smiffy

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 278 total)
  • Replies
    smiffy
    Member

    I just made this point on the other forum. Honestly, I hadn’t read your comments on here. To put out such a blatant contradiction in the same communication. They are so used to spinning and giving vague answers in order to not really answer something or apportion blame elsewhere that any communication leaves you scratching your head more.

    Good luck to you in pursuing for money which I believe is rightfully yours. Your property looks a lot further away from delivery than mine, so I fully understand your reasons. Most of us that are still waiting for our properties on the village or already in ownership, just want the resort open so we can move on, whichever way that is i.e. using the apartment and getting rent or selling up. I’d take all money paid thus far without compensation like a shot.

    smiffy
    Member

    I agree George. I also cannot see what legal footing they can cancel your contract on, when they have breached more of the contract than you refusing to pay without evidencial assurances. As I have said before, the only route is throught the courts for buyers in the clause 4.4 position. It is also strange that there was no mention of this private equity investment into Sambala before buyers got hit with this clause to cancel the contract (and keep the money). Surely, anything that strenghtens the financial position and perhaps would even give Sambala skills that they have sadly lacked for so long, would be of benefit and should have been relayed to worried investors.

    This just seems so wrong and potentially avoidable if Sambala had a few brain cells to rub together. If indeed extra money came in on a decent scale like this, then surely it would have been better to push VDS buyers installments closer to the end of the build rather than asking for money when all there is, is a slab of concrete to show for their property?

    smiffy
    Member

    erm, yes a very direct link. It is sad that it has come to this.

    • in reply to: solutions
    smiffy
    Member

    lemanistan, that is quite possibly the post of the year!

    • in reply to: solutions
    smiffy
    Member

    I have no wish to contact him/her. However, others are free to do what they see fit. He/she may have well intentioned motives. I would have thought that it is sound advice to tread carefully when getting involved with someone who is anonymous on a web forum, especially if anything financial is involved. Someone advertising their services as mediation in such a matter, surely will want some kind of funding for this activity or does CVUK work for free? Oh well, do what you want, I wont get involved again.

    • in reply to: solutions
    smiffy
    Member

    CVUK, If you have indeed read up on the situation, then you will know the majority of those arguing against Sambala, will be those who were in dispute about making a stage payment. They have a number of reasons for taking this stance and I am not going to debate these at length. It is their right to do what they feel is correct for them. They have weighed up the perceived risks and not felt happy to pay up or some may not be in a financial position to pay up. However, Sambala has now seen fit to invoke clause 4.4 of the purchase contract and deem that these buyers are oin breach and forfeit all claim on the property and all monies paid. So, I think it is not unreasonable to conclude that this now goes beyond mediation.

    The only course open to such buyers is the full legal route. It is their only hope of recovering money they handed over previously in good faith. They will probably have a decent case, should it get to court, as Sambala are years late in delivering and have broken a number of promises along the way. Therefore, it could easily be argued in court that Sambala were in breach long ago. I would think it foolish of these buyers to respond to some anonymous person touting for business via a website forum. What kind of reputable legal practice would need to resort to this kind of activity? No, the buyers in dispute need to work together and approach a reputable legal representative to launch legal action.

    Also, CVUK, touting for business on here might be against the forum rules. Also, us passing on another forums details to you would also be a breach, so you are pretty much wasting your time on here.

    • in reply to: solutions
    smiffy
    Member

    Oh, just like that you will present solutions? Do you own a magic wand? Strangely though your deadline coincides with the planned completion of Sambala Village.

    smiffy
    Member

    I intend to visit this Winter, either before or after Christmas, depending on work commitments and family stuff. I intend to complete my purchase around this time. I have the finances in place and have not defaulted on any stage payments due. Sambala arent trying to extract any money from me ahead of completion, as I have paid up to Walls and Roof stage on time. The plumbing and electrics were shown going in (a few weeks back now).

    The major issue with the Sambala project is not with the Village, but with VDS. Sambala deemed that they should press ahead with both builds, despite scepticism from some buyers in VDS. This was a mistake, what they ought to have done is said that the Village will be built and opened and then we will recommence the VDS build and speak to buyers of VDS at that time. So, now we have a group of buyers in dispute on VDS, where Sambala have invoked clause 4.4, meaning such buyers lose all claim to the property for not meeting a stage payment due. If all was done on time or even late within a reasonable timescale, Sambala might have a legitimate right to take this action. However, this is clearly not the case. The trouble now is that there were already a group intent on not paying any more money, and causing as much disruption as possible to force Sambala to pay them back, and there may be more in this category now that Sambala have invoked this clause.

    There is a phrase “tried to bite off more than you can chew” and this could not be more true for Sambala management.

    smiffy
    Member

    I can understand why when first gaining membership to SF site it is necessary to check with Sambala that those applying for membership are real investors. However, once membership is gained, I do not agree with blocking membership to those that are in disagreement with Sambala. I presume this has been done to all those that have had clause 4.4 or whatever it is imposed due to no payment of a stage payment. I would have thought that so long as members conduct themselves in a curtious manner (as George has done), there should be no reason to ban them. Surely, the site is supposed to be for those that agreed to buy from Sambala and not controlled by Sambala?

