All purchasers are equal but some are more equal than others

Thanks Briando.  I did not know that.  Do they also do the same with the cement lorries.  Maybe I could hijack a few and sell them.

Arlene/Joanie666  if you fight you surely need a clearly defined objective.  Is that objective to get your money back , to right an injustice or both. 

Hi Linda.

Nice to hear from you with calm logic and while I appreciate your views I don't fully agree with all you say.

There  is a great difference between can't pay and won't pay just because SJ/HdT are not paying for the land/licences does not mean that they want to. It's my opinion that the credit crunch played straight into SJ/HdT hands, I think this would have happened anyway and stress this is only my view based on the lies that was continually fed to us over the BG's.

We all know by now what Spanish Law says is supposed to happen when you leave your deposit and any company with honest and honourable intentions would have tried to comply with the laws of their land. The fact that around 75% of its clients are left  without the protection of the law and so few BG's issued I think proves that this company never had the best interests of us it's clients in mind.

Am not sure I buy into the view that it is not a workable system only a lack of will from the spanish legal system know from our own experience
In fact when I challenged one solicitor who told me she could not force SJ/HdT to supply me with my legal rights she shruged her shoulders and said it was just the way in Spain, and that SJ was actually playing the system because they knew how costly and time consuming litagation was.

Understand Martin's view that he has never seen a construction company put money into a seperate account and do not doubt what he is saying, but what if this account was never to be known about especially by it's creditors.

It's clear from your postings that you still have some regard for SJ/HdT and, in fact I remember sharing a glass of wine with you in your lovely casa and you telling us that you never saw the need to ask SJ for a BG because you did'nt think you would need it, alas cynic that I am I always saw the need and am only sorry that I have been proved right.

Unlike yourself cannot afford even with a gulp to lose our deposit for us this was not an investment but home relocation and in essence we are ruined financially, hence my anger at SJ.

My best wishes to both you and David

Let agree to disagree and hope that these dark days will soon be past.

Arlene


This message was last edited by arlene2804 on 10/24/2008.

This message was last edited by arlene2804 on 10/24/2008.

That is what we all hope Arlene

I have had a communication from my solicitor about resinding the contract  only after 2 emails from me though.

Please correct me if I am seeing this wrong. The way I see it is it will make  SJ look good in front of new buyers as they will if they can get rid of the BG holders and have 25% less creditors on their list, WILL it really mean we will get paid out or is it another trick it is nearly Hallowen you know !

Hi Auntie Linda,

Not sure that it is about SJ looking good to potential buyers myself think it is more to impress the judge and probably to save on legal feesafter all need to leave enough in the pot for the administrators fees. It shows  how they are trying to help their poor clients it's the old pea or (maybe should be bank accounts) in a cup trick con they state that they are in breach of contract and those with BG are free to claim from the banks SJ nicely of the hook legal obligations fulfilled, and SJ have moved the pea to Mauritis or is it Panama. Can't argue with the law can you?

Banks who are preferential creditors go to top of the list in getting their hands on sale of assets etc and no hard feelings (lovely jubbly) more money to be made in a few years when good old SJ can buy the land at knock down prices and build some more dream homes (sorry being cynicial again).

What I am unclear about is and please someone correct me is are they going to admit that they are in breach of contract for those without the all important BG, and how will it affect us my understanding is that at present they are only going to admit breach for those with BG one can only question WHY? maybe to distract the judge paying too much attention to the bank accounts.


Hope you are very happy in your new home (live the dream)

Kind Regards

Arlene

Hi Arlene

linda could check with her ski-ing buddies.

If the contracts with BG's are accepted as in breach, and there are the same kind of contracts without BG's, its not the BG that makes them in breach, its the performance of the contract.

Therefore the lawyers should successfullyargue the same in both kinds of contract.

Then the question is why does one contract have a BG and another one not?  Has the BG been offered to all purchasers and some refused?  or is it a differfence in trading policy by the company?  This then follows to the question of, is it a legal requirement, has it been met etc.  Then the preference in administration of a contract without BG, against one with a BG......is this the fault of the creditor or the company?

