 3 years ?


----------



## Meathman99 (16 Mar 2009)

I think that if the price had increased by 30% over the period this wouldnt be an issue


----------



## foxylady (16 Mar 2009)

Meathman99 said:


> I think that if the price had increased by 30% over the period this wouldnt be an issue


 

I think you are very wrong there in saying that as nobody should have to wait for years for their house/apt to be built


----------



## Meathman99 (16 Mar 2009)

Of course nobody should have to wait that long.  Many properties were sold off the plans during the boom.  This was acceptable then as the value of the property was increasing.  Investers were flipping properties.   If this were still the case I doubt too many people would be compaining


----------



## foxylady (16 Mar 2009)

Meathman99 said:


> Of course nobody should have to wait that long. Many properties were sold off the plans during the boom. This was acceptable then as the value of the property was increasing. Investers were flipping properties. If this were still the case I doubt too many people would be compaining


 
People are complaining about being strung along for years and having no protection with regards to the contract not the fact that the prices have dropped, not that this probbly helps matters either, but thats not the issue.


----------



## askalot (16 Mar 2009)

Meathman99 said:


> I think that if the price had increased by 30% over the period this wouldnt be an issue



Probably not but in that situation they would also be able to get mortgage approval.


----------



## Bronte (17 Mar 2009)

Meathman99 said:


> Of course nobody should have to wait that long. Many properties were sold off the plans during the boom. This was acceptable then as the value of the property was increasing. Investers were flipping properties. If this were still the case I doubt too many people would be compaining


 
Not everybody, even investors, thought that buying off plan was a good idea even if property prices were increasing.


----------



## vivinne (17 Mar 2009)

Senna said:


> Buyer being served is along way from being legally forced to complete.  I'd rather be in the buyers situation than the developers, developers are just panicking and hoping some will complete under an idle threat.



I second that. Developers have very big problems.


----------



## foxylady (17 Mar 2009)

vivinne said:


> I second that. Developers have very big problems.


 
Nothing they dont deserve IMO


----------



## Nalah (17 Mar 2009)

foxylady said:


> Nothing they dont deserve IMO



Just remember that their losses are usually capped by limited  liability - a developer can remain personally solvent even if his 'investment vehicle' is possibly insolvent (as a certain developer recently profiled in the New York Times admitted)


----------



## mf1 (17 Mar 2009)

They may well have personal guarantees. 

mf


----------



## mf1 (17 Mar 2009)

Would it be fair to say ( all comments welcome) that most of the difficult cases have come through to this stage? 

I've asked around lawyer colleagues and what I am hearing is that a lot of developers have either cut their losses and done deals or were fortunate enough to complete before it all hit the fan. Others have been left with property that may not shift but at least there is no disgruntled purchaser left hanging out. 

Does anyone know what developers have actually issued proceedings against contractually bound purchasers? I know Laragan have - there is a list of summons on the courts.ie website. Who else has issued proceedings?

Have any purchasers actually issued proceedings to recover deposits where the completion date has passed? 

mf


----------



## Vanilla (17 Mar 2009)

I know of none at all coming on at present and have a few developer clients. Any of the equity cases I have are private client-v- private client.


----------



## foxylady (17 Mar 2009)

mf1 said:


> Would it be fair to say ( all comments welcome) that most of the difficult cases have come through to this stage?
> 
> I've asked around lawyer colleagues and what I am hearing is that a lot of developers have either cut their losses and done deals or were fortunate enough to complete before it all hit the fan. Others have been left with property that may not shift but at least there is no disgruntled purchaser left hanging out.
> 
> ...


 
I think there are several purchasers pursuing Laragan for their deposits


----------



## MrMan (17 Mar 2009)

foxylady said:


> Nothing they dont deserve IMO


 they sold a product to a willing public who showed great desire to consume their product which created many wealthy people in the process, while I don't share your jealousy I understand it.


----------



## Bronte (18 Mar 2009)

MrMan I don't think foxylady is jealous, she is in the unfortunate situation of being tied into a building contract with a developer who has gone way beyond completion date and has currently ceased building altogether and will not release her from the contract and she apparently has no legal remedies to get out of it.


----------



## DeeFox (18 Mar 2009)

I think Solicitors seem to be getting off very lightly here - the dangers of signing a contract without a firm and legally binding completion date should have been highlighted to prospective purchasers.  This really is a situation with no winners.


----------



## foxylady (18 Mar 2009)

MrMan said:


> they sold a product to a willing public who showed great desire to consume their product which created many wealthy people in the process, while I don't share your jealousy I understand it.


 

Yeah Mr Man I am so jealous  and thats why I am complaining nothing to do with my life being put on hold for the last 3 years with no end in sight


----------



## Nalah (18 Mar 2009)

mf1 said:


> They may well have personal guarantees.
> 
> mf




that's why I used 'usually'; I can't help thinking that if builders had to put up more of their own cash things would never have got out of hand so much (thinking here of the Ulster Bank employee how called up Lord Ballsbridge in Thailand and offered to fund his 'Grand Projet'); 100% mortgages for consumers weren't the only problem. 

The Anglo 10 were not the only people given one way bets by the banks.


----------



## Bronte (18 Mar 2009)

DeeFox said:


> I think Solicitors seem to be getting off very lightly here - the dangers of signing a contract without a firm and legally binding completion date should have been highlighted to prospective purchasers.


Apparently these dangers were well pointed out to prospective purchasers who nevertheless signed on the dotted line.........


----------



## foxylady (18 Mar 2009)

Bronte said:


> Apparently these dangers were well pointed out to prospective purchasers who nevertheless signed on the dotted line.........


 

Not to me they werent as I wouldnt have signed if they were.


----------



## mf1 (18 Mar 2009)

My clients often say to me that even though they were told about something, that unless the something happened, that, frankly, they were not listening / or reading. 

When it did happen, their first reaction tends to be - no-one ever told me that, I never saw that -( as in, patently, someone else must surely be responsible  ) and then when the copy letter is produced, they say but should'nt you have made this far more clear to me ( again, someone else must surely be responsible). 

What has happened our economy is  shocking and, regrettably, consumers are caught in  the crossfire. That is what happens in a recession/depression. I don't know  that anyone thought things would get quite as bad . I also don't know if it is possible for any solicitor to adequately set out the myriad problems that could potentially arise in your even bog standard conveyancing transaction. 

