Laragan customers lose their deposits

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok breach of contract but what it the outcome you are looking for? For you to have your house, get back your deposit or just sueing in general and see what you get.

I did wonder if it was possible to sue the builder directly. But can you do that since the company is limited? All well and good him having a nice house and flashy car which if made to sell could pay people back more than 150/200 euro, but if you cant sue him directly then what?

You cant sue a company that has gone bust ( which is looking very possible ) there's nothing left.

Since it is a company of another company, alan hanly group, can you sue these if all other routes fail?

Have you been given legal advice about this, that it's possible to do, or is it just hopeful wishing?
 
OK folks

Calm down.

I have had to warn people about defamation and ban foxylady for 7 days for ignoring the warning.

I know you are all angry and upset, but stick to the facts and don't put my home on the line by making loose comments.

This is a very important topic, but I will have to close the thread if people do not post responsibly.

Brendan
 
Hi Samantha -

At the Unsecured Creditors Deposit Holders Blocks A - D Creditors Meeting
on Tuesday - the examiner was asked a question specifically about the possibility of accessing assets in the Alan Hanly Group of which Laragan Developments Ltd is a subsidiary.

A Sunday Business Post article: [broken link removed] mentioned that Laragan Developments Ltd was a subsidiary of the Hanly Group.

On the Hanly Group website: [broken link removed]
the company Laragan Development Ltd is mentioned as a subsidiary.


An Examiner is entitled under Section 4 of the Companies (Amendment)Act 1990 to exercise his powers as an examiner over the Parent Company where the Company under examinership is a Subsidiary of the Parent Company. See attached Section 4 of the Act.

However at the Creditors Meeting on Tuesday - the examiner argued that Laragan Development Ltd was not a subsidiary company of the Hanly Group - and that he could not go into the Hanly Group to use the assets of the Hanly Group to pay the creditors who are owed monies from Laragan Developments Ltd.


















samanthajane said:
I did wonder if it was possible to sue the builder directly. But can you do that since the company is limited? All well and good him having a nice house and flashy car which if made to sell could pay people back more than 150/200 euro, but if you cant sue him directly then what?

You cant sue a company that has gone bust ( which is looking very possible ) there's nothing left.

Since it is a company of another company, alan hanly group, can you sue these if all other routes fail?

Have you been given legal advice about this, that it's possible to do, or is it just hopeful wishing?
Click to expand...
 
Amendment to my previous post -

I meant to say that on the Hanly Group website they say that Milners Square is a new development of theirs.

But on the Milners Square Website:

[broken link removed]

Laragan Developments on the "The Team" page says that "Laragan Homes, a member of the Hanly Group, is committed to the provision of quality homes. It is their business practice to set standards for other to follow."

So it must be a subsidiary?
 
One thing the campaigners should be wary of is if the government spot this as a perfect weaze to raise some more money via their spanking new NAMA machine.

Take public money and buy Laragan debt with a big big hair cut (at least 50%).

Use some additional money to finish off the required units quick smart (lots of spare labour hanging around presently).

Move to immediate completion with all those contracted buyers at the original prices.



Now that would be win/win/win surely.
  • Tax payers turn a nice profit.
  • Creditors of Laragan get a better deal.
  • All the Milners Square buyers up in arms won't lose their deposits.
 
Hi Timbo -

In a good few of my earlier posts I have have mentioned the problem that now exists with the Homebond Insurance Certification. The contracts had completion periods extending beyond the validity period of Homebond Insurance.

Look at this:

[broken link removed]

The Homebond Symbol is present - they are part of the "team" up at Milners Square.

Look at this:

[broken link removed]

At the very end of the page - the Homebond Structural Guarantee is given.

Look at this:

[broken link removed]

""HomeBond Insurance, is structural defect insurance with deposit and stage payment cover for new homes.""
 
Laragan Developments Statement as at 24th June 2009

[broken link removed]

I have copied the following from this statement:

""The Hanly Group comprises of six autonomous firms specialising in six different areas of quarrying and construction. Hanly Brothers Limited was established in 1970 with headquarters in Co.Roscommon, Ireland.""