    I think to some extent Sambala are on dodgy legal grounds in imposing a clause in a contract in their favour when they have broken numerous clauses due to late late delivery, but thats another matter. I understand Sambala’s position that they wish to move forward and if people wont pay up then they need to sell the apartments to someone or other, but I can see somewhere down the line that they will have to pay back monies paid by buyers in dispute as it was Sambala that was first to break promises and miss their side of the bargain. You cant get away in court with blaming everyone else for the entire period of delay, it just wont wash. It is a sad indictment of the way the project has been run and the bloody mindedness of the directors of Sambala that it has come to this. They should have been a little more flexible on many fronts.

    I can appreciate the SF admins position here though, they are caught between all this and I would expect Sambala have said they wont co-operate with updates unless those in default/legal dispute as they would class them, shouldnt be privy to buyers updates.

    What can you do? We are all caught up in this. Its ended up where factions have split off and appear poles apart. I suppose those that have decided to take the legal route have to accept that things wont remain the same as far as information updates go and belonging to the SF site. Again, many of us have said why didnt they throw all energies into just the Village and get that finished and up and running before asking people on VDS for more money? Surely the logic is straightforward there. Now, because they have asked for money from VDS buyers, who want much more re-assurance than they have received, we have people being found in default by Sambala and clause 4.4 being invoked. Perhaps, less buyers would be in this position if Sambala had concentrated on just the village. As usual, they are awful a project planning and seeing what is blindingly obvious.

    • in reply to: block c
    smiffy
    Member

    As usual Buckie only quotes part of my posting on the angry site. Yawn. Completely ignores the fact that I think the tiling of the roof terraces shold be included in the Walls and Roof stage. All I posted was what MY CONTRACT says. It is typically woolly. All I said was that nothing has changed from the perspective of at what stage the block in question has got to when Sambala ask for payment. It doesnt mean I agree with the interpretation, but mr Buckie fails to mention that. I dont think he is too thick to read a whole posting, I think it is deliberate mischief making. If the C Block owners are not happy then they need to act as a unit and demand the roof terraces be completed first.

    The problem with the inhabitants of the angry site is that unless you are also 100% angry and dismissive of everything, then you get abuse from them.

    “So, it didnt have the extra bit that you have observed George. I would agree though that it would be better to have the roof terrace tiled to keep water ingress away. It would be sensible in my opinion for Sambala to make sure this is done with the minimum of delay, so I dont see why they cant get it done before seeking payment, as how much extra is it for the job of laying tiles. Lets face it, the quicker the better to avoid uncecessary expense of putting problems right”.

    • in reply to: block c
    smiffy
    Member

    My contract for an apartment in Block I stipulated:

    1. An initial payment of 20% upon signing the contract (minus the 1000 euro reservation fee)
    2. On completion of infrastructure provision
    3. On completion of foundations
    4. On completion of construction of Walls and roofs.
    5. On completion of all fixtures and fittings and the handing over of keys combined with exchange of the Title of Deeds (Escritura…)

    So, it didnt have the extra bit that you have observed George. I would agree though that it would be better to have the roof terrace tiled to keep water ingress away. It would be sensible in my opinion for Sambala to make sure this is done with the minimum of delay, so I dont see why they cant get it done before seeking payment, as how much extra is it for the job of laying tiles. Lets face it, the quicker the better to avoid uncecessary expense of putting problems right.

    Any such issues if they arise, are of course covered by the guarantees. I think it would be sensible and the right thing to do for Sambala to perhaps get this job done before the payment is to be made. It would give more reassurance to the purchaser. Correct me if I am wrong, but havent Sambala already addressed (or rather SJC), design issues with just such a problem where there is now to be a gradient on all terraces? Obviously, this isnt the tiling, but if they have had to go to extra expense to correct issues, then surely they must be thinking of making sure roof terraces and balconies are covered or completed speedily to prevent such issues arising. I would think SJC would be mindful of this too as they have to put right any defects for an initial period.

    In summary, George, you have a point, but not sure what is in peoples contracts, as it is much less descriptive in mine. I think it would be a good idea to submit the question of avoiding water ingress with the terraces and balconies to Sambala with the next Q&As. Perhaps a number of buyers from Block C might like to ask the question, particularly with previous bad weather in mind.

    • in reply to: block c
    smiffy
    Member

    I dont know about the contract. I can check, but Block C is in the exact same state that Block I was at Walls and Roof, so nothing has changed in at what point Sambala have requested stage payment. Whether this is different to the contract, I dont know. It is encouraging that things are moving a lot lot quicker than they have before the start of this year, (on the Village). It would be a shame though if things were to slow down again and I agree it would be worrying to see things open to the elements for long periods.

    smiffy
    Member

    I was going to put some points on here in response to more nonsense elsewhere, but Im not going to bother as its an obvious ploy to get a response to circumvent the fact that they cant post on here anymore. b

    smiffy
    Member

    Also, they balme everyone else but themselves for getting banned from here and the friends forum. Strange, I thought Daniel had a mind of his own and a set of rules. He isnt going to ban people just because others dont agree with their views or dont like them. As usual more illogical and ill considered thought processes.

    smiffy
    Member

    I see the angry people on the angry forum are trying to whip up arguments as usual. They try to entice others on to their site so they can insult them. Nothing ever constructive. No balance or reasoned thinking. No way forward ever suggested. Just spitting the usual bile. Some have showed their true colours lately saying anyone that gave Sambala a chance deserves to lose their money blah blah blah.

Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 278 total)