PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.Fraud by developer against a new build
Comments
-
Money laundering is essentially trying to make 'dirty' money (e.g. which originated from criminal activities) look 'clean' by funneling it through legitimate looking businesses. Here, your money (presumably) originated from legitimate work/income, so there's no issue of 'laundering' it. It sounds more like fraud.Then paid the remaining 30% upon exchange, again my solicitor did all the checks etc that a conveyancing solicitor would, however it has come to light that the developer never owned the building, which he was going to redevelop into new flats. Looks like my solicitor may have not done all the relevant checks.
Initially there was a letter claiming they have assets, which was done by the developer's solicitor but it has come to light they have no assets, it was all a lie.
What checks did the solicitor do on who owned the building - this should be a standard one. Also, can you prove your deposit was paid on the basis of them having assets? You may have a claim against the developer's solicitor directly, or against you original solicitor (who may claim against professional insurance or sue the developer's solicitor in turn).
However I would think carefully about ploughing more money into the search, especially against the developer. You would have to prove you are owed the money, obtain a CCJ, and then get bailliffs involved to actually collect across borders. This may be more likely against either solicitors, but I don't think it's worth the risk against the developer.0 -
The contract that about 99.9% of home buyers in this country use says that the money is transferred to the vendor on completion.
But a contract can anything you like... it could say the money is transferred 6 months in advance of completion or 10 years after completion. As long as both parties agree.
That was my understanding too, that funds would be released in the end although I did not find this information on the contract, however within the contract it does say the developer would build the flats all at their own expense so none of our money is actually required by them in order to finish completion, yet the developer's solicitor released the funds. My own conveyancing solicitor told me, the funds will stay in a client account and the developer's solicitor should release it to the developer upon completion of the project. This makes me thing the developer's solicitor was part of all this.0 -
However I would think carefully about ploughing more money into the search, especially against the developer. You would have to prove you are owed the money, obtain a CCJ, and then get bailliffs involved to actually collect across borders. This may be more likely against either solicitors, but I don't think it's worth the risk against the developer.
Yes the detective works more on a no find no fee basis, I think the way forward is to claim via the solicitor's indemnity insurance. In terms of the assets the developer has, it was another solicitor who authorised this information, it was on their letter headed paper. Harry spoke to those solicitors who said apparently the developer 'stole' the letter headed paper and wrote all that up himself about him having assets worth millions. It's quite confusing.0 -
So the OP's solicitor and the others along the way are all dodgy, so will this solicitor's indemnity insurance be valid?
Poor OP could end up even worse off with no pay out and Harry's probably expensive bill to cover (shared by the other 'vendors'?).0 -
So the OP's solicitor and the others along the way are all dodgy, so will this solicitor's indemnity insurance be valid?
Poor OP could end up even worse off with no pay out and Harry's probably expensive bill to cover (shared by the other 'vendors'?).
My hunch says my conveyancing solicitors were negligent as in they just took the word from the managing agent (who may also be involved) and went with it. They didn't even perform land registry checks. Harry's bills are expensive especially getting a court order to freeze the developer's bank account and to go through the statements, but at least the costs are split into 10 of us. I spoke to a few solicitors and so did some of the other vendors and so far they all said there's a good chance we will win the case but most likely through claiming against the solicitor's indemnity insurance. Let's see, I am not going down without a fight!0 -
I would say forget about finding the developer & freezing bank accounts.
If the developer's solicitor should have retained the funds in a client account then they are at fault and a claim should be made against them.
It sounds to me that 'Harry' is just out to make himself as much work as possible which isn't actually required.0 -
ciderboy2009 wrote: »I would say forget about finding the developer & freezing bank accounts.
If the developer's solicitor should have retained the funds in a client account then they are at fault and a claim should be made against them.
It sounds to me that 'Harry' is just out to make himself as much work as possible which isn't actually required.
That's what us victims thought too, but then after speaking to a few solicitors some say, in order to claim the insurance you have to mitigate your losses and check that all other routes to claim your money back have been exhausted first, otherwise the insurance company may refuse to pay out since you did not try to locate the funds first?
Although there has been a solicitor or two who said to take the route of directly claiming against the solicitor's indemnity insurance.
Do you know if we have to mitigate our losses before claiming through insurance?0 -
That's what us victims thought too, but then after speaking to a few solicitors some say, in order to claim the insurance you have to mitigate your losses and check that all other routes to claim your money back have been exhausted first, otherwise the insurance company may refuse to pay out since you did not try to locate the funds first?
Although there has been a solicitor or two who said to take the route of directly claiming against the solicitor's indemnity insurance.
Do you know if we have to mitigate our losses before claiming through insurance?
I would say that you claim from the developer's solicitor. Let them mitigate their losses not you.
I would also check that your solicitor gave instruction that your money should be held by the developer's solicitor and not passed on.I'm a Forum Ambassador on The Coronavirus Boards as well as the housing, mortgages and student money saving boards. I volunteer to help get your forum questions answered and keep the forum running smoothly. Forum Ambassadors are not moderators and don't read every post. If you spot an illegal or inappropriate post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Any views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com.0 -
This is surely key - it's the solicitor who's insured, not you. My understanding was that you don't claim on their insurance, you sue them, and they claim on their insurance. Meeting the requirements of their insurance (such as mitigating losses) is surely their problem.I would say that you claim from the developer's solicitor. Let them mitigate their losses not you.0 -
People, Chill, this is so obviously a windup thread.
Nobody would be thick enough to pay 60% of a house, potentially hundreds of thousands of £ for something that doesn't yet exist.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards