country wide land holdings

GDB2222

ILW wrote: »

According to a government (I think) website which I can possibly find again, they reckon around 1% of these plots will get planning permission within the next 20 years. Thinks the odds of getting a big win on the lottery are probably similar, but I do not hear the losers wanting their money back.

Found the linkhttp://www.learnmoney.co.uk/advice/advice-87.html

They don't say how they got to their 1% figure. It's not a government site, btw.

If there is a major change in the green belt laws, quite a few of these sites could get planning permission. Otherwise, I think probably none of them will. If permission is granted there is then going to be the issue of finding out who owns the road space on the site (if any), etc. It costs a shedload of money to put in roads and drains, and how will that be sorted out? In the meantime, if these plots have been conveyed to individuals they are potentially liable if someone has a mishap on the land. It's a right mess, that's for sure.

ILW

GDB2222 wrote: »

They don't say how they got to their 1% figure. It's not a government site, btw.

If there is a major change in the green belt laws, quite a few of these sites could get planning permission. Otherwise, I think probably none of them will. If permission is granted there is then going to be the issue of finding out who owns the road space on the site (if any), etc. It costs a shedload of money to put in roads and drains, and how will that be sorted out? In the meantime, if these plots have been conveyed to individuals they are potentially liable if someone has a mishap on the land. It's a right mess, that's for sure.

I do agree with you.
The point I was making is that the "investors" expected extremely high returns. High returns always involve high levels of risk. So in effect they got just what they paid for. If they did not want the risk they should have put the money in a bank and settled on 3% not speculated hoping to get 300%. Hence my (possibly harsh) term of blinded by greed.

foxylady12

Useful numbers:

Financial Service Authority (FSA) 0845 606 1234.

Action Fraud : 0300 123 2040

GDB2222

ILW wrote: »

I do agree with you.
The point I was making is that the "investors" expected extremely high returns. High returns always involve high levels of risk. So in effect they got just what they paid for. If they did not want the risk they should have put the money in a bank and settled on 3% not speculated hoping to get 300%. Hence my (possibly harsh) term of blinded by greed.

I agree with you, but it's not like normal risk as you might get on the stock market. Essentially, they were tricked into paying 100 x the value of the land they were buying. So, it's like the risk you would have if you bought BP shares from me at £500 a share when they are currently traded at £5.

Or I might sell you my premium bonds at 100 x face value. If I induced you to buy on the basis of claims that these numbers had come up every month for the last two years (so there must be a fault in ERNIE), that would be fraud if the claim was false. It wouldn't matter if I also said that the fault might be rectified at any time.

ILW

GDB2222 wrote: »

I agree with you, but it's not like normal risk as you might get on the stock market. Essentially, they were tricked into paying 100 x the value of the land they were buying. So, it's like the risk you would have if you bought BP shares from me at £500 a share when they are currently traded at £5.

Or I might sell you my premium bonds at 100 x face value. If I induced you to buy on the basis of claims that these numbers had come up every month for the last two years (so there must be a fault in ERNIE), that would be fraud if the claim was false. It wouldn't matter if I also said that the fault might be rectified at any time.

I would suggest that the value of anything is what someone is prepared to pay at the time. 3 years ago some bank shares were worth 10 times what they are now, but investors tend to just count their losses.

foxylady12

Speak with Citizens Advice, could help.

esjjk31

yes, I understand that but my solicitor has told me that it would take a maximum of £1500 to get a detailed report on where all the money has gone and who we would be able to get it back from. this fee will be refunded if funds are found to cover this fee. I am willing to pay this as it is a small amount compared to what they have taken from me already. I am willing to see this through right to the end. I have already started procedures.

n19bigfool

From reading these threads, I've just realised I've been a victim of these scams too. How stupid do I feel? £21,000 over two sites. Is there not something we can do collectively?

esjjk31

the more of us that get together on this the better. Contacting the fraud number and the fsa is a start - they are starting to take a real interest in this. A verbal offer over the phone is still legally binding so the more of us there is gives us a better chance.
Countrywide have obviously realised that more and more people are onto them and this is why they are trying to close down.

captainham

GDB2222 wrote: »

And I guess that if people are a bit mean-spirited about giving their old clothes to charity it's okay to set fire to their homes. Yes, your moral stance is very clearly thought out.

Ah yes, because giving to charity for no personal gain and giving money to cold-callers for pure personal benefit, without even bothering to do some VERY BASIC BACKGROUND CHECKS are of course entirely the same thing.

Where there's greed, there's always a willing sucker or two.