Hear ,hear well put. Only thing missing is:

HANG THE B*****DS!!!!!!!!!

Come on Dave don't beat about the bush, say what you really think.

What a way to celebrate your centenary.

Ken.

Well put all of you! just don't lose sight of those that didn't get a bank guarentee like me is the fault of the laywers, look at the scandel of my lawyers ELS International Lawyers and the action of one of their directors, see below:

The former partner of a London and Spanish law firm is at the centre of an investigation into the disappearance of €11 million (£9.8 million) from the Guernsey-based Stirling Mortimer Global Property fund is due in court in March. A High Court order freezing the worldwide assets of the former partner, who Citywire understands to be Joe Ezaz. of ELS International Lawyers.

Can't post the link but just google ELS International Lawyers.

So if you can't trust a laywer (and an English Lawyer) who can you trust!!!!!

Bunch of crooks the lot of them.

Tony

Still waiting to see what pearls of wisdom the SARC report was offering. See it hasn't been uploaded yet? I've received my full report from my solicitor and I'm afraid it bears no resemblance to what you were trying to tell us.

San Jose would like purchasers who are still wanting their property at Jumilla to pay a further 30% plus the remaining 70% when(if) completed. Their proposed completion date is 2015, this is for 966 houses and a 9 hole golf course. No other commercial units, hotels, shops equsetrian centre etc.

So basically they would like some more free money so that they can complete a small housing estate around a pitch and putt course, approx 4-5 kms from the nearest shops. great rental potential there! Bear in mind of course they already have received sufficent money to have already completed this project.

As far as El Pinet is concerned they are going to abandon it until they have sufficent funds to continue. Albertera forget it not even mentioned due to ongoing legal disputes.

Hope you get everything you want. I also hope the company get everything they deserve. Just my opinion but probaly the same as many others.

Cheers

Dave

Hello All,

Firstly I would like to share with you that the SARC webmaster has been ill and has now recovering and will be uploading the February & March ( sent to SARC members the 15 March) update reports very soon. In the meantime I will post the report on its own thread, to enable you all to be able to read it and the information that it contains. 

Secondly, SARC have been in frequent  communication with HdT and even if I am not posting, it does not mean that I & the other members of the SARC Exectutive are not active putting forward the members concerns and seeking clarification on varrious points. 

 Concerning the comments about what some solicitors are telling their clients, well the truth will be clear to all very soon.

  I WANT A POSTIVE OUTCOME FOR ALL

Tony R17 18

Please elaborate on your last statement regarding what some solicitors are telling their clients.

Thanks in anticipation.

Ken.

Hi Ken

There appears to be some confusion over the settlement agreement coming from some solicitors and inferences regarding payments for property purchases.  I have queried this with HdT who are adamant that this is not the case and know that it would not be acceptable to anyone. I think that when the settlement agreement is there for us all to read in English on the HdT website we will be able to gauge the accuracy of this. I am certain that we will all find that there is no requirement for any phased payments prior to the completion of a purchasers property.

All the best

Tony

Tony

Just a quick question re the settlement, is it true that there is no mention of bank guarantees being issued to cover our outstanding owed amounts in conjunction with the proposal, as this is what i am told by my solicitor. If i'am wrong then please say so.

If this is the case though then it is surely against the law not to issue bank guarantees for these amounts, if they don't or cannot issue bank guarantees then this surely shows that the banks have no faith in the project

mark

Hi Mark,

I think the issue of the banks and their faith in SADM is what the settlement agreement is all about. It is by gonig through this process that HdT can ring fence its liabilities and demonstrate support for the project and banks can then supply finance to building properties rather than it going into a "black hole".  Regarding BG's  they are issued by the banks and is a question that should be addressed on the HdT website. My personal view point is, yes I would like to have a BG but I am not going to make it a deal braker. As it stands if HdT folds I truly believe I kiss good bye to my money and if it does not then I have not lost it and the court will be there to be told if HdT do not comply with the settlement agreement. SARC will do all it can to ensure compliance and that purchasers have a voice in any issues concerning SADM.

I WANT A POSTIVE OUTCOME FOR ALL

All the best

Tony R17 18

Tony

Thanks for coming back, re bank guarantees we were caught out once from not being given one before and i am certainly not doing the same again, at least if they were to offer bank guarantees we would all be in a stronger position than we are now, as i said earlier i therefore assume from your last reply that they are not going to offer bank guarantees as part of this settlement agreement, and that for me tells me that they either are unable to obtain the guarantees from the banks, or do not want to issue them, which as we all know is a legal requirement.

