09 Apr 2010 12:14 PM:

hI Joanniemac

                   Please don't make statments that are untrue it was not anyone from sarc who got JA banned but herself as Justin explained at the time.

As for your other comments about SARC we give our opinions and we always seek advice from our barrister before publication of those comments or opinions we have people who are in both camps and all we ever wanted was to try and get the best result for all of us who do not have bank gaurntees not just those that want their properties but also those who may have different objectives as their circunstance have changed with time. if in doubt please read our mission statement on our website.

regards

Branmags

Thread: Question for Justin ?

--------------------------------------

08 Apr 2010 2:49 PM:

Hi Justin,

                 You are correct in saying that you put our banner on the sadm forum about 21/2 years ago as we stated in our request the web site would only be used for information about sadm and for members / purchasers to have a voice in the concorsa process. while i acept that normally a vote on this is a good thing except that the person who requested is in fact no longer a purchaser and has no intrest in the inform process going on as she has had 3 bank gaurentees honoured and therefore is never going to be a resident of SADM.

                 In the last 2 1/2 years we have and our members have put up with a lot of abuse from JA and others mainly those who hold a bank gaurentee while the vast majority of purchasers do not have that luxery including myself we have only posted information and up to date reports on our site and also any valid information which is freely accessable in a format that can not be tampered with.. we have upheld the agreement we made with you in stating that we would not have a forum which would be counter productive for EOS and also uploaded your weblink as well.We still get purchasers whishing to join via this link and we have both those who want their money and those who want their house.

So please be carefull as the process is at a vital stage where the company are offering a proposal to be able to complete the project and also have offerd those who wish not to continue a 65% return of their deposit and discounts to tose who wish to continue. there will be meetings held next week in both UK and Ireland where those purchasers can vote on this proposal that has the backing of the courts and administrators.

regards Brian & Margaret Dornan aka brianmags

Thread: Question for Justin ?

--------------------------------------

05 Jun 2008 3:17 PM:

Dear All,
            here is the reply to SARC's  question about the creditors list from Costa Blanca News ( there will be further update when we get it)

Anthony,

 This is the answer from the Law professor at Alicante University.

……………………..

 

“The list presented by the company is useless. They must be included in the list made by the three administrators pointed by the court to get their money back. The administrators have two months time to make the list. If the client is included in the list and the amounts are correct, the client has no problem. Maybe the lawyer wants to be sure the client is included and therefore he needs the contract and other documents to proof the amounts the client paid.”

……………………………..

However I agree that some lawyers are trying to take advantage of the situation to make large amounts of money and rip off property buyers.
 I will look into how much different law firms are charging to put buyers on the creditors’ list.

 Cheers, dave

Brianmags R4 556

Thread: San Jose into liquidation.

--------------------------------------