Calis Beach and Fethiye Turkey Discussion Forum
Turkey Related Subjects => Turkey Discussion Forum (Not Calis specifically) => Topic started by: Ian on August 02, 2011, 11:38:50 AM
-
Not sure if this has been posted - but in the blurb it talks about "luxury apartments in Turkey" - as well as problems in Manchester!
Ian :)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
Not sure if this has been posted - but in the blurb it talks about "luxury apartments in Turkey" - as well as problems in Manchester!
Ian :)
Thanks for reminding me Ian ,I'm just sat here thinking that there is bugger all on the box tonight! I wonder where the Turkey apt is?
-
JB - of all the problems I read about Altinkum and surrounding areas seems to have more issues than Fethiye / Calis - we will see!!!
Famous last words ;)
Ian
-
ian i am glad you posted abots this programme i had forgotten :)
-
Not on in Scotland but it can be seen on Sky English ITV No.993
-
All credit to the lady we saw - who was doing everything she could to right a wrong - good luck to her
-
It turned out to be Didem and a familiar story, but as the programme said, it could be a landmark legal case and good luck to the 50+ people involved. Even so, It seems to me all the more reason and far more sensible to buy an established property where all the tapu problems and snaggings have been resolved and you know what you are getting. At least you can then see a copy of the tapu and know everthing is ok.
-
I felt sorry for them all apart from the guy who built the mansion in Crete, i thought he was a stubborn pratt who actually worsened his own situation!
-
I agree Jukebox, middle class twat
-
I don't think Shaun is middle class Anne
-
quote:
Originally posted by Anne
I agree Jukebox, middle class twat
Hey [:(!] I get told off for that ;)
-
Also agree with Jukebox this guy had pushed the self destruct button and would not take any help or advice.
I remember Ken getting told off for using that word too...
-
Holiday homes from hell closer to home- in Calis! Friend of mine bought an apartment on a complex along from Violet. This is a few years ago when they were new builds- anyway upshot is she never got her tapu despite several expensive attempts and now in the last month or so it's been repossessed by the bank as its been remortgaged by the developer. Not only that they've seized her contents too! Not a nice story . The more I hear about stuff like this the less enamoured with the place I am! I cant name the developed but I bet he's 'roaring' ! :(
-
Was the one repossesed by the bank on a plot along with 8 houses 4 were fine and the other 4 belonged to the bank?
-
No but I believe that was another of the same developer!
-
We have a complex at the back of Saglik called 'Sunflower'. What a disaster for the owners. What was originally supposed to be two sets of semis turned into a block of apartments - and we all know what the land is like in that area! He built it on a damn lake for god's sake.
I feel so sorry for those that paid good money to purchase on the site and hope they get recompense soon. The builder wants locking up (along with whoever 'passed' the plans).
-
quote:
Originally posted by Jacqui Harvey
I remember Ken getting told off for using that word too...
As I recall, there is a world of difference between calling some guy on the telly one, and calling a fellow member one.
-
wooden spoon comes to mind ;)
-
I would have thought Jacqui would be the first to complain about "bad language" - I'm surprised to see her sticking up for Ken's use of it! It's hardly the most shocking word on the planet, as that is **** I think.
:D
-
quote:
Originally posted by Scunner
I would have thought Jacqui would be the first to complain about "bad language" - I'm surprised to see her sticking up for Ken's use of it! It's hardly the most shocking word on the planet, as that is **** I think.
:D
I don't like or use bad language and I don't stick up for anyone using it. I just remember Ken being told off for using this word.
I foolishly thought it was putting the word into print on the Forum that was the issue.
So, I am now put straight, it's the context that the word is put into that matters and not the word itself, Thanks for the clarification Scunner. I am duly humbled and told off ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Anne
wooden spoon comes to mind ;)
Meee [?] ;) Back on topic, it's on again tonight, ITV1 @ 11:35 8)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Cavfan
Holiday homes from hell closer to home- in Calis! Friend of mine bought an apartment on a complex along from Violet. This is a few years ago when they were new builds- anyway upshot is she never got her tapu despite several expensive attempts and now in the last month or so it's been repossessed by the bank as its been remortgaged by the developer. Not only that they've seized her contents too! Not a nice story . The more I hear about stuff like this the less enamoured with the place I am! I cant name the developed but I bet he's 'roaring' ! :(
There are many properties purchased by people who think or thought they owned them, one developer has sold properties twice (15 Brits involved) some the banks now own properties leaving the purchasers needing to repurchase from the banks if they want to keep their villa/apartment.
I posted this on FB quote:
Homes From Hell, Turkish-law, justice, 2 words not recognised in the Turkish judicial system, and IF you win your case, then don't go popping the champers to early, pass it to your great gran kids to maybe enjoy.
