Just because they are a are very long way off completion does not make it viable as we know that the cost to build a house against compared to build a house is two completely different things and that previously there was a very very high margin (possibly in excess of 100%).
Laragan customers lose their deposits
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
- Status
Just because they are a are very long way off completion does not make it viable as we know that the cost to build a house against compared to build a house is two completely different things and that previously there was a very very high margin (possibly in excess of 100%).
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,117
I agree.
The examiner should sell the contracts to a new builder.
Then he would honour the contracts with the buyers. They would get the value of their €20,000 deposit and they would buy the houses at the original price of €500,000. Then everyone would be happy. Their neighbours would be buying the exact same houses for €300,000 but the important thing is that the original buyers would not have lost their deposits.
Brendan
The examiner should sell the contracts to a new builder.
Then he would honour the contracts with the buyers. They would get the value of their €20,000 deposit and they would buy the houses at the original price of €500,000. Then everyone would be happy. Their neighbours would be buying the exact same houses for €300,000 but the important thing is that the original buyers would not have lost their deposits.
Brendan
I dont agree, the new builder should sell the houses for €285,000 to the depositors offering the discount on the basis that there will be no need to hire sales agents or advertise the sale of these properties. It would also be a way for the builder to gain some good publicity for future builds and hopefully help the new company to succeed.
This could take at least one possibly two more years which would bring peoples wait time up to almost 5 years, why on earth should anyone have to wait that long
Foxylady
If the contract was bog standard that means that it was governed by the Law Societies standard terms and conditions of sale. Under these terms and conditions the solr is supposed to retain the deposit as it is refundable in the event that the builder doesn't complete. Obviously if it is forwarded to the developer he couldn't get it back as it will have gone into cashflow. If this is the case you can claim against your solicitors professional indemnity cover.
I suspect that it wasn't a bog standard contract but if this is the case and your solr told you it was, you could claim against his PI on this basis too, so all may not be lost.
I have to say that I think the fact that this guy is currently building a 10,000 sq ft house for himself in Roscommon and driving around in an extremely flash car when his development activities are causing so much hardship is distasteful to say the least.
Its a possible solution to avoid losing 15k. Better late than never!
DrMoriarty
Moderator
- Messages
- 5,173
Tut, tut, Plywood, show a bit of basic compassion.
Quite apart from the 10,000 sq ft house, have you any idea of the running costs of a limited edition Ferrari F50?
I'm one of the unfortunate customers who bought in Carrickmines Green and I understand everyones point that we should be thrilled to be let out of our contract. But when I was at our meeting the majority of the people were already out of their contract and mine was due to end in July of this year. So as our contracts expired we should have been automatically released from our contracts and money refunded. Forgetting about the fact that they have no money seemingly its very rare to get your money back if the builder does not complete in time.
I accept your point that it's better to lose 20K than be stuck in a house of negative equity but I had bought a house and would have been able to stay in that for a very long time now I'm stuck in an apartment and I've just had a baby. The banks are not lending money so I'm stuck here for the foreseeable future but could have bought the house if completed in a reasonable time.
All in all the fact that a contract is useless to the buyer and completely in favour of the builder is unfair. Why can't they not pay us now - I doubt we are all in need of the €200 to be paid to us - release everyone from their contract and when some other poor unfortunate purchases the properties and puts down their deposit return it to the people who had already intended to purchase the property. That is the fairest thing to do even 50% back would be preferable to €200. At least the suppliers get to retrieve the items put into the houses so at least will get some satisfaction. Ordinary people like ourselves get to save and hand over our money for nothing to a bunch of builders who has other companies that are very lucrative. I for one will never buy off plans again.
I accept your point that it's better to lose 20K than be stuck in a house of negative equity but I had bought a house and would have been able to stay in that for a very long time now I'm stuck in an apartment and I've just had a baby. The banks are not lending money so I'm stuck here for the foreseeable future but could have bought the house if completed in a reasonable time.
All in all the fact that a contract is useless to the buyer and completely in favour of the builder is unfair. Why can't they not pay us now - I doubt we are all in need of the €200 to be paid to us - release everyone from their contract and when some other poor unfortunate purchases the properties and puts down their deposit return it to the people who had already intended to purchase the property. That is the fairest thing to do even 50% back would be preferable to €200. At least the suppliers get to retrieve the items put into the houses so at least will get some satisfaction. Ordinary people like ourselves get to save and hand over our money for nothing to a bunch of builders who has other companies that are very lucrative. I for one will never buy off plans again.
Foxylady I'd like your opinion on this please. As you know I've been following your story for a long time and to me you should be the happiest lady alive today. I'd always hoped for you that the scheme would go bust.
On a general note I don't know what the world is coming to, losing 20K when what one would have purchased has dropped a minimum 40%. Some people need their head examined. There are people on here all the time tied to contracts where they cannot get mortgages, there are thousands of people in negative equity who purchased at over inflated prices, there are people living in housing estates that will never be finished, there are people who cannot move location due to negative equity. The people getting out of this development would probably not quality for a loan at the moment and even if they did with all the budget cuts would be struggling to make repayments. The people who lose their paltry deposits are extemely lucky.
Bronte you are talking about different scenarios. When signing a contract you have a loan offer valid for 3 -6 months depending on bank after that assuming nothing has changed it will be renewed but what if you have lost your job there is no opt out clause so there should be something in future put into contracts to allow for that. That would include banks not lending money and people losing their jobs and can't afford the house now. Then you get maybe 50% of the deposit back. As it is you are brought to court to complete your purchase regardless. So therefore I'm buying a house and the builder should complete that contract - not my problem he can't afford it so I'm sueing him.
