28 Apr 2007 6:31 PM:
Our apartment is ( will be ) in Block 18. We were told when purchasing that there would be a pool at the back of our apartment, that we would literally be able to come down the stairs and be at the pool. We were assured that everything is worked out very scientifically by architects, planners etc. in relation to space. There is absolutely no way that RyF did not know there was not enough room for a pool. It seems like very sharp practice to me. The apartments in Phase 3 are probably less attractive in terms of seaviews, view of golfcourse etc., and were made more attractive by the inclusion of a pool. So, I feel that we were duped into buying, and must have some rights of redress.
I am absolutely furious at this news, and wonder what our legal rights are in this situation. Four pools between 700 apartments is simply not enough, particularly in high season. Is there any way RyF can be forced to provide another pool by building fewer apartments, if necessary. At this stage I think that I would prefer to have my money back, instead of completing on an apartment that was missold.
Sorry about the rambling nature of this post, but I really am wondering what my rights are at this stage. I suspect that I don't have any rights. Has anybody got a site plan of the entire development showing the position of the pools that were proposed? If so, would you be willing to e.m. it to me?
Thanks,
MCK
Community thread:
Drive-by valuation
--------------------------------------