I'm sure there are lots of rubbish solicitors who never pointed out any of the potential pitfalls to any of their clients but, equally, more do. 

Does any responsibility lie with purchasers for purchasing off plans? Should they themselves have thought of any of the "what - ifs"?

mf

At least with a second hand property, what you see is what you get.


----------



## foxylady (18 Mar 2009)

mf1 said:


> My clients often say to me that even though they were told about something, that unless the something happened, that, frankly, they were not listening / or reading.
> 
> When it did happen, their first reaction tends to be - no-one ever told me that, I never saw that -( as in, patently, someone else must surely be responsible ) and then when the copy letter is produced, they say but should'nt you have made this far more clear to me ( again, someone else must surely be responsible).
> 
> ...


 

In our case we asked if everything was tickety boo and were told yes it was standard contract as for asking what if questions, who the hell ask " what if this isnt built in 3 years time when buying their first place"


----------



## mf1 (18 Mar 2009)

I don't know who asks? 

I'm just asking though. What about the what-ifs?

mf


----------



## samanthajane (18 Mar 2009)

A 3 year wait for your house thats crazy, I think it's a disgrace they are trying to make you go ahead with it.

When we purchased out house it was also off the plans and i enquired about how long untill it would be ready to move into. In our contract it stated that the builder had 18 months from the date we signed to finish the house, if 18 months had gone by and no house then we were entitled to pull out and receive our full deposit back. 

I dont see the builders getting very far with this, how can they force someone to complete on the sale if they have no mortgage approval? I can understand why people with mortgage approval want to get out now and why the builders want them to go ahead,( but still 3 years is way to long ) but whats the point in chasing someone for something they simply dont have.


----------



## foxylady (18 Mar 2009)

samanthajane said:


> A 3 year wait for your house thats crazy, I think it's a disgrace they are trying to make you go ahead with it.
> 
> When we purchased out house it was also off the plans and i enquired about how long untill it would be ready to move into. In our contract it stated that the builder had 18 months from the date we signed to finish the house, if 18 months had gone by and no house then we were entitled to pull out and receive our full deposit back.
> 
> I dont see the builders getting very far with this, how can they force someone to complete on the sale if they have no mortgage approval? I can understand why people with mortgage approval want to get out now and why the builders want them to go ahead,( but still 3 years is way to long ) but whats the point in chasing someone for something they simply dont have.


 

It wont be 3 yrs till the summer but building has stopped and the wya things have panned out with the development it could b another 3 years


----------



## samanthajane (18 Mar 2009)

oh so it could be 6 years!!!! even better. So are any of the houses complete?

Either way i wouldn't be too keen in moving into a place where only a few are finished and the rest is a building site. How are you meant to live like that.


----------



## samanthajane (18 Mar 2009)

foxylady are you sure you cant get out of this. Is it just that the builder will let you out of your contract but wont give your deposit back? Or that he wont let you out at all and is saying "when" the property is finished you have to give over the remaining amount left outstanding.

I find it impossible to believe ( although not doubting your story) that any contract could allow for nearly 3 years of a wait and possibly more considering building has stopped. ( if the builders i had thought they could get away with any time frame they never would of put the 18 month limit in the contract) 

Mrman made a comment "they sold a product to a willing public" but they haven't actually dont this yet, the house isn't sold. For the house to be sold all transaction have to be complete......this is cleary not the case.


----------



## foxylady (18 Mar 2009)

samanthajane said:


> foxylady are you sure you cant get out of this. Is it just that the builder will let you out of your contract but wont give your deposit back? Or that he wont let you out at all and is saying "when" the property is finished you have to give over the remaining amount left outstanding.
> 
> I find it impossible to believe ( although not doubting your story) that any contract could allow for nearly 3 years of a wait and possibly more considering building has stopped. ( if the builders i had thought they could get away with any time frame they never would of put the 18 month limit in the contract)
> 
> Mrman made a comment "they sold a product to a willing public" but they haven't actually dont this yet, the house isn't sold. For the house to be sold all transaction have to be complete......this is cleary not the case.


 

I am very sure, our last option is the court route, we served comp notice and everything, also offered them to keep our 15k deposit but nada. Its an abolsute disgrace to think they can get away with this, and your right there is no way I would live on a building site


----------



## MrMan (18 Mar 2009)

foxylady said:


> Yeah Mr Man I am so jealous  and thats why I am complaining nothing to do with my life being put on hold for the last 3 years with no end in sight


 
Well then you must be upset with one developer and not developers in general which was where I was coming from. I don't understand the whole 'i'm delighted developers are losing everything' stance because that takes a very narrow view imo


----------



## MrMan (18 Mar 2009)

> Mrman made a comment "they sold a product to a willing public" but they haven't actually dont this yet, the house isn't sold. For the house to be sold all transaction have to be complete......this is cleary not the case.


 
My comment was about developers in general and it still makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## bond-007 (18 Mar 2009)

What if these buyers that are being sued to complete cannot obtain the funds needed? Surely blood and stones comes to mind? What is the builder trying to achieve?

I see Laragan have 20 cases in the high court at the moment. If the defendant has no money what do Laragan expect to obtain?


----------



## foxylady (18 Mar 2009)

MrMan said:


> Well then you must be upset with one developer and not developers in general which was where I was coming from. I don't understand the whole 'i'm delighted developers are losing everything' stance because that takes a very narrow view imo


 

My comment was about the developer who the article in paper was written about.


----------



## Bronte (20 Mar 2009)

foxylady said:


> Not to me they werent as I wouldnt have signed if they were.


 Just a thought, and it's a long shot, would you have any grounds against the solicitor that didn't point out the risks of what you were getting into.  But then again it's buyer beware and personal responsibility to check what you are buying and how would you prove it in any case.


----------



## foxylady (20 Mar 2009)

Bronte said:


> Just a thought, and it's a long shot, would you have any grounds against the solicitor that didn't point out the risks of what you were getting into. But then again it's buyer beware and personal responsibility to check what you are buying and how would you prove it in any case.


 
I seriously doubt it , considering the things that people in power get away with in this country. AT the min I just want the apt saga sorted then I will worry about the solicitor  element of it after.


