"The Biggest Con of all Cons" - They Want More of Your Money

MM

My understanding is that if you have not resolved your contract and continue with the purchase your credit remains as is and you do not have to pay anything further until the house is built.  If a house is sold to a new buyer then they could possibly be asked for stage payments.

The 65% is applicable to those who want there money back.

Maybe Martin can confirm this on this site.

Thier viability plan is to construct 1263 properties in Jumilla,
Residencial Santa Ana del Monte Golf, such construction taking around 2
years to deliver, and what their offer here is, is to commence
construction in the year 2011 providing a delivery date for 2013, the
situation is as follows; with respect to payment terms they request, for
the first year of construction each client whos contract is still
binding and not resolved, to make payment of 30% of the total pending
amount due, and on the second year of construction, the rest, being 70%,
the obvious part here is that in order for them to actually handle the
construcion would be to received funds upfront.

Clients that did not resolve their contract,will stay as buyers and will recieve their house once completed .

Perhaps as Linda says Martin or one of the lawyers  could clarify if those who did not resolve their contract can still opt for their money back if  ??????? big if ! 50% vote  to accept the offer

This message was last edited by MAGICMEG on 19/02/2010.

Hi, Here is a couple of questions, if SJ/HdT continue the build and offer new contracts will they issue BGs to all purchasers? If this happened and they failed to complete on time then people could claim on the BGs, and would be in a far stronger position than they are now without the BGs ? Also if you decided at a later date you don`t want to complete, according to the original contract you would lose 20% of monies paid, which is better than they are offering at the moment, or would they change this in any new contract offered? What do you think? Cheers Joanniemac

MM

I rang the company and asked as it did not make sense to me that they want our vote as we have not cancelled our contract but would not give any incentive for us to vote in their favour.  That is what I was told. 

Joanniemac.  That would make sense as one would presume that the court must uphold the law.  Again a question for Martin or any lawyer that would like to assist us on this site.

Linda  it is folk who have not cancelled their contracts that they want as this is what will finance the build ie the 30% of the outstanding balance on the house and then 70%  ie the full balance in the second year of the build  ie you would be paying the full amount on the house before completion .

It would seem what they are asking, is that because they can not finance the only way forward is for purchasers to finance the build by paying up front , Not sure who would be mad enough to risk this and I think they have a bloody cheek even suggesting it  .They obviously think for some reason ?  that purchasers are desperate .This is why tempers frayed when Dave posted from his lawyer and I have now (for information only received the same info from my lawyers as well ).So in short Linda  of course they want your vote especially if you have not cancelled your contract you are their new source of finance .They were hardly likely to explain this to you on the phone today as it is not in their interest to do so .

Joannie in order for them to give you a BG they would have to pay all the deposits into a secure account or the banks will not issue BGs all the deposit money is gone so where are they going to get the money to pay the bank in order to get the banks to issue BGs ,Does not seen possible ,As usual they are taking purchasers for mugs with a great deal of help from SARC .

Thinking caps on people !!!!!!!!!

Hi MM,  Just voiceing thoughts that were going round my head! Who in their right mind would give this company another cent with their track record. I hope those that want to continue with their properties are not disappointed. Cheers Joanniemac

MM That is my point and that is what I told them.  Nobody in their right mind would pay them any more money and therefore they would not get the vote required.  I was told that this has been misinterpreted by Daves lawyer.  

Misinterpreted  by a lawyer ! 

Hi Linda ,Not surprised this is what they told you .It has also been misinterpreted by at least  three other lawyers by all accounts  . What a coincidence !

Linda    Possibly the solicitors were all told from the same source, that s why they all say the same,  so desnt necessarily mean the source was telling it correctly so has misled the solicitors who in turn could be misleading thier clients.   

maybe the person giving Linda her info has mis- interpreted, anyone want to tell me why we haven't had a problem in 4 years so why would we get wrong info now ?

Misinterpretation is caused by those who only see the wrong in everything.  Does this ring any bells ?

The lawyers were all given it from the same source the agreement document that went to the court how can that be wrong .You will all have copies soon enough as HdT have promised through SARC to make it available to all  purchasers in  Spanish and English.  It is beyond me why anyone would be daft enough to  think that a lawyer is going to mislead a client about the contents of a document that the client can read for themselves .I really do think their are some on here who have taken leave of their senses .SJ/HdT have not done one decent thing for purchasers in their entire existence what makes you  think they will now.

Oh it is far easier to make out the lawyers are liars ,auntie Linda and Dave are liars ,Redman and Nigel have got it wrong and I am just a trouble maker .In fact the only naive people still living in cloud cuckoo land are Tony .Brian ,malc , Linda  N and Chrissie  .Not one other person believes anything  SJ/HdT say anymore .Enjoy your dream you are all stark raving  bonkers .MM

If you knew that you couldn't achieve something, but had to give the impression that you could, would you not also write a proposal that was not favourable to many and plan it years into the future in the hope that more people will just go away or die which is the case in some instances.

