Plea to change law on 'glittering' deals for apartments

GeneHunt_2

I know many posters will feel really sorry for Rosie Dyer who wants a change in the law......

..... apparently to protect from herself lol. She obviously has never heard of caveat emptors...

Plea to change law on 'glittering' deals for apartments


Four years after exchanging contracts on an apartment in Birmingham's "new icon", one woman fears being sued or made bankrupt.
The Cube was completed in AugustMarketed as a "glittering jewellery box", Rosie Dyer, 30, said she was very excited about buying her first home in The Cube.
She saw plans for the canal-side tower and signed up to buy one of the 244 apartments it would offer - so purchased "off-plan".
The 23-storey building, devised by London "gherkin" designer Ken Shuttleworth, also offers shops, offices, a restaurant and panoramic city views.

"Myself and many other investors now find ourselves in the impossible position of being unable to complete on the apartments we exchanged contracts on - for reasons outside our control," she said.
She is now calling for changes to laws governing the sale of off-plan properties, to give people greater protection.
Miss Dyer agreed to buy the studio flat for £116,500, paying an £11,600 deposit when she exchanged contracts in 2006.
She said she wanted an investment for "her pension" and believed she was getting a bargain as was told by the seller it was worth £137,500.
However, Miss Dyer, a trainer for a mobile phone firm, said the flat was recently valued at £105,000.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12207571



Is it wrong to find this funny?

dori2o

Part of me is saying, yes,there should be some kind of protection that says, when buying off plan a deposit secures the property, but the final sale price should be determined by a valuation on completion, not one that is done at the start of the project.

Then there is another side of me that says, tough. You bought when the market was good, now it's in decline, suffer like the rest of us.

Would they expect the same 'protection' if they had bought a completed apartment, then 12 months later find it had lost 1/3 of its value?

Clearly there is an argument for both sides of the coin.

Generali

As the OP says it's caveat emptor. If you sign up to a contract then you have to go through with it.

This was a business transaction so consumer law wouldn't come into it anyway.

cogito

So she thought she was going to make a mint and ended up on a loser. She wouldn't be complaining if she'd sold on at a profit. Tough !!!!!!.

ILW

The term she used "investment" would usually mean that risk was involved.

purch

How she 'dreamed' of being able to say...

"Myself and many other investors now find ourselves in the impossible position of having made such a huge profit, we just don't know what to spend the money on - for reasons outside our control,"

Stupid, greedy people are always hard to feel sorry for.

michaels

No doubt if she had made a profit by flipping she would be proposing a law that all such profits should be confiscated and used to support the geneeral good?!

My only thought is that as any profit would have been taxable may be the loss should be offset against tax too?

Oh - another thought - how will she be bankrupted, if the current valuation is the original selling price less her deposit what is the problem?

purch

Oh - another thought - how will she be bankrupted, if the current valuation is the original selling price less her deposit what is the problem?

You can't allow common sense to get in the way of a good "story".

WHITEVANMAN

michaels wrote: »

No doubt if she had made a profit by flipping she would be proposing a law that all such profits should be confiscated and used to support the geneeral good?!

My only thought is that as any profit would have been taxable may be the loss should be offset against tax too?

Oh - another thought - how will she be bankrupted, if the current valuation is the original selling price less her deposit what is the problem?

Likely her mortgage will not be approved at the lower valuation.

michaels

But can she be sued for more than the difference between the asking price less deposit and the current valuation?

WHITEVANMAN wrote: »

Likely her mortgage will not be approved at the lower valuation.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Silly biatch