----------



## curiously (20 Mar 2009)

I'm astonished at the naievity of so many people in this country. IMHO this was borne out of a greed to make easy money. Property was the easiest game in town and we were all so damn smart! This led to home owners being forced to compete with the amateur investor and while I have a small degree of sympathy what in gods name was wrong with renting? This post will be deleted if not edited immediately, 3 years ago it was blindingly obvious the end was near yet still people piled into property with both feet..... to this day I am astonished.


----------



## Dublingirlie (24 Mar 2009)

Does anyone know if any of the cases have actually been ruled on yet. I am in the same predicament where contract expires very shortly and have not received any completion notice yet. Also I imagine the valuation will be significantly lower than the original contract price I signed and therefore my mortgage will not be sufficient.
In addition, this apartment was sold to me as part of a complex with restaurant, shops and pub but given the market out there currently, I find it hard to believe that anyone will take up these leases and therefore there will be limited facilities in the area. Is it possible to pull out on this basis?
My solicitor did not mention any issues when I was signing the contract. I know of someone else who signed up to the same contract suing him for lack of duty of care but I think that one would be very difficult to prove.


----------



## mf1 (24 Mar 2009)

I don't know of any cases that have been heard in open court yet. All the info is purely anecdotal. 

You are in an unfortunate position. This is the kind of unforeseen set of circumstances that happens to people when bubbles burst.  

You agreed to buy a house/apartment - to be a part of a complex. Most of the issues   you mention are simply magnified by the recession - they are not in themselves a justifiable reason for not completing but then I assume you know that. 

I am a practising solicitor - I say that as I am about to ask you why you you are hinting at the idea that perhaps you can apportion blame on your solicitor. If they should have anticipated these cataclysmic times do you think that perhaps you also might have done so? 

Its not what you want to hear but better to say it now than for someone else to perhaps allow you to consider the option of suing a solicitor as the potion for your ills. Perhaps they are entirely to blame.


mf


----------



## Bronte (25 Mar 2009)

Dublingirlie said:


> In addition, this apartment was sold to me as part of a complex with restaurant, shops and pub but given the market out there currently, I find it hard to believe that anyone will take up these leases and therefore there will be limited facilities in the area. Is it possible to pull out on this basis?


  I don't know the answer to this but let's say you had purchased and all those facilities were in place it is entirely possible that they would currently be closing down due to lack of business.


----------



## carrickingup (2 Apr 2009)

The fact of the matter is that being strung along for three years meant you could not get money to buy. If the timeframe was two years, there would have been a far better chance to get a loan and purchase. Laragan are being virulent in chasing people through the courts. And the costs for the 'buyer' are huge. This is a disaster for many people.


----------



## carrickingup (2 Apr 2009)

I am being sued by Laragan even though Carrickmines took three years to complete and they know I can't get a penny. I see one or two apts there being offered - new - for around 300k. They were 440k when I bought. The absolutely frightening thing is that court action will cost me - and any of you in the same boat - 50 to 80k. Why can't people band together, use the one solicitor, barrister and stand up to this? Or does anyone have any idea of what is best to do? Is three years excessive? The excuses, by the way, were bad weather and too much rock.


----------



## Bronte (2 Apr 2009)

carrickingup said:


> I am being sued by Laragan even though Carrickmines took three years to complete and they know I can't get a penny. I see one or two apts there being offered - new - for around 300k. They were 440k when I bought. The absolutely frightening thing is that court action will cost me - and any of you in the same boat - 50 to 80k. Why can't people band together, use the one solicitor, barrister and stand up to this? Or does anyone have any idea of what is best to do? Is three years excessive? The excuses, by the way, were bad weather and too much rock.


 Can you clarify your post.  Are you being sued to complete?  Why can't you complete?


----------



## bond-007 (2 Apr 2009)

No money. He has already said that.


> If the timeframe was two years, there would have been a far better chance to get a loan and purchase.





> they know I can't get a penny


----------



## dtwhaler (2 Apr 2009)

I dont see how a solicitor can be to blame ? People knew most of the risks and if they're saying otherwise then I find that hard to believe. Maybe I'm just one of the lucky ones ... our solicitor told us about the less obvious risks and we still wanted to go ahead with a purchase. Even at that point she managed to get some sort of protection built into the contract.

All that said, even with that protection its still been a nightmare trying to get a deposit back through the court system here. Some solicitors just delay and frustrat when they know they dont have a leg to stand on.

Someone mentioned earlier about getting money back from develepors and mentioned getting blood from a stone ...... surely deposits get paid into the vendors solicitors client account and should stay with them until a sale is completed ??


----------



## andycole (2 Apr 2009)

Not always - In my contract a condition states that the deposit is to be handed over to the Contractor (Builder) and is not to be kept by the Solictor. I think some of the threads here in this discussion are all related to the same Builder - so I expect this is the case for everyone who is bought off this builder - who has now gone into examinership this week - 
So as an unsecured creditor - the deposit may be gone.



dtwhaler said:


> Someone mentioned earlier about getting money back from develepors and mentioned getting blood from a stone ...... surely deposits get paid into the vendors solicitors client account and should stay with them until a sale is completed ??


----------



## foxylady (2 Apr 2009)

carrickingup said:


> I am being sued by Laragan even though Carrickmines took three years to complete and they know I can't get a penny. I see one or two apts there being offered - new - for around 300k. They were 440k when I bought. The absolutely frightening thing is that court action will cost me - and any of you in the same boat - 50 to 80k. Why can't people band together, use the one solicitor, barrister and stand up to this? Or does anyone have any idea of what is best to do? Is three years excessive? The excuses, by the way, were bad weather and too much rock.


 
I would definietlely think 3 years is excessive especially being in the same boat , different development and still not completed. These exact excuses were also used for milners square, so iwould say that is all they are.


----------



## foxylady (2 Apr 2009)

dtwhaler said:


> I dont see how a solicitor can be to blame ? People knew most of the risks and if they're saying otherwise then I find that hard to believe.
> 
> I would disagree on this as I thought I was just buying an apartment not buying into an absolute nightmare and was not told of any risks or such by solicitor.


----------



## bond-007 (2 Apr 2009)

If these defendants have no monies available to complete and cannot obtain a mortgage etc, what are the builders hoping to gain by taking them to the High Court? 

Blood and stones comes to mind. 

Perhaps a solicitor would care to explain the rationale here?


----------



## Setanta12 (2 Apr 2009)

I'm not a solicitor but it strikes me if a liquidator was called into a developer - it would be incumbent on them to bring in as much as they could and they couldn't be seen to have one rule for some and another rule for others. 

