SARCO

Having read the latest fairytale report from SARC and feel a bit like Alice in Wonderland at the mad hatters tea party, however despite being amusing there is one passage that I take issue with

Should you wish to have your money back, the conditions will be set out also in this letter. However as has been stated at previous meetings this would not come in a lump sum and will be paid back over a period of time. Nor would the whole amount be returned.

Says who? I thought this was up to the administrators and Judge and not dictated by the wants and wishes of Almudena/SARC/ or anyone else who attended same meeting.
 

I want my money back  and if it take the fall of SJ with it even better this bunch of dishonest rogues do not deserve to trade.

"However as has been stated at previous meetings this would not come in a lump sum"
Only one side would benefit from that then and what about interest, as if there were stage payments, the people who wanted their money back would be part funding the development.

""will be paid back over a period of time"
Wouldn't be surprised if they even tried to make it conditional that X number of properties would have to be sold, before any payments were made.

"Nor would the whole amount be returned."
Why, if it is owed to you?
 

That is like them saying to people, if you pay xxxx€ for a house, we cannot guarantee that we will provide in full, it may not have a roof.

Arlene, you are absolutely correct .When ,how and on what terms purchasers get their deposit back will not be decided by anyone at that meeting.Certainly not Almu .The judge will decide and has already refused SJ 's request for a hearing on this matter .The judge will decide with no hearing  .This is good news and proves this part of Tony's report is fabricated nonsense .

I would not take as red any information that comes from Tony via his lawyer either .This advise as related back to us by Tony seems very misguided and more to do with what  SJ would like to happen than on what the judge will actually decide .

Bare in mind that most lawyers are fighting really hard and arguing every point of law that can be applied in this situation and siting previous judgements which were upheld in favour of purchasers under consumer law to influence the decision 

It would seem  from what Tony has told us of his lawyer that he  would rather have us all lie down and roll over in stead of fighting for what is rightfully ours .There is always the chance that Tony is not relaying properly or has misunderstood what his lawyer is saying . I completely disagree that the best thing to do is nothing and am delighted my lawyer disregards the wishes of  SJ and only has my interest at heart .

As has been said on EOS and other sites many times by respected lawyers , it is very important to be sure your lawyer does not have an interest with  the developer /or with the development being built  . It is difficult to know for sure but there are signs that indicate where your lawyers true interests are . Regards MM

This message was last edited by MAGICMEG on 09/05/2009.

This message was last edited by MAGICMEG on 09/05/2009.

This message was last edited by MAGICMEG on 09/05/2009.

Hi All,

 I am amazed not just by the usual suspects meanderings but their  failure to let every one read postings, access the reports,

communicate with their solicitors and them make up their own minds.   I am appaled that any one would not realise that solicitors are making loads of money out of those who are frantic with worry and chasing the very very unlikely chance of special creditor status.

I suggest that we all ignore the small self interest group and get on trying to help one and other out of this mess. Access the SARC website and read the report and run it past your own legal representative.

 I WANT MY HOUSE & A POSTIVE OUTCOME FOR ALL

Tony R 17 18

I too am amazed in fact amazement does not even come close to the absolute TWADDLE YOU/SARC come up with, sorry for being blunt but in my opinion and I STRESS it is my opinion  you talk utter nonsense.

I can only think that you have a hidden agenda no one with an ounce of common sense would believe the information you print or more important the so called source of your information.

At first I found you and your posts all very amusing however as time has gone by I am starting to find  it rather insulting. 

 well said arlene

"I am amazed not just by the usual suspects meanderings"
Regular report writer (self acclaimed), do you mean usual culprits?  

"I am appaled that any one would not realise that solicitors are making loads of money "
Possibly and some worth every cent, especially those who have had client's deposits refunded.
How much has your solicitor had back for you?

"I suggest that we all ignore"
I suggest all just ignore this idiont and the fiction he writes (mis-spelling most)

"Access the SARC website and read the report "
By all means do. Just don't believe it.

Tony

You seem to have it in for the banks and solicitors, but find no fault with san jose, we like arlene were promised bank guarantees by san jose but surprise we did'nt get one (this is illegal). Do you expect the legal people to work for nothing, ours are working on a reasonable fee considering we have a uk based lawyer and a spanish based one as well (working to get our money back). So i take it from your post you are not happy to be paying for your legal advice and would sooner just take what san jose tell you. Can't rember the last time we had any contact with san jose, god knows what the do with their time it certainly isn't building anything.

PS

IWMMB

KInd Regards

Mark

Glendale ,

Tony has always been reluctant to pay for legal services and has accused a number of lawyers on the forum of being  " on the take "  Most  of us like yourself have sought the legal advice they felt necessary to protect their interests,however I often wonder if we have been wasting our time as Tony et al have been keeping  SJ one step a head of the game at every turn . SARC have been informing SJ  of our intentions via this forum from the very beginning and have played right in to their hands  .That is why no one gives  any useful info on this forum any more .I have been shot down in flames many times for saying SARC are dangerous not because they intend to be but because of their ignorance and stupidity .Tony and SARC have done us all a  great deal of harm with their misguided affiliation and  blind trust of  SJ .

They are just too stupid and blinkered to realise it yet but time and only time will show that they have been fools and have sold us all down the river to the benefit of the crooks .

I wish I was wrong but I know for a fact I am not .Regards to all ,hope you all get a fair result .