-
The MOST IMPORTANTthing purchasers must understand, and so frustratingly often DO NOT is that the property you purchase is not yours:
1. When you agree to buy it
2. When you sign a contract to buy it
3. When you go to the notary office to sign some old guff
4. When you pay a deposit
5. When you have paid 100% of the money to the developer
6. When the developer gives you the keys
7. When you move your furniture in
8. When you arrive with your suitcases for your holiday
IT IS YOURS WHEN YOU HAVE THE TAPU IN YOUR NAME(S)
Now, please listen, I will not make it this simple for you again...
EVEN IF YOU HAVE PAID IN FULL FOR YOUR PROPERTY AND HAVE THE KEYS, IF THE DEVELOPER IS IN FINANCIAL TROUBLE AT HIS BANK - EVEN IF IT IS A MATTER ENTIRELY UNRELATED TO YOUR PROPERTY - AND YOU HAVEN'T RECEIVED YOUR TAPU - IT IS AN ASSET OF THE DEVELOPER, AND THE BANK WILL PURSUE ALL ASSETS OF THE DEVELOPER TO SEIZE - INCLUDING THE PROPERTY YOU BOUGHT. YOU CAN NOT ARGUE IT IS YOURS -
IT ISN'T
-
Must have checked my tapu 10 times recently for that very reason! I remember at the time we paid for ours in the September and got the tapu in my hand the following May and during the intervening period I never worried about it! Now is a differnt matter ! Wouldnt sleep at night! [:(!]
-
Yes indeed Cavo, things were different in the good old days ;)
Builders often started small - maybe 4 apartments in a small block, sold them in no time, built 8, sold them in no time, built 16, sold them, 32, all gone, 64 - last few remaining...
Then built 128 and the market disappeared. Can you imagine how in debt they are when they have built them but haven't sold most of them?? 128 apartments all built with concrete on credit, windows on credit, kitchen installers not paid yet, tilers same, and on top of that the bank and taxman pushing themselves to the front of the queue? You need to be sure your developer is in good financial shape.
Now here's the funny (tragic) part. The developer will prove to you they are in good shape. How? By showing you the 128 apartment project they just completed!!! Then offer you one at 40% discount if you pay a lot of the cost quickly. Why do they have to offer you such a huge discount if they are in robust financial shape - and why would such a stable company want your money so quickly...
All the clues are there. Some developers are in good shape. They aren't necessarily the big ones. Beware of amazing deals - you may buy the bank a property, because you may pay for it but never own it.
-
Not wanting to go off topic but may I just clarify that I refered to the guy as a pratt in my post, not a t**t. Apologies if that causes offence, i genuinely thought he was behaving like one.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Scunner
I don't think Shaun is middle class Anne
How can you say that Scunner, you've met me! ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by kenkay
Meee [?] ;) Back on topic, it's on again tonight, ITV1 @ 11:35 8)
Ken , it's last nights episode repeated. Apologies if you already knew that.
-
No it was that very naughty Anne, she should know better ;)
-
I'll consider my wrist slapped:-\ ;)
-
As I said in my earlier post, it seems much more sensible to buy an established/resale property where all the tapu problems and any building defects/snaggings have been resolved and you know what you are getting. At least you can see a copy of the tapu before you buy and know it exists and that it has the cross in the right box. After 8 years of owning property out here, I don't think we would ever choose an off plan or new build no matter how nice they look in the glossy brochures.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Scunner
Now here's the funny (tragic) part. The developer will prove to you they are in good shape. How? By showing you the 128 apartment project they just completed!!! Then offer you one at 40% discount if you pay a lot of the cost quickly. Why do they have to offer you such a huge discount if they are in robust financial shape - and why would such a stable company want your money so quickly...
All the clues are there. Some developers are in good shape. They aren't necessarily the big ones. Beware of amazing deals - you may buy the bank a property, because you may pay for it but never own it.
Agree %100
-
I happen to know the people who built the mansion in Crete. Afraid iTV left out an enormous amount of significant information. Most expats who've built on Crete have been overcharged for shoddy services and have been left broke. A lot of us here on Crete were hoping this show would get that message out and save a lot of people a lot of heartache. Unfortunately the tv company decided to misrepresent the facts in favor of the builder. The man is not a "stubborn pratt", he's been so royally screwed over and by the courts as well. In Greece, if you're not greek, no court rules in your favor. Oddly enough the builder has been bailed out from bankruptcy by the government more than once, has been to court several times over defective builds and has criminal cases pending against him. I think the "stubborn pratt's" fault was he believed what was written in the contracts, not knowing they wouldn't hold water. The show also failed to mention that the "pratt" has never refused to pay, he just wants the house finished but the builder refuses and has refused to negotiate until they turned the cameras on. It just goes to show, you can't believe everything you see on tv!!!
-
Well well
We have some reach :D
-
Yes...I was googling about the show and found your forum. I didn't realize that expats everywhere are getting the short end of the stick but think it's great to have an avenue to spread the truth!!
Am pleased to be a member!
-
Well you are most welcome here :)
-
As i'm the one who refered to him as a pratt, i can only conclude that this is how he came across on TV was the general opinion of a lot of people who had watched the programme.I would bow to your more personal knowledge of the person in question. I also hope that his wife has returned to support him in his fight or maybe that was skilful TV editing too?