Also, how does the Developer know for sure that the person cannot afford it ? Take them at their word ? Have them show the Developer a mortgage-refusal letter - the Developer wouldn't know what was sought etc etc.


----------



## AlbacoreA (2 Apr 2009)

If its not in the contract. How long can a developer take to complete something. 5 yrs, 10, 20?


----------



## ben10 (2 Apr 2009)

Foxy, i have spoken to you about this previously in another thread & to be honest i feel you have agreat case at the moment!! Im not a solicitor but if i was to buy a pair of jeans/ furniture/ food i would expect it to be delivered in a timely fashion & this should be the case with buying a home. After all you could feasibly in your second home at this stage if laragans built your apartment on time!!

Developers are being generalised against beacause they are all the same, granted there are some exceptions but most of them have made there millions & are now screwing people for more money!

As foxy knows, i bought an apartment in carrickmines off the plans 3 years ago, when built they had overlooked putting a window in the bathroom which was on the plans. I refused to snag until this was complete. They told me that this was a mistake & there was not supposed to be on the building even though it was on both the brochure & my contract. Initially i was happy to move in if they had put the window in or offered a discount but they basically ignored all correspondants so once the 18 month contract was up I opted to pull out. This was again ignored. It has gotten to the stage where i have had a district court date scheduled a couple of weeks ago, we cancelled this on the notice that the developer was preparing an offer, this offer has not yet been recieved so we are now persuing a date in the circuit court! 

The developer will now have to pay solicitor fees, barristor fees, interest & goodwill payments if i am successful in court when they could have still made the sale albeit for a 5,000 euro discount! All this due to their utter greed!


----------



## AlbacoreA (2 Apr 2009)

Assuming the developer is able to pay it when the time comes.


----------



## ben10 (2 Apr 2009)

in that case the property is bonded, however this will drag on even longer! 
The developer is one of the largest in the company & i would be delighted to see them have to close up after the trouble they have caused me over the last few years, i would not want anyone to experience what i have had to!!!


----------



## bond-007 (2 Apr 2009)

> Assuming the developer is able to pay it when the time comes.


Indeed.


----------



## foxylady (2 Apr 2009)

ben10 said:


> Foxy, i have spoken to you about this previously in another thread & to be honest i feel you have agreat case at the moment!! Im not a solicitor but if i was to buy a pair of jeans/ furniture/ food i would expect it to be delivered in a timely fashion & this should be the case with buying a home. After all you could feasibly in your second home at this stage if laragans built your apartment on time!!
> 
> Developers are being generalised against beacause they are all the same, granted there are some exceptions but most of them have made there millions & are now screwing people for more money!
> 
> ...


 

Are u in court anytime soon as I would love to find out the coutcome. On another note the homebond policys have time limits and in most people cases have lapsed.


----------



## ben10 (2 Apr 2009)

As far as my solicitor is concerned the bond is still effective, the bond is different to the homebond which is a structural insurance usually over 10 years. The bond is to insure against the builder closing up before completion.
I have not yet got a date for the circuit court, though we applied about 2 weeks ago so it should be soon. My solicitor wants me to meet the barrister next week! it just seems to be dragging on & on but i am determined not to allow them get away with this considering they are sueing other buyers for not completing!


----------



## foxylady (2 Apr 2009)

Ben10  
My solicitor said if we took them to court, it would be the high court and would take at least a year to get there if not longer so this kinda put me off as its dragged on long enough. What is the other bond you are talking about?


----------



## carrickingup (2 Apr 2009)

They want me to complete and are suing me because I am claiming three years is a monstrous time to wait and by their delay I have suffered the loss of value in the building.


----------



## mf1 (2 Apr 2009)

"by their delay I have suffered the loss of value in the building. "

I have posted on this thread and similar threads before. I can't help getting the feeling that a lot of "purchasers" just don't get it. Feelings and emotions and random thought processes don't cut it in a Court of Law. The above statement is a classic example of a random thought process: it sounds good, I can appreciate the feeling but there is no basis in law for the statement. It is not a defence to the developers action. It is a " this is not fair" sort of thing. 

I imagine that all of the "purchasers" have probably heard the same advice from their own solicitors but are still hoping that somebody, somewhere is going to get them out of this mess. It is a mess but the best thing to do is to educate yourselves and do your best  in difficult circumstances. The mess is horribly compounded by the global downturn and the financial difficulties of at least one developer. 

mf


----------



## foxylady (2 Apr 2009)

mf1 said:


> "by their delay I have suffered the loss of value in the building. "
> 
> I have posted on this thread and similar threads before. I can't help getting the feeling that a lot of "purchasers" just don't get it. Feelings and emotions and random thought processes don't cut it in a Court of Law. The above statement is a classic example of a random thought process: it sounds good, I can appreciate the feeling but there is no basis in law for the statement. It is not a defence to the developers action. It is a " this is not fair" sort of thing.
> 
> ...


   How do people educate themselves and their best in the scenarios like this where propety is not even built after 3 years and builders going bust, also what exactly does cut it in a court of law when completion dates are completely ignored by the builders along with everything else that doesnt suit them.


----------



## Bronte (3 Apr 2009)

carrickingup said:


> They want me to complete and are suing me because I am claiming three years is a monstrous time to wait and by their delay I have suffered the loss of value in the building.


 Can you clarify if the banks will give you a mortgage, if not why not?  What was in your original contract as to completion date?  I ask this because you seem to be implying that the reason you want out of the contact is because the property value has decreased.


----------



## Bronte (3 Apr 2009)

Bronte said:


> Can you clarify if the banks will give you a mortgage, if not why not? What was in your original contract as to completion date? I ask this because you seem to be implying that the reason you want out of the contact is because the property value has decreased.  What has your solicitor advised you.


----------



## mf1 (3 Apr 2009)

foxylady said:


> How do people educate themselves and their best in the scenarios like this where propety is not even built after 3 years and builders going bust, also what exactly does cut it in a court of law when completion dates are completely ignored by the builders along with everything else that doesnt suit them.



Have you read your contractand building agreement from start to finish? 
Have you highlighted all sections that you need clarification on? Have you asked for clarification? Have you read all the correspondence that has passed between your solicitor and the other side? Do you know and understand the argument(s) ( technical or otherwise) that the developer is using? Do you know the answer to that argument(s)? Do you understand your own contractual position? Do you understand the risks of any legal action? Do you appreciate that it seems your developer is  in financial difficulties and that pressure may be being brought to bear by his financial position? 