Magicmeg

              this is an open forum and as such anyone can join do you realy believe that no one at SJ has access to what you write here we told you from the begining to be careful what you write and say but you did not listen. As for SARC we have no problem with anyone wanting their money back but as Jonie666 has proved us right that those with BG's are secure and the only ones who stand to loose out are those without BG's just like myself and Tony.

and just to say we do have a spanish Barrister whom we paid a very resonable price for his services

Brianmags R4 556

I want my house

Hi All,

SARC still has purchasers joining and its membership is growing. The aims of SARC are clear from the SARC website and it is a purchaser body, working of behalf of purchasers, independant of outside influences. SARC seeks a postive outcome for all purchasers and will continue to work towards that goal.

 I WANT MY HOUSE AND A POSITIVE OUTCOME FOR ALL

Tony R17 18

"Jonie666 has proved us right that those with BG's are secure and the only ones who stand to loose out are those without BG's just like myself and Tony."
Sorry to disagree, but your downfall has been in not protecting your interest, despite being warned.

"and just to say we do have a spanish Barrister whom we paid a very resonable price for his services"
Yes, possibly the problem. You get what you pay for.

"SARC still has purchasers joining and its membership is growing. The aims of SARC are clear from the SARC website and it is a purchaser body, working of behalf of purchasers, independant of outside influences. SARC seeks a postive outcome for all purchasers and will continue to work towards that goal."
OK, that is the comedy act finished. Funnier than anything on BGT.

"SARC still has purchasers joining and its membership is growing."
So is that 54, 55, 56 or 57 now?

"The aims of SARC are clear"
Sure are and quite funny.

"SARC website and it is a purchaser body,"
Is that a registered body or just a couple in it for a laugh and wanting to flog T shirts and mugs on the way.
Sorry, it is the mugs that join and listen.

"working of behalf of purchasers"
Working ???

"independant of outside influences" !!!!

"SARC seeks a postive outcome for all purchasers and will continue to work towards that goal."
Probably a dream of all. Just some are more realistic.

 Hi Tony

From what I have seen you write your barrister has told you not to bother with any legal action as this is fruitless. This is what you have told us all in trying to convince us not to take legal action either. If this is the advice you have been given then I agree you should have paid for someone who had your best interests at heart and listened to your instructions and then gave you alternatives.

I have just got back from Spain having met with Emilio to collect my money. he could not do enough for me. came to the bank, translated, sorted out customer documentation, offered to come to the airport at 10:55 at night to clear the money through. 

This is the mark of a good lawyer; someone who has the customer at heart not himself. Your layers advice , if correctly quoted, has always sounded like someone who wanted to take your money (no matter how small or reasonably priced) and pay lip service

Dear Anna,

                     We ar so Glad you cashed in your Bank Gaurentee and that emmillo was so helpful but you have to realise that those of us without BG's do not have the option to cash in and get the money from the BANK so no matter how helpfull your solicitor is he is sitting with a Royal Flush when getting you your money because it was the bank that paid not HDT how many non BG holders has he been able to get to get a full refund back?. I will answer this one for you none

As we have said al along those with BG's are secure those of us without are not No Build no money or very little over a long time period  sorry Anna I am extreamly happy that you cashed in your BG but it does not change the facts that we the 90% without BGs are just ordinary creditor status

regards Brianmags

The jokes just get funnier.

A SARC member says "if you do not have a BG which is the case for 90% of purchasers". It is illegal not to issue BGs, so 90% of customers have been conned, yet the fools at SARC still sit open mouthed, and believe what the developer tells them, and wants others to do the same, despite admitting 90% have been conned.

 Thanks Brian and I am the first to agree that it is a very different scenario trying to get your money back when you have a BG compared to when you do not. Ultimately the judge will decide on an outcome; though assets in this climate will be hard to sell t recover funds to pay out owners.

Your way however offers no hope and no realism of what has happened. you only need to read your own posts from last year to understand that no-one is wanting their house except yourselves. 

Hi Anna,

                 Thanks for the polite reply but I must correct you on the statement as to who wants their houses  SARC has well over 100 members and we must not forget that there is also a large spanish contingent of purchasers and I know that there is a serious offer on the table I can't say much about that  as yet but please believe me when I say it I have had it confirmed from an indipendant source.

as to whether we are doing it right the answer is that if we dont do this we all loose out so and the other point is that after a year the compnay has not been liquidated so there is a chance and that is all I need to continue as you said if they are liquidated then not much change around for us without BGs so I fight on

whishing you all the best 

Brianmags R4 556]

I want my House   

"SARC has well over 100 members", so not that many then, despite claims that majority of purchasers were members "and still growing"

"that there is a serious offer on the table I can't say much about that  as yet but please believe me when I say it I have had it confirmed from an indipendant source.", Cor and if you have a source, it must be fact. You don't get the wool pulled over your eyes, do you. Do you. You have already.

"as to whether we are doing it right the answer is that if we dont do this we all loose out so and the other point is that after a year the compnay has not been liquidated so there is a chance and that is all I need to continue as you said if they are liquidated then not much change around for us without BGs so I fight on", so, you don't know the outcome and are prepared to tout for people to join your clan and risk their money.

Please don't rubbish the developer, the agents, the solicitors, you too are trying to lead people up a blind alley and rish their cash.
Just hope you can sleep at nights. There again, perhaps not and one morning you will wake and realise how you have contributed to peoples worries.

Fin,

                you are not even a purchaser at SADM but you find it good fun to rubbish everything

just be awear that the Agents and Solicitors who did not serve their clients are worse than the Builder because we actually paid them to protect our intrests and advises us if an English solicitor did the same here we would be suing them for malpractice at very least

brianmags