Very long way off completon as they havent started .
I agree.
The examiner should sell the contracts to a new builder.
Then he would honour the contracts with the buyers. They would get the value of their €20,000 deposit and they would buy the houses at the original price of €500,000. Then everyone would be happy. Their neighbours would be buying the exact same houses for €300,000 but the important thing is that the original buyers would not have lost their deposits.
Brendan
I dont agree, the new builder should sell the houses for €285,000 to the depositors offering the discount on the basis that there will be no need to hire sales agents or advertise the sale of these properties. It would also be a way for the builder to gain some good publicity for future builds and hopefully help the new company to succeed.
At time of signing contracts our SOlicitor told us everything was above board , juts the normal bog standard contract.
This could take at least one possibly two more years which would bring peoples wait time up to almost 5 years, why on earth should anyone have to wait that long
Tut, tut, Plywood, show a bit of basic compassion.I have to say that I think the fact that this guy is currently building a 10,000 sq ft house for himself in Roscommon and driving around in an extremely flash car when his development activities are causing so much hardship is distasteful to say the least.
I agree.
The examiner should sell the contracts to a new builder.
Then he would honour the contracts with the buyers. They would get the value of their €20,000 deposit and they would buy the houses at the original price of €500,000. Then everyone would be happy. Their neighbours would be buying the exact same houses for €300,000 but the important thing is that the original buyers would not have lost their deposits.
Brendan
I'm one of the unfortunate customers who bought in Carrickmines Green and I understand everyones point that we should be thrilled to be let out of our contract. But when I was at our meeting the majority of the people were already out of their contract and mine was due to end in July of this year.
Foxylady I'd like your opinion on this please. As you know I've been following your story for a long time and to me you should be the happiest lady alive today. I'd always hoped for you that the scheme would go bust.
On a general note I don't know what the world is coming to, losing 20K when what one would have purchased has dropped a minimum 40%. Some people need their head examined. There are people on here all the time tied to contracts where they cannot get mortgages, there are thousands of people in negative equity who purchased at over inflated prices, there are people living in housing estates that will never be finished, there are people who cannot move location due to negative equity. The people getting out of this development would probably not quality for a loan at the moment and even if they did with all the budget cuts would be struggling to make repayments. The people who lose their paltry deposits are extemely lucky.
So therefore I'm buying a house and the builder should complete that contract - not my problem he can't afford it so I'm sueing him.
Well as long as we don't learn anything from the process that's the main thing.I agree.
The examiner should sell the contracts to a new builder.
Then he would honour the contracts with the buyers. They would get the value of their €20,000 deposit and they would buy the houses at the original price of €500,000. Then everyone would be happy. Their neighbours would be buying the exact same houses for €300,000 but the important thing is that the original buyers would not have lost their deposits.
Brendan
So, in summary,
If the contract term had expired, the buyers had a legal right to the return of their deposits. Agreed.
But they are lucky that the contracts expired.
However, they are unlucky that the builder is in administration and so they have lost their deposits.
The directors should not have allowed it to gone this far once the directors realised that the build was not going to be completed before the homebond expired that they should have ensured that that the company had adequate funds set aside to refund to the depositors.
The process of providing deposits needs to be reviewed so that they are insulated from the potential insolvency of the builder.
Agreed, period of home bond cover may need to be reviewed.
Now, how do we protect the builders from the potential default of buyers who are not able to complete? Increase the deposit to 30% of the final price?
I do not see this as an issue, houses/apartments were not always sold off the plans so builders should not have relyied so heavely on this practice. If they do not have sufficient funds to see a project through to completion then they should seriously consider that they are possibly biting off more than they can chew and possibly trading in a reckless and irressponsible manner.
Brendan
So, in summary,
If the contract term had expired, the buyers had a legal right to the return of their deposits. Agreed.
(And also the fact that Homebond Insurance Certification expires after 24 months - a builder must be responsible if he is delayed in re - negotiating Homebond Insurance - if the building work is going to be delayed for a period longer than 24 months he must be obliged to offer buyers release from contracts and refund of deposit - perhaps he can then offer the same buyer a new contract?)
But they are lucky that the contracts expired.
(Yes I agree)
However, they are unlucky that the builder is in administration and so they have lost their deposits.
The process of providing deposits needs to be reviewed so that they are insulated from the potential insolvency of the builder.
(Yes in our contracts our deposits were to be handed over to the builder. And I will point out that I was aware of this when I signed my contract)
Now, how do we protect the builders from the potential default of buyers who are not able to complete? Increase the deposit to 30% of the final price?
(A very important question which should not be ignored because if people loose their jobs as is currently happening - but should the builder receive any money? If someone looses their job they are going to need that deposit just to buy food and clothes etc? Definitely something that the Irish Courts should look at and pass judgement - something that can then act as a guide and framework for both builder and buyer)
Brendan
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?