Thats the line i want persued by my Lawyer next week........one day at a time....sweet etc

Hi All,
I have just spent some time playing catch up and reading the postings on this thread. First comment to make is that I have other commitments in my life and I have been over in Belfast supporting and helping my collagues in critical care. Secondly I will not be able to post much for the next week as i am of to Spain trying to glean more information, which I will report to SARC members and then have posted on the website for you all to see.

I am concerned that this thread has been comenced by a purchasers who not only has a BG and therefore should not loose her money but that she appears to wish for those without BGs to be cannon fodder in her anger at SJ. Yes people have a right to be angry and scared but to encourage them to undertake a course of action that in all probability is not in their best interests is wrong.

SOme may wish to deride and ridicule those of us who are applying rational thought to this awfull mess but at least we are trying to get a positive outcome, which incidently would benifit the vast majority of purchasers. We as purchasers should all be equal but unfortunately we are not those with BGs are not in the same boat as us and despite the most bizarre concepts and theories the money is not there. That being the case we have to behave prudently and ensure that SADM gets built so that those of us who want our properties get them and those who want their money back can get it. 

There are members of SARC who want their money back, although they are a minority and a majority who want their property. The two sides are not exclussive of one and other, indeed the IWMH purchasers actions can as previously said result in income being generated by HdT and others being paid back. What we do not want is for HdT to fold and please do not believe any rumours and strange tails about where the money is, do you really think we would be in this awfull mess if it was there?

All the best to you all
 I WANT MY HOUSE
Tony R17 18

Tony

You do really seem full of your self importance. I am sure you do a very worth while job but it does not impress me when you have to report that you have been supporting  your colleagues in critical care. That fact does not make any difference as to whether I take any more note of what you have to say.
I do hope however that you take more care with your reading ( of dosages etc. ) then your grammar and spelling.
Regards to you all whether you want your money back  or your house.

David 

Christine, I second your comments. Didn't I read somewhere from Tony that he doesn't broadcast.
Tony, assuming you were supporting and helping collagues in critical care, on a voluntary basis, well done to you. Pat on the head for that.
If it was as part of the job you are paid for, be it work or training, what is special about that?

Shame tony does need "critical care" that way he would stop peddling Almu's propoganda, take his bribe and disappear

HO HO HO.
Just a lot of point scoring snide little remarks.Almred you naughty girly you, making snide remarks about money, I suppose if you are getting some from an interested party you might think that we are all like you. Sorry but no, we do this for free!
 
As for grammar etc whilst posting on a forum, get reall this is not a work of literature but reall time thoughts.
David if you read the very first posting at the start of this thread,plus all the previous remarks on other threads, you will then see why I was stating why I have not been posting. But thank you for your very helpfull and constructive contribution to our dilema and attempts to find a solution.

 As for being important I do not even like to be caled Mr and I treat evey one as equals. I think what you should be thinking about is how are we going to get out of this mess with the least damage.

All the best to you all 

I WANT MY HOUSE
Tony R17 18

Tony, you failed to mention if your good deeds were on a voluntary basis or was it all part of what we as tax payers, pay you to do (as an employee of the NHS)?
What the hell is being called "Mr" to do with anything?
Next you will be saying that some in the NHS should be referred to as Doctor.
For God's sake, it is a job. If you are a nurse, what is special about that, over and above any other job?
What has it to do with letting a developer take your money and not come up with the goods.

When the jollity has subsided and the self gratification is done.

The main subject at this time in the administration is the recognition by the builder that the contracts have been breached, for the people with BG's.  This is the only positive development so i am saying, stop speculating and stick to the facts please.

I am saying the contract dosnt have to have a BG attached to it to be breached,  because its not the BG thats breached, its the contract............the BG just supports a breached contract.  So............. we need now to sue the builder for all contracts which are breached, which includes non BG's then when we establish that we are in a position of more strength and can argue preferential creditor status.......how can we do this?

Well...... we need to ask the lawyers to sue for possible failure to comply with the law in making depositors aware of the BG when buying a property.  There is only one thing that seperates people with BG and people without............and that is to do with information and communication.

In other words the only thing stopping people from having a BG is...............the builder at the point of sale.