If 20K is such a 'paltry' sum of money you should donate some to the builder to help him out. You have no idea peoples situations now or how they got the deposit money in the first place and to make such a comment is an insult.
If 20K is such a 'paltry' sum of money you should donate some to the builder to help him out. You have no idea peoples situations now or how they got the deposit money in the first place and to make such a comment is an insult.
I asked a question earlier in this thread - specifically if the contracts offered by Laragan had completion periods of 30 months - why did they include Homebond Insurance Certification when apparently Homebond insurance expires after a period of 24 months?
Here's my opinion - the contracts will have to be re - negotiated by any new company who wishes to take over the Milners Square Complex Building. The present contracts are not valid - when building work started become delayed Alan Hanly had a responsibility of pointing out to all buyers that the Homebond Insurance would no longer apply to the contracts which we signed - and that as a result buyers would be offered the opportunity to a refund of deposits and release from contracts.
Here's my opinion - the contracts will have to be re - negotiated by any new company who wishes to take over the Milners Square Complex Building. The present contracts are not valid - when building work started become delayed Alan Hanly had a responsibility of pointing out to all buyers that the Homebond Insurance would no longer apply to the contracts which we signed - and that as a result buyers would be offered the opportunity to a refund of deposits and release from contracts.
samanthajane
Registered User
- Messages
- 766
Well as long as we don't learn anything from the process that's the main thing.
I couldn't give a rats ass for the buyers. They signed contracts at a certain point in time and if the market had gone the other way and the units had been completed you wouldn't hear them, or me, complaining.
As a consumer I have more rights when I go to buy a bag of spuds than when I buy property off plans in this country. If we perpetuate the notion that luck is the biggest factor in the completion of a half million euro contract then all you're doing is living in a fools paradise.
All the schysters and conmen who brought you this recession will be back again in 20 years time pilling it on again.
Guys,
Isn't it the case that this company is insolvent?? If so what is everyone on about? Whether or not you were out of contract and would have been out of contract is irrelevant. Ok, so the company owes you money. Unfortunately, you are like every other creditor is this country that is owed money by an insolvent company - you get what is left which clearly isn't much. Why should the house-buyers be put before other creditors?
Plywood it was absolutely bog standard for deposits to be released to builders on foot of having a homebond guarantee. It seems to me that mistakes were made in that homebond ran out before the construction period allowed and perhaps individual purchasers should look into their contracts with their solicitors and see what their position was in that regard.
At the end of the day the purchasers are all as well off as they could expect to be. The company is insolvent so there is no way you could expect to get your entire deposit back. On the other hand you are avoiding enormous negative equity that could have crippled you financially for 10 years.
Gift horse anyone??
Kate.
Isn't it the case that this company is insolvent?? If so what is everyone on about? Whether or not you were out of contract and would have been out of contract is irrelevant. Ok, so the company owes you money. Unfortunately, you are like every other creditor is this country that is owed money by an insolvent company - you get what is left which clearly isn't much. Why should the house-buyers be put before other creditors?
Plywood it was absolutely bog standard for deposits to be released to builders on foot of having a homebond guarantee. It seems to me that mistakes were made in that homebond ran out before the construction period allowed and perhaps individual purchasers should look into their contracts with their solicitors and see what their position was in that regard.
At the end of the day the purchasers are all as well off as they could expect to be. The company is insolvent so there is no way you could expect to get your entire deposit back. On the other hand you are avoiding enormous negative equity that could have crippled you financially for 10 years.
Gift horse anyone??
Kate.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,117
So, in summary,
If the contract term had expired, the buyers had a legal right to the return of their deposits. Agreed.
But they are lucky that the contracts expired.
However, they are unlucky that the builder is in administration and so they have lost their deposits.
The process of providing deposits needs to be reviewed so that they are insulated from the potential insolvency of the builder.
Now, how do we protect the builders from the potential default of buyers who are not able to complete? Increase the deposit to 30% of the final price?
Brendan
If the contract term had expired, the buyers had a legal right to the return of their deposits. Agreed.
But they are lucky that the contracts expired.
However, they are unlucky that the builder is in administration and so they have lost their deposits.
The process of providing deposits needs to be reviewed so that they are insulated from the potential insolvency of the builder.
Now, how do we protect the builders from the potential default of buyers who are not able to complete? Increase the deposit to 30% of the final price?
Brendan
Kate -
Its only Laragan Developments Ltd which may be insolvent!
Laragan Developments is a subsidiary of the Alan Hanly Group which is very profitable.
I think the Alan Hanly Group has a responsibility to paying the creditors who are owed money by Laragan Developments.
The Homebond issue is the reason why I personally believe that the house - buyers should be put before other creditors.
In case you missed my earlier posting on this thread just to remind you that I am one of those house - buyers.
Its only Laragan Developments Ltd which may be insolvent!
Laragan Developments is a subsidiary of the Alan Hanly Group which is very profitable.
I think the Alan Hanly Group has a responsibility to paying the creditors who are owed money by Laragan Developments.
The Homebond issue is the reason why I personally believe that the house - buyers should be put before other creditors.
In case you missed my earlier posting on this thread just to remind you that I am one of those house - buyers.
Samanthajane - breach of contract.
Brendan - I thorougly agree with you. To protect the builder they would get back a percentage of the old purchase price and what the new purchase price would be so obviously if it rises they don't get anything as the profit would be the compensation. As with a fixed rate if you fix at a rate and then want out as the variable rate is lower you must pay the lender a penalty.
Brendan - I thorougly agree with you. To protect the builder they would get back a percentage of the old purchase price and what the new purchase price would be so obviously if it rises they don't get anything as the profit would be the compensation. As with a fixed rate if you fix at a rate and then want out as the variable rate is lower you must pay the lender a penalty.
- Status