Perhaps is someone knowledgeable can explain if Laragan Developments is a subsidiary? Is Laragan Developments Ltd one of these six autonomous firms?
 
This probably does require a formal legal opinion.

But people use the term Group loosely.

So the Hanlys may personally own a number of different companies which are not related, other than the fact that they have common shareholders.

Even if Laragan Developments Limited is a subsidiary of Hanly Brothers Limited, what does that mean? Surely Laragan can go to the wall and Hanly Brothers Limited can continue trading. That is, after all, the point of limited liability. It limits the liability of the shareholder to the amount they have invested in share capital.
 
Caz said:
... All in all the fact that a contract is useless to the buyer and completely in favour of the builder is unfair...
Click to expand...
While I have the greatest of sympathy for people who lost money and the perhaps their prospect of a dream home, no-one was forced to sign the contracts.

Hopefully everyone had the foresight to review the contracts with their solicitors, seek specific advice and act on the advice. If the contracts were obviously skewed in favour of one party, then perhaps that should have been spotted and advice issued not to progress.
 
Hi Brendan -

Yes I agree that the implication of a Limited company is that if it goes into difficulty that the parent company can continue to trade. I only raise this issue because at the Unsecured Creditors Milners Square Deposit Holders Blocks A - D, the examiner was asked this question as to why he could not go into the parent company and use the assets to refund myself and the other buyers our deposits.

Personally for me the most important concern that I have is the issue of the Homebond Insurance Certification that was given. The homes at Milners Square are sold as homes insured by the Homebond Structural Warranty - protection given for a period of 10 years. I looked at the Homebond website and I have given the link in a couple of posts back - this insurance says that it also covers staged payments and deposits.

So basically I am wondering when the building at Milners Square started going behind schedule what are the implications for Laragan Developments in relation to the provision of the Homebond Insurance that was given? And why did Laragan Developments provide contracts with Completion Periods that extended beyond the provision capability of the Homebond Insurance of 24 months?

I keep mentioning the Homebond in this thread - but the only reason why I keep bringing this up is because I think this is the only mechanism that offers hope to myself as a Unsecured Creditor. The title of this thread is "Laragan customers lose their deposits". I think this is really the only topic worth discussing in relation to this - if this is a fundamental mistake on the part of Laragan Developments in relation to Homebond then all of these contracts may not be valid to start with? And is this is so - then what hope does the liquidator have if called in?


Brendan said:
This probably does require a formal legal opinion.

But people use the term Group loosely.

So the Hanlys may personally own a number of different companies which are not related, other than the fact that they have common shareholders.

Even if Laragan Developments Limited is a subsidiary of Hanly Brothers Limited, what does that mean? Surely Laragan can go to the wall and Hanly Brothers Limited can continue trading. That is, after all, the point of limited liability. It limits the liability of the shareholder to the amount they have invested in share capital.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Mathepac -

I can offer some explanation of what happened based on my own experiences when buying at Milners Square. I queued up at 4.30am in the morning. I rushed in with a load of other people panicky that I would miss out on getting the particular apartment that I wanted. There was a 30 days white goods offer associated with signing these contracts. So that put me under some time pressure to sign my contracts and get it delivered to the builders solictor. And when I was signing the contracts - I was aware that my deposit was going to be handed over to the builder rather than being held until completion of building. But to be honest with you I was not expecting any trouble.
The builder would not accept any changes or amendments to the contract offered - at that time in 2006 there was a lot of demand for these homes - so he could easily get someone else to buy. I liked the location and I could walk in and out to my work location. Also I don't really want to buy a house with gardens to look after.
So I signed.
 
mathepac said:
While I have the greatest of sympathy for people who lost money and the perhaps their prospect of a dream home, no-one was forced to sign the contracts.

Hopefully everyone had the foresight to review the contracts with their solicitors, seek specific advice and act on the advice. If the contracts were obviously skewed in favour of one party, then perhaps that should have been spotted and advice issued not to progress.
Click to expand...