There is now only a very foolish or desperate person who would advocate carrying on with building properties until this issue is persued through the courts.

The next stage is more pressure on the builder by the lawyers...its the only way.

Anyone who claims there is or there isnt any money left.................is guessing or using unsupported information

Brian, I think there are many who are missing the point that you are stating   ............the BG just supports a breached contract, the point being the admission that the contract has been breached.
But then there will be some who don't want to listen and some who will listen and think, what the hell is he on about.
The contract has been breached.

I can only assume that the foolish or desperate person you mention is the same one as I read about in the media, where the question was being asked, what fool would allow a developer to take their money and not provide their house, and then try to influence the administrators to allow them to carry on as normal. It was suggested that perhaps the person should just hand over their cheque book to the builder.

Thanks FIN for re-stating the main points in a condensed way

the light has dawned. Finally people who talk sense. If nothing else people please listen to these guys they have their heads screwed on. That is exactly the course of action that is being taken I believe my several group lawyers That is what gets me frustrated when Tony spouts crap from almun about their being little point in cancelling contracts and Martin from Abolex showing no inclination to fight for their cients properly rather just accepting corruption and the process to tick aong. Exactly right. the legal status of cancelled contracts Is different to those not. Interests become indemnity for not fufilling which offers a different legal status. So shove one Tony. You spout a load of crap and should be ashamed at trying to peddle the lies and deceit of san jose. Everyone should continue to fight and there is possibilities Listen to the sensible people on here..that excludes tony and Brianmags

oh and Tony I am still waiting for the name of the lawyer. You know the one you say you saw a written transcript of the meeting that happened between them and directors administrators which confirmed almuns warped and twisted version. Seems when you get difficult questions you disappear for a week to come back on again once the heat has passed ADMIT you willfully deceived people of the contents of that meeting. you have seen no transcript, you do not know the meeting content and you talk rubbish. This is not about people with BG's trying to mainuplate those without to get some sort of sick revenge against san jose at the expense of owners. This is about you trying to convince people to be apathetic and not try and claim their money back YOU DISGUST ME

 

I am really  fed up posting anymore because of Tony's /SARCS 's stupidity and arrogance and disregard for the damage they are doing to all concerned .I also take great offence  at Tony's continual use of  the NHS in all of this it is a total irrelevance .I can only presume he does not actually work for the NHS anymore as if he did he would know better to use them in any connection to this site or this situation without sanction or permission .There are strict rules about these things in the NHS .It would be considered at the least very unprofessional and may even lead to disciplinary action, This may account for Brianmags lack of postings recently as he actually does work for NHS.
 No one else bangs on about their profession on here it is an irrelevance and is a disgrace to constantly refer to a public body responsible to all of us as tax payers. Tony uses the NHS in some sort of  feeble attempt to make himself and his grubby little campaign more credible it really is unacceptable .As for his comment that he doesn't even like to be called "MR" this is a term used in the NHS which is reserved for senior consultants .Are we now expected to believe that this silly,arrogant wee man who can't even spell or use proper English or figure out the most basic of facts  is actually a senior consultant .I don't think so . I hope that will be an end to SARCS  constant reference to the NHS or I for one will be taking it further with the PR department of the NHS trust concerned.
I have a BG but it does not alter what I have said all along there ARE ways to protect your money if you do not have a BG. I have been saying this for months. You need a really bolshy litigation lawyer, you need to prove a breach of contract and that you are a consumer not a creditor and gain a preferential position in the pay outs of assets when the time comes or if they by some miracle get any more money through financing., sales of assets, return of money from the local councils for licenses they are not going a head with doesn’t matter where it comes from be first in line. This is what is happening in the case of other builders that have gone down but the they are not  crooks who have been planning this for at least a year before May and hiding personal and company assets  .
Why would any one other than a fool think that if SJ got or have any money they should be allowed to continue with anything until they pay back the money they have stolen to ALL purchasers who want it? ALL contracts are now in breach .I think the judge will most certainly see it this way but who knows Tony is probably meeting with him this week to tell him we all want our houses .Lets hope unlike Tony the judge is not a fool   JA

This message was last edited by julie anne on 10/27/2008.