Ripped Pergola Covers...

This may be a naive posting, but I understand San Jose hadn't done an awful lot of work yet (hadn't they only just got the building permissions?), so where's our money gone? 

Has the company collapsed due to previous/other developments?  Have they been trading illegally?

Good Question,

 Yet not one reply when you posted originally maybe everyone was in shock however still think this is valid if approx 1700 people left deposits and only 25% have BG's thats an awful lot of money in SJ/HdT bank accounts.

If all of the land has not been paid for nor all of the licences they should not need to go to the banks for finance THEY HAVE OUR MONEY so where has it gone?

Regards

Arlene

My theory godmother told me

The builder was more concerned with long term investment in land and speculation about building larger sites and bigger returns.  The result of this was owning, (or owing on) large plots of land with grand designs, and selling the lifestyle to depositors, to earn lots of profit.

I have always had the models of success from a business as, finding what a customer wants, giving a fair price and good quality and delivering the goods.  These dont apply in the case of SJ, to my mind.

I am not sure how many of those boxes SJ think they can tick but i see them as greedy and putting the customer last.......and thats not my fault so i want my money back and the builder to be investigated.

Well said Briando55.! They should be investigated and then jailed! At least Dick Turpin had the decency to wear a mask! Cheers Joanniemac

I WANT MY MONEY BACK AND IF I DON'T GET IT IWANT TO SEE THE DIRECTORS OF SJ JAILED FOR FRAUD




ARLENE

T'wud make a lovely photo for framing Arlene - close your eyes and just picture them in handcuffs being arrested.  I could finally replace that one for the picture of my lovely little Marbella that never was hanging by my desk!

Not that Im bitter at all.

Wishing all those with the BG to hand a rapid result..

Sal

Don't Spain have a proceeds of crime law like the UK when they cease any cash or assets they believe to be a proceed of crime Like when the big drug dealers get their houses and fancy cars taken of them .Does not even matter if LTD company as long as can be proven the proceeds were from criminal transaction  .I think the money goes to a good cause and I think we are all a very good cause . JA

Why not get Tony to arrange to see Almu for a "love in" (at the restuarent in jumilla) I understand there is a nice knocking shop hotel in the town. (would suit both of them to be involved in such a tardy mess)

We all arrange (all 1500 buyers) that we kidnapp her (and any cronies with her)

We smuggle the crooked "b....tch" to another country.

Then tell the Director "father scum" he can only have her back if he pays back all the deposits, i.e. sells the millionaire mansions in Mauritius, all the cars, closes all the offshore bank accounts in Panama and returns everyone's money.



Doubt Tony has the guts to do that ...................................

After all if money is not  returned we could always shove her into a footing/ concrete  for a new apartment block at Santa Ana as Tony is convinced it will get built!

The Director of San Jose and "father scum" has lost any morals anyway he will just cry a little bit, bury the missing daughter and sit drinking his pina colada in mauritius if we let him get away with it ...anyway.

Lets have a vote ... direct action for results

 

Hey Foxy stay with us your actions sound a bit too harsh for me but we could find something in between to help  all of us out. I for one am fed up with the kid glove approach. These guys and gals are crooks . I would like it if Tony, SARC et al shut the F up and smelt the roses their defence of this company is nauseating.

Foxxy, you should write a novel with those thought and make millions.  You may be the next Ian Rankin on the Forum - when you get the booker prize you can say your stories all started on this Forum because of crooked builder's who stole 1500 people's money and you decided to reep revenge !  Best keep it fictional tho eh?

Sal

Hi All,
An interesting if not particularly informative lot of postings. It is a shame that some appear to be unable to get over the angst that this awfull situation causes and just go on being angry throwing insults about.  As for where did the money go, that is something that SARC has been asking since July and I am very concerned that despite the lack of proof of any client accounts there are those who seem convinced that their money is there. 

Can we all try to calm down and try to think, yes, think rationally. The bext chance that those of us without BGs have of protecting and getting our money back is for SADM to be built. My prime concern is our, yes our money and taking a course of action that has a better probabilty of a positive outcome. Hurling angst ridden  comments and blaming all and sundary for our woes might make some feel better but it achieves very little.

I and others are doing all we can to protect our money and say most definately that "  I WANT MY HOUSE"

All the best to you all and I truly hope that we all get a positive outcome.
Tony
R17 18

Hi Tony

There are a lot of threads about for some reason, but i placed these details on one of them this morning, which adds a different dimension to your posting.

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 successfully argue 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 difference in trading policy by the company?  This then follows to the question of, is it a legal requirement, has the requirement 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?  The only option is to sue both for breach of contract and for non compliance with the law.

Allowing them to build on with these issues unresolved is foolish in the extreme.

What im saying is that the first sign of any answer to challenge, from the builder has resulted in them agreeing the contracts are out of date.  It was never their decision to say they were in breach of course...it was the administration that made them accept that they were in breach.  They had no choice of course.

My point is that the contracts are out of date regardless of them having BG's or not.  The best option is to sue them for breach of contract now.  There can be no building going on while the builder is under any investigation.

Brian