I think there is/will be a tendency to try and find someone to blame for what has happened. So, one option is always the solicitor - why did you not advise me not to proceed? But at the time the contracts were signed, I'd say if a solicitor had warned a purchaser that the cataclysmic events of recent times would happen, they would have been ignored anyway. And then, should the solicitors have spotted that the HomeBond Guarantee expired before the property was completed? I don't know - is a solicitor responsible for keeping up to date on all their files when those files have stopped dead? I don't have clients in this position but I suspect that given the way the economy has gone in the last 18 months and given all the bad news around, I might have enquired. But, what good would that do, if the builders were still saying they were going ahead?

I have always disliked the idea of buying off plans precisely because you cannot see what it is you are buying - so for me, second hand was better. BUT that involves stamp duty and people did not want to pay it. Hence buying new.

mf
 
I also mentioned earlier that the lesson that I have learned here is that I will not sign a contract again - in which my deposit is forwarded over to the builder directly.

Perhaps legislation should be enacted - that in all cases when people buy off the plans that their deposits are held in a government type holding account?
Could this be a simple solution to these type of problems occurring in the future?
The builder can apply for loans to the banks for the actual building of a development - monies given to him can be approved by the Government.
 
MF - I am glad you mentioned the issue of Stamp Duty.
I wanted to avoid paying stamp duty as a first time buyer - I think at 2006 I would have been required to pay? - I felt this money I could use to bid against my apartment in Milners Square.
So this also contributed to my thinking in making a purchase at Milners Square.
 
On the homebond issue, does homebond expire after 24 months in all instances? If so, if the contract is signed with homebond backing, does it become invalid after 24 mths?
 
sideswipe said:
Very interesting thread, I think there’s a long way to run in this yet with more news emerging in today’s paper-
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/halfprice-home-offer-for-buyers-who-lost-deposits-1789204.html

There must be something in the air in Carrickmines, I put a deposit on a sofa in Jim Langans and lost me deposit, I'm glad now though because the prices of sofas has plummeted!
Click to expand...

This appears to be a start in the right direction of compensating depositors!

Although I think we may need to lobby for a further discount based on the assumption that the market value of the houses at completion will be even lower!
 
mf1 said:
I think there is/will be a tendency to try and find someone to blame for what has happened. So, one option is always the solicitor - why did you not advise me not to proceed? ...
Click to expand...
That wasn't what I meant to imply, although I admit this sentence lost its impact with what I typed afterwards ...
mathepac said:
... Hopefully everyone had the foresight to review the contracts with their solicitors, seek specific advice and act on the advice...
Click to expand...
 
Brendan said:
This probably does require a formal legal opinion.

But people use the term Group loosely.

So the Hanlys may personally own a number of different companies which are not related, other than the fact that they have common shareholders.

Even if Laragan Developments Limited is a subsidiary of Hanly Brothers Limited, what does that mean? Surely Laragan can go to the wall and Hanly Brothers Limited can continue trading. That is, after all, the point of limited liability. It limits the liability of the shareholder to the amount they have invested in share capital.
Click to expand...

I think the important part of this is getting a formal legal opinion from Council!

sueing is an option based on the limited amount of information. However, we dont have enough of the facts to come to any real conclusions.
 
Many many posts ago I asked why deposits were paid directly to builders and some of the solicitors at the time justified it. I can't find my post but some of the questions I would have for the legal profession are

1. What is the link between the people who run Homebond and builders.
2. Did solicitors point out to purchasers that their deposit was going directly to the builder and that if the builder went bust they could potentially lose their deposit?
3. Is the Law society looking at not allowing deposits to be paid to builders - I think MOB replied to this for me before
4. If there is a homebond guarantee for a deposit then it should not have a time limit, it's time limit should be equal to the handing over of the completed property or no signing of contract
5. Is the Law society looking at the fact that completion dates in contracts mean absolutely nothing, they are basically non binding on builders but the purchaser can be forced to complete
6. Is the Law society looking at changing the standard contract so that mortgage clauses can not be removed unless the purchaser has a guaranteed mortgage contract from a bank or they have the cash to complete or something like that.

There seems to be a particular problem in relation to off plan property in that the balance of power is with the builder to the detriment of the purchaser, an uneven legal relationship. To me then the legal profession needs to step in and make sure this doesn't happen in the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top