-
I thought he came across as a stubborn old man, which probably falls under the definition of a pratt!! ;-D But the show did not truly represent the people or the situation. For some reason they omitted several major points, such as the investment property had a guarantee in the contract for a holiday rental license, priced at 10,000. He paid 20,000. over that and the contractual price for hidden extras and received no license, he has not been able to rent it and the greek government claims he can no longer obtain one as the house is finished.
The builder built the pool to the larger house without getting a permit, it is illegal. It has been estimated that without a pool it drops the value of the house by approximately 300,000 to 350,000. The greek government claims the only way for him to have a pool is to fill the present one and build a covered one. They also didn't mention that the chimneys, windows, doors and walls leak and that the basement floods or that the pipes are broken and raw sewage leaks on to the land.
After the problems with the investment property the pratt was legally advised not to make the last payment of 78,000. until the builder finished the large house. It stated in the contract that the final payment is only required on satisfactory completion of the build. The pratt initiated a fraud suit against the builder as he refused to discuss or negotiate, in the mean time the builder filed for a lien to get the 78,000. They've been to court twice, the judges would not allow engineer reports or any other evidence and deemed the house as finished, based on the builder's testimony and ruled that the 78,000 should be paid. The builder has created a list of very questionable extras which is how itv came up with the total of 250,000. but that is not the legal amount of the dispute. The house has been up for auction twice and another one is scheduled in the fall. Of course that is being appealed.
In the mean time the builder went to the social security offices and supposedly reported that he indeed did not finish the house and that the pratt had it finished by someone else and owes around 11,000. for fictitious workman's social security. The gov. agency has a criminal law suit against the pratt for this.
The builder also never had permanent residential electricity turned on for the house as he had not paid his taxes. The electric company here is connected to the tax offices. They would not allow permanent electricity to be hooked up unless the pratt paid all the builder's taxes. The builder who used a generator for the build, had constructional electricity turned on after he claimed the house was finished and then told the elec. company that the build was complete and had it disconnected. That is why the pratt had to move out.
There were also odd violent incidents like gun fire at the house, attempts of being run off the road and two strangers showing up and roughing the pratt up until he was knocked out, but there is no way to prove who they worked for.
When iTv was scheduling to come out and film again they requested a meeting between the builder and the pratt. The pratt agreed but was correctly advised to not attend without his solicitor. He repeatedly made that clear to iTV, they refused to let him know when exactly they were coming until the last minute. After they arrived they informed him the builder was on his way.
In summary, the pratt paid 215,000. for a valueless investment property, a separate 200,000. for the land of the big house and 702,000. for a building that is uninhabitable. And:.on an interesting note, iTV had all the facts and legal documents from both the pratt and his solicitor.
Don't mean to bore you with so much information, this is just a thumbnail of everything that has gone on. I have handled a lot of the pratt's legal correspondence and was shocked by the misrepresentation of the show.
No, the woman is not his wife and they have not reconciled. She lives in his rental property rent free and claims that she will sue him for as much as possible.
By the way:I told the pratt about the feedback on this forum. He doesn't blame you for calling him a pratt and rather agrees with you, he didn't recognize himself or his case on the show. ;-)
-
Now I always thought it should be prat......
-
As the old saying goes regarding the media; They never let the truth get in the way of a good story!
-
Never say never Eric. You do a disservice to those of us who bring you documentary evidence of famines, droughts and war zones etc. I've been involved in this for 52 years, so get ever so slightly hacked of by this regular old chestnut. Oh and my dad was a fireman too but during the war if it helps my street cred !!
-
I thought it should be prat too, but changed it to repeat jukebox's original email. ;-) I think you are both right, I think the media does a lot of good when it sticks to the objective truth but find that is not always their priority!! Hats off to you scorcher if you still maintain that standard!!!
-
quote:
Originally posted by scorcher
Never say never Eric. You do a disservice to those of us who bring you documentary evidence of famines, droughts and war zones etc. I've been involved in this for 52 years, so get ever so slightly hacked of by this regular old chestnut. Oh and my dad was a fireman too but during the war if it helps my street cred !!
OK, I will clarify that as my experiences with some of the news hounds that want to sensationalise a story or want gory details, all because "the public have a right to know". I agree we have a right to know the truth about something but in that sense we should be given all the details and not a select few that can twist a story around.
Documentary reporters are a different animal. I have the utmost respect for them. Lets face it, would the Live Aid concerts have happened if it had not been for the documentary reporters? Would a sane person go into a war zone, right into the thick of battle, armed only with a camera and a microphone?
Firemen during the war were a bunch of very brave people. They tackled fires every day that, thankfully, some of today's Firefighters may never see throughout their career. They developed tactics for searching collapsed buildings that were so effective we still use the principles today but with high tech equipment now. So it does give your Dad a huge amount of street cred and respect :) You can have a bit if any of it has rubbed off onto you ;)
-
Thanks Eric - fair enough !
-
Anyone who runs into a burning buiding, while everyone else is running out has my total respect.
-
Mine too