Have you tried reading a book specifically on conveyancing and contracts? To truly understand the intricacies? 

Your case seems difficult and that is unfortunate but there is a lot of it around. 

mf


----------



## ben10 (3 Apr 2009)

foxylady said:


> Ben10
> My solicitor said if we took them to court, it would be the high court and would take at least a year to get there if not longer so this kinda put me off as its dragged on long enough. What is the other bond you are talking about?


 
Im not entirely sure what the bond entitles you to, it was my father who made sure i asked my solicitor if the property was bonded. The solicitor said he would not let anyone go through with a sale without it!!
Apparently it insures against you loosing your deposit should the builder close before completion. Its worth asking your solicitor about!! However, Im sure if it held much water your solicitor would have looked into it by now!?!

If you are going to the high court you must still go through the normal processes of district courts, circuit courts etc. My hope is that once we have a date for the circuit court the developer will decide they dont want the publicity & pay out!! ....wishful thinking, i know but i will go all the way with this. I see it as a game of poker, one which i am determined to win!!


----------



## foxylady (3 Apr 2009)

mf1 said:


> Have you read your contractand building agreement from start to finish?
> Have you highlighted all sections that you need clarification on? Have you asked for clarification? Have you read all the correspondence that has passed between your solicitor and the other side? Do you know and understand the argument(s) ( technical or otherwise) that the developer is using? Do you know the answer to that argument(s)? Do you understand your own contractual position? Do you understand the risks of any legal action? Do you appreciate that it seems your developer is in financial difficulties and that pressure may be being brought to bear by his financial position?
> 
> Have you tried reading a book specifically on conveyancing and contracts? To truly understand the intricacies?
> ...


 

Initially we were told contract was straight forward all above board so we signed. Comp date was 18 months

Hardly any correspondence has passed from solicitor to solicitor unless it was querIes I had.  I know devleopeer is in finacial diffiuclties but it would seem this has been the case for some time hence all the delays but there is no good reason that I can see that I should be expected to wait around for the rest of my life for this to be built just because they are having these problems.

Contracts in this country dont sem to offer proper protection for the purchasers and this needs to be addressed


----------



## bond-007 (3 Apr 2009)

It will be interesting to see if these builders will manage to obtain any judgements in the courts.


----------



## mf1 (3 Apr 2009)

bond-007 said:


> It will be interesting to see if these builders will manage to obtain any judgements in the courts.



All the cases are likely to be quite different - people who don't want to close on signed contracts where property is completed but value has dropped and they can't raise finance, those who can raise finance but don't want to pay it, those where properties are unfinished or snagging is an issue for whatever reason etc.,etc. 

I'd say its more than likely that judgments will be handed out. The alternative   is that the developers woes just deepen even further and every chancer will use a judgment adverse to the developer to try and get  out of their responsibilities. 

Not every purchaser is in financial difficulties. But every single one of them would rather not complete. 

mf


----------



## dtwhaler (3 Apr 2009)

What about when there is a clause in the contract that the builder cant or wont meet. No response or amendment to the contract. 

Does the contract become null and void then ? Shouldnt they just hand back the deposit then ?


----------



## mf1 (3 Apr 2009)

dtwhaler said:


> What about when there is a clause in the contract that the builder cant or wont meet. No response or amendment to the contract.
> 
> Does the contract become null and void then ? Shouldnt they just hand back the deposit then ?



You can't just take statements like that and hope for a straightforward answer!

You have to look at the whole particular individual situation. Without the entire situation laid out, the different sides, the different pressures, the rationales for each sides behaviour and a detailed analysis of the position, the question is meaningless. Its just a Joe Duffy programme style rant. No balance.

mf


----------



## FKH (6 Apr 2009)

As a solicitor as far as I can see one of the few grounds that purchasers may have to argue is that the property was not completed on time (if the contract has a time limit). The builder's defence to this is that there was a delay reasonably outside their control which delayed building. However it would need a court to decide whether the builder's reason was indeed reasonably outside their control or not and make a judgment accordingly.

It is a little unrealistic in the current climate to expect the builder simply to return the deposit once the time limit elapses with simply a letter requesting same. It may be necessary to instigate court proceedings for return.

Where the time limit hasn't expired it is very difficult for the purchaser as a binding agreement exists despite the fact that they may not be able to raise the finance. However a court judgment will not remedy this problem for the builder as even if they get an order against the purchaser they will not be able to purchaser the property and I have heard rumours that it is the banks that are putting pressure on the builders to bring these cases to court and get judgment.


----------



## AlbacoreA (7 Apr 2009)

FKH said:


> As ...It is a little unrealistic in the current climate to expect the builder simply to return the deposit once the time limit elapses with simply a letter requesting same. It may be necessary to instigate court proceedings for return.....


 
Why not. That would seem black and white.


----------



## Bronte (7 Apr 2009)

AlbacoreA said:


> Why not. That would seem black and white.


 Not if the builder has spent the money on the site/building costs/loan repayments etc.

It would have been easier if in the first place the deposit was kept by the builder's solicitor rather than being handed over to the builder but apparently this didn't happen during the boom when builders were able to dictate terms and buyers happily signed up to same.


----------



## AlbacoreA (7 Apr 2009)

In the context of people wanting out of their contracts, and their deposits back. If the builder can't even pay back the deposit its not very likely they'll ever build the property in the contract. So in that case the builder is effectively bankrupt no? That seems black and white to me. Thats the builder can't pay back the deposit is a different issue if related. Of course the legal costs in recovering the deposit are likely to exceed the deposit, so many might see being no point in going down that route. But if theres no time limit on the contract, whats to stop the builder building the property in 10 yrs time and then come looking to complete the contract. 

My understanding that contracts for building commercial property usually have time limits and penalty clauses for late completion, for some reason most residential building contracts don't. Unless its a self build.


