Laragan customers lose their deposits

Status
Not open for further replies.
If a creditor is considering this offer by Laragan Developments LTD -
I would recommend that they review Volume 3: Review of legal issues: Dated November 2008. This is a publication by the National Consumer Agency titled "The Home Construction Industry and the Consumer in Ireland".

The reason why I mention this report within this context is that Section 9 "Unfair Contract Terms" highlights 16 terms that have been considered unfair.

"Generally, unfair terms are severable and will not result in termination of the contract. In other words, the unfair term can be severed from the contract, and the rest of the contract will remain effective"

"Additionally it mentions that there has been extensive commentary on these unfair provisions, some of which have suggested that the Order may not have gone far enough"

Have a look at these conditions -

1. That any site layout or plan is for identification purposes only, and does not necessarily show the correct location, size, or area of the site.

2. That the contractor will be entitled to vary or alter the development in any manner, subject to planning permission.

Both of these conditions appear within the contract offered to buyers for the Milners Square Complex. I believe that anyone considering taking up the offer by Laragan Developements LTD to be able to purchases their apartments now at today's prices plus their €15,000 Deposit paid - that it is in your interest to suggest to your solictor that you are requesting the removal of these conditions from your contract.

I cannot say with certainty that other similar conditions appear within the contracts offered by Laragan Developments LTD.
 
andycole said:
..."Generally, unfair terms are severable and will not result in termination of the contract. In other words, the unfair term can be severed from the contract, and the rest of the contract will remain effective"


Have a look at these conditions -

1. That any site layout or plan is for identification purposes only, and does not necessarily show the correct location, size, or area of the site.

2. That the contractor will be entitled to vary or alter the development in any manner, subject to planning permission.....
Click to expand...

Those kind of terms should not be allowed by law.
 
For the Information of the reader -

A Homebond policy has a payout ceiling of €508,000 per development.


Google's Cache of [broken link removed]. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 7 Jul 2009 23:46:17 GMT


"The court also heard that the Homebond insurance policy, which was taken out by depositors in 2006 to cover their deposits had run out after two years. But even if the policies had not run out, there would not have been enough money in it to cover all of the deposits.

The policy had a payout ceiling of €508,000 per development and the company owed deposits of €1.44 million.

Mr Justice Clarke said he suspected the ceiling on protection was news to a lot of people who felt they were protected by the policy.

“It came as a surprise to the examiner,” Mr Dunleavy said."
 
AlbacoreA said:
Those kind of terms should not be allowed by law.
Click to expand...


The whole "standard " building agreement need to be looked at or else called a template as , developers seem to be able to take out what they dont like and stick in whatever things they do like.
 
"The court also heard that the Homebond insurance policy, which was taken out by depositors in 2006 to cover their deposits had run out after two years. But even if the policies had not run out, there would not have been enough money in it to cover all of the deposits.



Surely this would be deemed as wreckless trading
 
The whole process is a shambles. This collapse has brought it clearly into focus. The "professionals" end up looking pretty shabby tbh. The public is being sold snake oil. Theres more consumer protection on a €10 watch than a 1 Million Euro house.
 
"The public is being sold snake oil. "

The public were like lemmings in their rush to buy snake oil! If you'd put a brick wall in front of them they would have torn it apart with their bare hands to get to the other side.

mf
 
AlbacoreA said:
I guess people should do their own legal homework rather than paying anyone else to do it.
Click to expand...

You know - its just sooooooooooooo easy to take a pop.

But solicitors are not parents. They can only advise - people need to make their own decisions. And when people are engaging in the biggest transaction of their lives, they should engage with what is happening. Not do the silly, tra la tra la tra la crap of just thinking about floor covering and not what would happen if, or should I be doing this or can I afford it?

And - if what you mean is that the solicitors should have known that the property market would collapse, that the developers could collapse and that the economy would go into free-fall! What were going to do - refuse to act for a client who wanted to buy and who knew that if they did'nt someone else would take their place?

So far, one person on this board appears to be blaming her solicitor. andy cole is very sensible and has made it quite clear that he knew what he was doing when he did it - he just did not anticipate the above. No-one did. But the whingers who are now running around trying to apportion blame on everyone else - but not them, oh no sirree- deserve nothing.

mf
 
Were the limitations of the Home Bond scheme public knowledge two years ago?