For anyone to even consider a property with these crooks at this stage is so mad they shouldn't be allowed out.

Malc, in what way do you mean that the lawyers have mislead us or are misinterpreting the document, obviously we don't have all the information yet, but what are you saying?  are you saying they are lying about the time scales, or that they might be building them in a couple of weeks time, or in ten years time?  I am yet to receive one piece of advice or useful information off you.  I suggest you have no legal representation otherwise you would have the same information as the rest of us.

As for those worried about contracts, there are at least five laws they have already broken that allow you to cancel your contract, even if you did nothing, the most they can take from you is 20% of what you've already paid.   Great thats a better deal than their 65% offer.  And anyway by the time these properties are built, the compound interest on what they owe me will probably come to the same as a key ready property, so I can sue them in years to come and reposes a property. 

And therein lies another problem for SJ (Scum Jose).  Once they start trading there are plenty waiting in the wings to pounce on any assets they might have.  Last time they just made it into administration by the skin of there teeth.

Oh and they were also involved with CAM Bank ( who are the biggest creditor to a tune of €9M).  Has anyone seen the latest scam that CAM bank have been pulling, hand in hand with developers.  Now there's a story.

Night all.

  Like many im still in the dark over alot so im not going to say anything that i dont beleive is the truth.  Funny i made a tounge in cheek comment, and you all rubbish it as quick as you can.  

Redman yes i have legal rep, and have had some money back, and have not had to payout anymore money to my solicitor for him to get it for me.

How come its only seems to be mostly the ones who are anti hdt have seen these documents, It seems the anti builders are getting twittery.   Im happy  with whichever way it goes apart from liquidation.  I suppose this isnt going to be a fair discussion as everyone is blinkered and not prepared to think outside the box.  Also when it suits many critise thier solicitors and the legal system, then all of a sudden when it suits its noway can it be untrue. lol Have you all got proof they actually saw the actual document and it had been signed and stamped by the judge? or was hearsay from a clerk or something like that.

You can all rubbish me, my grammer etc.  You can write long worded stuff in perfect english,m but i still can think for myself and every right to say what i think and how i see things, that makes it a discussion.   I choose to ignore certain people cause i have my own thoughts on them, and dont listen to them.

Hi All,

Not wanting to post prior to actually knowing what is going on, I have waited prior to responding to the usual "misunderstandings" from solicitors that they can easily say were an initial impression. ( remember this has happened before E.G. the erroneous report regarding actions by Jumilla Town hall)  I am sorry to have to dissapoint those who believe that HdT want us to pay more money..... THEY DO NOT!

•  That comment was made prior to properly reading the document due to the pressure from clients to see some return for their payment to their legal rep.

• That it may be possible that there is a conflict of interest, in that there is decreased buisness for the legal profession and it may unfortunately effect how they relay information to clients. I am not saying that this is the case but it is a possability.

I stongly suggest that rather than shooting off without having seen the ratified agreement (see the SARC February report & the one that will follow in 1-2 weeks) that it would be wise to wait & see what is actually in the agreement.

  I WANT A POSITIVE OUTCOME FOR ALL

Tony R17 18

This message was last edited by TonyMal on 20/02/2010.

Total tosh as usual Tony

Why are we all fighting with each other??

San Jose & Herrada Del Tollo are the bad guys here. We are ALL just victims of these conmen!

We have a real chance in the very near future to make a major step in helping to resolve this mess by voting to put HDT in liquidation & at least start to look forward by dealing with the demons of the past, and get our deposits back (eventually).

Whether you have "resolved" your build contract or not they are all expired and HDT cannot go forward on them without sorting them out by renegotiating terms. So even if they manage to come out of the Concursal you simply resolve your contract and go for your money back as there admin protection will have gone & they will have failed to deliver on the contract!  - QED or am I missing something?

But lets get real here none of this will ever  happen. Even if they come out of admin by coming to terms with us - their creditors, all trust is gone and no bank is going to lend them money to build again!

Hey  Nigel  think you may be  missing something but you are quite right when you say SJ/HdT are the bad guys  trouble is they are not acting  alone .Some victims are helping the bad guys achieve their objectives ,,,,,,, to shaft us again or shaft other innocent victims  !!!!!!!!! 

This message was last edited by MAGICMEG on 22/02/2010.

Hi there you guys. I am from a different Site and area. We too have been ripped off. The common denomanator is that these "Operators" are to a large extent, U.K BASED and have U.K. Addresses. Surely there must be some redress, under U.K. Law/E.U. Law? E.U Reps. should be consulted, after all its what we pay them for, is it?

Best Wishes,

Chills