----------



## foxylady (7 Apr 2009)

FKH said:


> As a solicitor as far as I can see one of the few grounds that purchasers may have to argue is that the property was not completed on time (if the contract has a time limit). The builder's defence to this is that there was a delay reasonably outside their control which delayed building. However it would need a court to decide whether the builder's reason was indeed reasonably outside their control or not and make a judgment accordingly.
> 
> It is a little unrealistic in the current climate to expect the builder simply to return the deposit once the time limit elapses with simply a letter requesting same. It may be necessary to instigate court proceedings for return.
> 
> Where the time limit hasn't expired it is very difficult for the purchaser as a binding agreement exists despite the fact that they may not be able to raise the finance. However a court judgment will not remedy this problem for the builder as even if they get an order against the purchaser they will not be able to purchaser the property and I have heard rumours that it is the banks that are putting pressure on the builders to bring these cases to court and get judgment.


 
What exactly do judges consider as reasonable delays or does anyone know?


----------



## mf1 (7 Apr 2009)

You know the answer yourself. 

It depends. On the case, on the parties, on the reasons, on the judge. 

These are very uncharted waters. There is no simple , cure all , one size fits all, answers. 

mf


----------



## andycole (7 Apr 2009)

A serious lack of proper regulation exists- procedures that have to be followed by both a buyer and builder - buying off the plans guidlines - fair contracts and building agreements that are regulated not just independently by the CFI - but independently.

Basically the government have allowed Banks and associated Developers to do what they want. 

It just not on that a civic matter such as buying a home off the plans, or any newly built home from a builder is unchartered waters...in terms of what can go wrong..etc


----------



## mf1 (7 Apr 2009)

andycole said:


> A serious lack of proper regulation exists- procedures that have to be followed by both a buyer and builder - buying off the plans guidlines - fair contracts and building agreements that are regulated not just independently by the CFI - but independently.
> 
> Basically the government have allowed Banks and associated Developers to do what they want.
> 
> It just not on that a civic matter such as buying a home off the plans, or any newly built home from a builder is unchartered waters...in terms of what can go wrong..etc



Life is messy. So is law. 

mf


----------



## AlbacoreA (7 Apr 2009)

mf1 said:


> Life is messy. So is law.
> 
> mf



It doesn't have to be messy, most of these situations are very simple. No average house should take longer than 2 yrs to build. All housing should have a minimum standard.


----------



## Ruam (7 Apr 2009)

andycole said:


> Basically the government have allowed Banks and associated Developers to do what they want.



FF always look after their buddies.  It was builders and developers who bankrolled FF so it's no surprise they didn't regulate the situation as they didn't want to upset their pay masters.

Ruam


----------



## andycole (7 Apr 2009)

Yep I agree with the last few opinions as well - how's buying a house supposed to be messy? It should be a well regulated, established civic business transaction - It is in most other countries - look to the UK that have specific building laws about completion periods in contracts and how they affect buyers who have bought off the plans, first time buyers..
Look at Australia as well.

 Some conditions in these new types of building contracts - especially from developers who in the last few years were doing what they wanted - completely unreasonable - 

Why is the content in Brochures not legally binding? I mean they exist only to induce people to buy? So if someone buys off the plans what's wrong in using a Brochure as a guide if it comes to Court?


----------



## AlbacoreA (7 Apr 2009)

You seem to have more rights buying a a €30 watch on your Visa than a €300k house.


----------



## andycole (7 Apr 2009)

Yep - and that says it all - 
Buy an expensive watch, engagement ring with diamonds etc
You are protected by Consumer Law and established Rights..
But buy off the plans in the middle of a housing bubble your fecked!!


----------



## mf1 (7 Apr 2009)

"Why is the content in Brochures not legally binding? I mean they exist only to induce people to buy? So if someone buys off the plans what's wrong in using a Brochure as a guide if it comes to Court? "

This, I am afraid, is a very clear example  of how people do not understand what they were doing when they were doing it and what has happened now that it has happened. All the whinging and whining in the world is not going to change the fact that purchasers freely, without pressure from anyone, signed contracts and would have signed contracts  if it included a clause offering their first born. We have now hit a huge downturn which, while obvious in hindsight, was not obvious enough for people who freely signed their contracts.  

"But buy off the plans in the middle of a housing bubble your fecked!! "

You said it. If you cannot understand that this is precisely what the problem is, then there is little that anyone can say that will stop the bleating. 

mf


----------



## andycole (7 Apr 2009)

mf1 - 

yes these are the two clearest examples of how easy it was for a first time buyer to get into some difficulty now - 
yes what is on the brochure was very appealing - defintely influences the purchase along with the show apartments that were on display - smarthomes technology etc etc.. wow

exactly the housing bubble - at least no one is denying now that there was one - is part of the cause of a lot of trouble - 

but no - dont agree that this one reason for all of the trouble - 
the lack of regulation is still a valid critism - its debatable if there was proper regulation that there would have been a housing bubble? - 
probably there would not have been if the regulation was in place? -


----------



## mf1 (7 Apr 2009)

All I can say to your last point is that the builders got a lot of breaks, the banks got a lot of freedom and we, as a nation, continued to vote in the party that was allowing/facilitating  it all. 

That is the nature of a democracy. I remember when FF got in the last time - it should not have happened but it did because people, on the whole,  are greedy and selfish and love credit and flashness and the feelgood factor over sense, sensibility, stability and long term policies for a better society.

mf


----------



## ben10 (8 Apr 2009)

mf1 said:


> "Why is the content in Brochures not legally binding? I mean they exist only to induce people to buy? So if someone buys off the plans what's wrong in using a Brochure as a guide if it comes to Court? "
> 
> This, I am afraid, is a very clear example of how people do not understand what they were doing when they were doing it and what has happened now that it has happened. All the whinging and whining in the world is not going to change the fact that purchasers freely, without pressure from anyone, signed contracts and would have signed contracts if it included a clause offering their first born. We have now hit a huge downturn which, while obvious in hindsight, was not obvious enough for people who freely signed their contracts.
> 
> mf


 
People not understanding what they were doing?? How is anyone expected to buy a house then? Are we all supposed to complete a law degree before buying? No, our solicitors are there for that & we hope that they are covering all angles. In most cases they are but this country has allowed the developers dictate what they can & cannot do. 
It is ridiculous that the brochures are not binding, afterall if you bought a can of sugar free coke & inside the can was normal coke you will be intitled to a refund! Why on earth should it be different in the housing market!?! ......in my case both the brochure AND the contract were different to the finished article yet the developer is still holding my money & wants me to move in!?!? Could you imagine this in your grocery store??


----------



## mf1 (8 Apr 2009)

Perhaps if you did not use so many exclamation marks, it would be easier........