I can't remember seeing any posts on Askaboutmoney or elsewhere, telling people to be careful about Home Bond. That it expires after 2 years and that there is a maximum claim per builder.

Brendan
 
It was actually quite clear in the Homebond paperwork - it was just never an issue before. We have'nt had had such overruns and insolvency for years.

mf
 
mf1 said:
It was actually quite clear in the Homebond paperwork - it was just never an issue before. We have'nt had had such overruns and insolvency for years.

mf
Click to expand...

If so why arent people told, and by the way what I'm blaming my solicitor is on poor or rather lack of advice . I'm not saying all solicitors are the same however they're not all saints either
 
Not really relevant to what the Judge is responsible for - specifically to decided if the present Scheme of Arrangement is the best offer in the present circumstances.
 
Last edited:
mf1 said:
You know - its just sooooooooooooo easy to take a pop.

But solicitors are not parents. They can only advise - people need to make their own decisions. And when people are engaging in the biggest transaction of their lives, they should engage with what is happening. Not do the silly, tra la tra la tra la crap of just thinking about floor covering and not what would happen if, or should I be doing this or can I afford it?

And - if what you mean is that the solicitors should have known that the property market would collapse, that the developers could collapse and that the economy would go into free-fall! What were going to do - refuse to act for a client who wanted to buy and who knew that if they did'nt someone else would take their place?

So far, one person on this board appears to be blaming her solicitor. andy cole is very sensible and has made it quite clear that he knew what he was doing when he did it - he just did not anticipate the above. No-one did. But the whingers who are now running around trying to apportion blame on everyone else - but not them, oh no sirree- deserve nothing.

mf
Click to expand...

I wasn't taking a pop at all. Not involved in anyway. Other than be cynical of "professional" advice in every sector. But you seem to be throwing the baby (and the toys) out with the bath water. Its a simple observation that what sense does it make to pay for professional services, that you have to duplicate by doing yourself. Double checking things that you are not qualified to check. Thats an obsrvation in general, not specific to this topic or property contact solely.

If I take a car into a garage for a service, and they advise the brakes need attention before the car is safe , and I refuse to get the work done. They will get the client to sign a disclaimer that they were made aware of the problem and choose to ignore the advice of the garage. Thats the level of professional service I would expect.

Your suggesting that clients are being informed and are recklessly ignoring such advice,
tra la tra la tra la
Click to expand...
(nice) However that so many are not aware of these issue suggests the reality is very different. Though I have no doubt there are very many who don't listen. If it were me I'd think I'd be doing what the garage does if clients refuse advise. Signed disclamers. Doesn't matter if its contract law or going to the dentist. The principle is the same.

That the homebond is weak Guarantee, or the building boom, or how builders do business, or clients greed, panic are clearly seperate issue's. I'm certainly not blaming solicitors for that.
 
Not really relevant to the decision that the Judge is being asked to make, of whether the Scheme of Arrangement is the best offer in the present circumstances.
 
Last edited:
andycole said:
Just to update people -

We have not yet received any reply from the solicitors for the Examiner - confirming if they have presented this new issue to the attention of Mr. Justice Clarke this morning.

Initially the reply that we received was that the Homebond limitations have already been presented to the Court.

But we then made the point that this is a new issue, while related to Homebond, was actually about making Mr. Justice Clarke aware of the Homebond Warning that was issued by the Law Society in 2000 and requesting that a "Client Warning Notice" be included by builders solicitors in contracts.

So we am unaware if Mr. Justice Clarke is aware at this moment in time of the existence of the "Client Warning Notice" .

Request for Help: Can anyone who is going to the Hearing today bring this new issue to the attention of the Examiner, Mr. Paul McCann and his legal representatives?
Click to expand...

Any idea how many more days this will be in court
 
mf1 said:
It was actually quite clear in the Homebond paperwork - it was just never an issue before. We have'nt had had such overruns and insolvency for years.

mf
Click to expand...

...and isn't this the kind of thing a solicitor would be paid to point out?

The regulation in the property market (or lack thereof) is an absolute joke, I'm thinking mainly estate agents before you jump down my throat on solicitor bashing.

The least anyone who is part of the wider industry can do is acknowledge the various shortcomings.

Saying people deserve no regulatory protection because they 'rushed in like lemmings' does not fill me with confidence in the conscientiousness with which you deal with clients
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top