As i said earlier as far as i know there are no offers of bank guarantees, just 65% of my money back (and thats not even straight away), they will kindly pay 90% after 4 years and the remaing 10% the year after, that to me is not only a poor deal but i think they would not even honour that.

mark

Tony, HdT have broken every rule, every promise they have ever made. What makes you so sure that they will stick to the proposal? Just because the courts will be told if they do not stick to the proposal is no guarantee to anyone. They don`t care about their clients, all they are doing is trying to save their own skins. They are only buying time, and we have to sit and wait another 4-5 years in the hope of seeing any of our money. There is nothing positive about this proposal for us, I am not prepared to wait that long only to be told further down the line that they have gone back into concurso. This company have done nothing to reassure us or prove anything they say contains a grain of truth. I will not be voting in favour of this proposal, I would rather they were put into liquidation now and at least I would know at the end of it wether I was going to get any money back, rather than sit for another 5 years and still get nothing. I wouldn`t hold my breath for your house Tony, you will be lucky if they add a few bricks onto the concrete bases over the next 5 years. The next time you speak to Almudena ask her politely but firmly for my 39,000 euros back, thanks. Cheers Joanniemac

Don't know if any one else has seen what is going on at el pinet on their forum, but it seems a right mess, re finishing the project and utilities, if they can't act honourably at el pinet which was all legal, ie they own the land,  what hope is there for SADM, they will never finish anything and once you sign for your home at SADM i can only see the same thing happening there, san jose have complete disregard for us and will allways act in their own interest and not yours.

mark

Mark, Totally agree with you, SADM will be a far worse fiasco than El Pinet. All HdT are offering to their clients is more grief spread over even more years. Put them and us out of our misery, How long are people prepared to put up with ifs, buts, maybe`s you might see your cash? Liquidiate them now and at least we will know what`s left in the pot for us in a reasonable time frame and not this cat & mouse they have been playing with us for over  4 years. Cheers Joanniemac

Hi All,

Most of you should now have recieved you letter and been able to access the HdT website and read the agreement for yourselves and that recent rumours were unfounded, yet again!

The SARC Exective Committee have read the documents on the HdT website and written a postion statement that is now on the SARC website.  We hope that every purchaser will consider their position carefully and decide their perfered option.

 I WANT A POSTIVE OUTCOME FOR ALL

Tony R17 18

No Tony not unfounded just re written on your advice as they would have quite rightly caused alarm !!!

Hi All,

JA  must definitley live in a world full of conspiracy and enjoy spreading rumour and discord. Sorry to disapoint her but as I said the court etc decide what is in a document, niether I nor SARC have the type of power nor influence that she is rambling on aboout.

I repeat

Most of you should now have recieved you letter and been able to access the HdT website and read the agreement for yourselves and that recent rumours were unfounded, yet again!

The SARC Exective Committee have read the documents on the HdT website and written a postion statement that is now on the SARC website. We hope that every purchaser will consider their position carefully and decide their perfered option.

I WANT A POSTIVE OUTCOME FOR ALL

Tony R17 18
 

Tony if as you say the court can not be influenced  why  then is the court prepared to let HdT/SJ continue without issuing BGs to all purchasers wishing to continue when it is completely illegal not to issue BGs for all off plan deposits and staged payments  ?

Thanks all for their opinions etc.

After  dialogue with my solicitor (not original) and reading all posts and sarc site etc it all comes down to one word for me.

TRUST!

Do i believe what i am being told by hdt ?

Easy answer really after i have been blatently lied to from day 1 to my face from several employees of hdt.

I would genuinely like to know how Tony can advise anybody to even consider taking anything hdt say as a basis for making a massive financial decision.

I personally do not trust them or anything they claim they can deliver to me.

Ken.

Hi All,

It is shame that some behave so childishly, in the knowledge that they have their BG's and 90% of us do not.  JA has even admited that she is not affected by the outcome of the process and yet still feels that it is OK to try & negatively effect the process.

It is up to the silent majority to decide what they want &  I believe that will vote accordingly and that is what scares those who are trying to prevent SADM going ahead. So the daft remarks, the postings, they are all mute, what matters is what each purchaser does and the sum of our joint actions can be marked. 

 I WANT A POSTIVE OUTCOME FOR ALL

Tony R17 18