As I understand your position, what has been  built is not as per contract and specification. There does not appear to be any real argument about that - save that whether it amounts to a full breach of contract or just a minor breach remains to be decided. You seem to have good legal advice. You have to slug it out - there is no quick fix. 

Many of the people who are posting on this site are primarily frustrated because they don't think that bad things ever happen but if they are to happen, it should be to someone else and not to them.  So they rant, whinge and bleat. 

Buying a house  is a big decision - probably the first major decision any of us have to make. Many of my clients freely admit that they are far more concerned about their flooring and window dressing than they are about the practicalities/legalities of going through the contract and building agreement.  I ( and I think many other solicitors) copy these to the clients with detailed notes . Most of my clients freely admit that they don't read these notes. They know that this is their own decision but they see me as in loco parentis - as in I should be held responsible if it all goes tots up. 

Its not hard to work out that it is a lot easier to buy something that exists - as in already built. BUT the breaks for purchasers of new builds off contract have blinded purchasers to What-ifs?.  

mf


----------



## AlbacoreA (8 Apr 2009)

My experience was of being rushed through a contract and pushed to complete. So much so we changed solicitor. I think conveyancing was a much as cash cow as anything else was in the boom. I don't think everyone has the same standards.


----------



## Kate10 (8 Apr 2009)

During the boom many contracts issued with a clause specifically excluding markerting material from the contract - i.e. the clause said that nothing in marketing brochures formed part of the contract.  However, the High Court ruled a number of years ago that a clause of this nature is a unfair condiiton in a consumer contract - so that if an ordinary person bought a house from a developer they should be entitled to rely on information provided to them by an estate agent or developer, at least to a limited extent.

I agree that our system of conveying property is outdated and needs reform.  But the real issue today is that ordinary people did insane things during the boom.  At least 75% of the people who are coming to see me now in serious trouble either never saw a solicitor at all (paid small deposits for expensive properties off plan in other countries that they could never afford, intended to flip, and never saw a solicitor here or in the relevant country) or got good advice from their solicitor but didn't listen.  People were so caught up that when a solicitor went through onerous terms and conditions in contracts, they just switched off and thought of it as irrelevant red tape stuff.

I have been at meetings with clients where I have gone through contracts and building agreements in detail.  I would say one in five purchasers during the boom listened attentively and asked questions.  The rest spaced out.  What can I do in those circumstances?  I write to clients to make sure I have it on record that I advised them propertly, but I can't force them to listen or act responsibly.

I think some banks behaved very irresponsibly during the boom.  Some of the facilities advanced were absolutely nuts.  But the borrowers were worse.  People who wouldn't bet €10 in the local bookies were willing to pay €20k deposits for foreign properties they never even saw.  They signed contracts knowing that they could never afford to complete the purchase themselves, but hoping to sell the property on when completed at a profit.  In other words, they gambled, and they gambled with money they did not have.  Many "investors" in Irish properties were also property speculators and gamblers.  Now that things have gone the other way very few of them are willing to accept responsibility for their own decisions.


----------



## AlbacoreA (8 Apr 2009)

Its wasn't just ordinary people doing insane things...

Some solicitors made the headlines


----------



## Kate10 (8 Apr 2009)

You're dead right there Albacore.  Believe me, that is a very bitter pill to swallow for solicitors too.  Our insurance costs and compensation fund contributions are all going up as a result so the profession is paying for the criminal acts of a few.


----------



## foxylady (8 Apr 2009)

Kate10 said:


> You're dead right there Albacore. Believe me, that is a very bitter pill to swallow for solicitors too. Our insurance costs and compensation fund contributions are all going up as a result so the profession is paying for the criminal acts of a few.


 

Can anyone tell me how to enforce this
"insolvency of Contractor".It states that should the Contractor enter liquidation etc you may "determine the agreement whereupon the contractor shall be entitled to payment for actual work done by him".


----------



## Kate10 (8 Apr 2009)

Hi foxylady,

Is your builder in liquidation?  I would have your solicitor confirm this first.  Then you need to find out if any work has been carried out to the property.

The clause might not be much help to you if lots of work was carried out and if you were buying an apartment.  The intention behind the clause is that you could get rid of the existing builder, paying him the cost of the work carried out to date only, then hire a new builder to finish the work.  If you are talking about an apartment block that is partially completed you will be in a very difficult situation.

If no work at all has been carried out then now might be a good time to talk to your solicitor.

Kate.


----------



## foxylady (8 Apr 2009)

Kate10 said:


> Hi foxylady,
> 
> Is your builder in liquidation? I would have your solicitor confirm this first. Then you need to find out if any work has been carried out to the property.
> 
> ...


 

Builder has been granted examinership. It is an apt that was purchased 3 yrs ago to be comleted last year and is not built although they had started. My solicitor doesnt seem to know his a***e from his elbow and is looking to raise his fee for all his work???????????


----------



## Kate10 (8 Apr 2009)

Can't comment on your solicitor of course but I would say in your shoes I would contact the examiner directly and find out how he/she proposes to deal with purchasers like you.  Also, change your solicitor if you are unhappy.  Go to see someone new, and explain why you are unhappy.  If your solicitor did not do his/her job properly they obviously they should not be charging you more fees for work not done.  Ask for a photocopy of your file, bring it to your new solicitor, and ask them to look it over.  Find someone you trust and can have a good working relationship with.  They will tell you if your previous solicitor did a decent job and communicated that poorly to you, or if the solicitor did a very bad job, in which case you could probably dispute the fees.


----------



## mf1 (8 Apr 2009)

Your builders are not in liquidation and therefore are not technically insolvent. 
Kate10 deals with the rest very well. 
Why are you questioning your solicitor's entitlement to be paid? 
Has he not done anything at all?
Why don't you get another solicitor? 

I suspect your solicitor is not telling you what you want to hear. It is better to get the bad news from your own solicitor earlier rather than later before you invest a lot of time, effort and emotion in a complete non starter. 

mf


----------



## andycole (8 Apr 2009)

That's difficult to understand - I looked at www.examinership.ie 
It says that a company must be insolvent before the process of examinership is granted by the High Courts -

_"The appointment of an examiner is an option available to insolvent companies in Ireland since 1990"_

Ok these builders are not in liquidation - because they are afforded a period of 100 days protection from creditors? - however am I correct in thinking that if the examinership process is not successful then a liquiidator


----------



## andycole (8 Apr 2009)

That's difficult to understand - I looked at www.examinership.ie 
It says that a company must be insolvent before the process of examinership is granted by the High Courts -

_"The appointment of an examiner is an option available to insolvent companies in Ireland since 1990"_

They are afforded a period of 100 days protection from creditors? - however am I correct in thinking that if the examinership process is not successful then a liquiidator will be appointed?

