Plea to change law on 'glittering' deals for apartments

iB1

She "bought" the flat through an investment company? I expect it was them who told her it was worth £137,000. One born every minute

ILW

If it sound too good to be true, she was just looking at an easy way to get free money. Cannot see how she can complain when it does not pay off.

Percy1983

As mentioned by other, all investments carry risk and to expect a big payout I would expect a big risk.

blueboy43

Generali wrote: »

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.

She could use the "PasturesNew" defence and claim that she was in fact a lunatic. Then the contract could be void.



> see PN post above - I am not suggesting PN is herself a lunatic <

PasturesNew

blueboy43 wrote: »

She could use the "PasturesNew" defence and claim that she was in fact a lunatic. Then the contract could be void.



> see PN post above - I am not suggesting PN is herself a lunatic <

LOL/not suggesting

Spartacus_Mills

GeneHunt wrote: »

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...

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



Is it wrong to find this funny?

No.

Cretins like her were not complaining when they were flipping for massive profits.

Cretins like her want to be protected from the risks but want all the rewards.

Quite frankly she should have considered the risk before exchanging contracts.

This tells me she is utterly stupid.

"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."

She deserves everything she gets. I have no sympathy for her whatsoever.

Spartacus_Mills

michaels wrote: »

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

I really hope so.

Heyman_2

It's another one of those 'Tabloid Dream' stories about people with no common sense or willingness to take responsibility for their own actions, calling for the government to step in and protect them from themselves.

I'm kind of numb to them these days, although surprised that it made it as far as the BBC website.

Bangerchick

I'd say she's getting away with it lightly, after all the fall is not massive. Some apartments fell much more than that one has!

rosiedyer

Hi Guys,

Lovely to have your support :-)

I am afraid I have never 'flipped' apartments as one of you guys wrote on our Facebook wall, I am a first time buyer and I am trying to protect future buyers (I have no assets). Yes it would have been lovely if the apartment had increased in value but that is not the point, I still may not have been able to get a mortgage as the banks have increased the deposit required to 35%!! The deposit I paid back then cannot be used towards that 35% because of the shortfall. Yes there was a discount when I purchased but if you buy something 2 years in advance, would you not expect one? If I'd have known it would be 4 1/2 years o'd have asked for a bigger one!

Unfortunately I did not have a crystal ball in 2006 to tell me this building would be delayed and that I would move to the other end of the country in this time and if I ever buy it, need to rent it out.

Hope some of you can cheer up a bit. Like tomterm said above "British people have an odd attitude towards people who are trying to improve their life."