And then this company will be declared insolvent?


----------



## foxylady (8 Apr 2009)

mf1 said:


> Your builders are not in liquidation and therefore are not technically insolvent.
> Kate10 deals with the rest very well.
> Why are you questioning your solicitor's entitlement to be paid?
> Has he not done anything at all?
> ...


 
I am questioning him being entitled to extra fees as he hardly responds to correspondence and when he does , its not telling me anything i dont know alreadyand pitfalls were never pointed out initially.


----------



## foxylady (8 Apr 2009)

Kate10 said:


> Can't comment on your solicitor of course but I would say in your shoes I would contact the examiner directly and find out how he/she proposes to deal with purchasers like you. Also, change your solicitor if you are unhappy. Go to see someone new, and explain why you are unhappy. If your solicitor did not do his/her job properly they obviously they should not be charging you more fees for work not done. Ask for a photocopy of your file, bring it to your new solicitor, and ask them to look it over. Find someone you trust and can have a good working relationship with. They will tell you if your previous solicitor did a decent job and communicated that poorly to you, or if the solicitor did a very bad job, in which case you could probably dispute the fees.


 
Thanks for all that, Now one more question , how do I contact the examiner or find out who it is???


----------



## Kate10 (8 Apr 2009)

I think when a company goes into examinership it must register this with the Companies Registration Office (if you go to www.cro.ie you will get contact details for this office).  They should be able to tell you the name and address of the examiner.  Alternatively your solicitor could call the developer's solicitor - they would definitely know who was appointed.  Good luck.

Kate.


----------



## mf1 (8 Apr 2009)

A simple Google search shows that its Paul McCann of Grant Thornton. The number will be in the book. 

mf


----------



## Bronte (9 Apr 2009)

foxylady said:


> Builder has been granted examinership. It is an apt that was purchased 3 yrs ago to be comleted last year and is not built although they had started. My solicitor doesnt seem to know his a***e from his elbow and is looking to raise his fee for all his work???????????


 Foxylady I'd be very slow to change solicitor.  This is a very frustrating experience for you.  It's also unchargered waters for the solicitor and I know they are supposed to be the experts.  This is undoubadly creating more work for him, for which he has to be paid,  he's probably just as frustrated as you. It is not his fault the builder has not completed.   It would be better if you could work together against the builder.  

But if you were given bad/incorrect advice by the solicitor initally which resulted in you signing the contract then yes I would change solicitor and would be suing the original solicitor, but that's a big if.


----------



## Bronte (9 Apr 2009)

mf1 said:


> All I can say to your last point is that the builders got a lot of breaks, the banks got a lot of freedom and we, as a nation, continued to vote in the party that was allowing/facilitating it all.
> 
> That is the nature of a democracy. I remember when FF got in the last time - it should not have happened but it did because people, on the whole, are greedy and selfish and love credit and flashness and the feelgood factor over sense, sensibility, stability and long term policies for a better society.
> 
> mf


  I think you're right and worse still people will still vote the same.  We vote for what we have so we voted for this mess.


----------



## FKH (9 Apr 2009)

In relation to costs due under the building agreement it states that the builder  gets "payment only for work actually done by him or materials bought to and left on the Site in pursuance of this Agreement" I would argue that the only costs due to the builder under this clause are actual construction costs and not the cost of the site also. 

There is a provision that the employer can deduct any further costs they may have to spend to finish the property from any amount payable to the builder but it does not say that they are obliged to finish the property.

For combined agreement/contracts I think that in the case of receivership/liquidation the employer can determine the contract thus bringing it to an end. I would think that they are then not obliged to purchase the property but must only pay the builder for the work actually done less the cost of finishing the work.


----------



## foxylady (24 Apr 2009)

mf1 said:


> A simple Google search shows that its Paul McCann of Grant Thornton. The number will be in the book.
> 
> mf


 
Does anyone know what kind of questions I need to ask these people?


----------



## FKH (24 Apr 2009)

You need to decide first what outcome you want. If presumably you wish to rescind the contract and get your deposit back in the best case scenario. I would write to the examiner on the same grounds as you wrote to the builder seeking the deposit back asking them to return it. 

The examiner is supposed to see if the company can continue as a going concern and it may be that they will take the view it cannot if the purchasers are all unwilling to complete and court proceedings were necessary.

If the company goes into liquidation then you are entitled to determine the building agreement as per Clause 5. Regarding the builder getting paid for work carried out, then only thing that strikes me is that they will retain the site and building and can resell it. 

In a situation where the employer owned the site you could see how the builder would be entitled to be paid for work actually done and materials etc but where the builder still owns the site he retains benefit of work done and arguably he could end up getting paid twice if he/liquidator sold the property later on. If I was dealing with a liquidator down the line that mentioned payment for work done I would try this argument.


----------



## foxylady (27 Apr 2009)

FKH said:


> You need to decide first what outcome you want. If presumably you wish to rescind the contract and get your deposit back in the best case scenario. I would write to the examiner on the same grounds as you wrote to the builder seeking the deposit back asking them to return it.
> 
> The examiner is supposed to see if the company can continue as a going concern and it may be that they will take the view it cannot if the purchasers are all unwilling to complete and court proceedings were necessary.
> 
> ...


 
Would I be better off to write to them myself or do I have to get my "marvellous" solicitor to do it?


----------



## FKH (27 Apr 2009)

I would probably have your solicitor write to the examiner as it will have more weight than writing personally. You should probably make a written list of what you want your solicitor to say and set up a short meeting where you ask them to write a letter to the examiner stating again that the development wasn't finished on time as per the building agreement, that you are treating the contract as repudiated and requesting the deposit back as soon as possible.


----------



## andycole (9 Jun 2009)

What happens when the examinership period of protection expires?
Does the independent examiner get in contact with all buyers and inform what is about to happen - or do we get a refund of a proportion of our deposit?

Secondly is a rescue package is put in place - and a development is re- continued after a lenght delay will a buyer be entitled for a refund or compensation for a delay?


----------

