Why dont Orams sell their Villa

Dixie Normus


Joined: 22/02/2008
Posts: 820

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 20:15

If the Orams sold thier villa surely this would scupper any court ruling in the Uk with regard to recovery of their Uk assets. Would be even better if it was purchased by the TRNC goverment just to piss Mr A off, he would have to start his claim again. Any thoughts.



D.N

dozza67


Joined: 11/07/2008
Posts: 607

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 20:20

Who on earth would buy it? It's hard enough for people to sell villa's that are not being disputed but to try and sell one that has had so much publicity!!! Would you buy it??? We wouldn't, at any price.

pilgrim



Joined: 11/05/2007
Posts: 1404

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 20:24

Like your logic Dixie, certainly interesting angle.

rtddci


Joined: 29/12/2007
Posts: 842

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 20:33

Even if they did, wouldn't stop the enforcement of the compensation in the UK court against the Orams UK assets.

Lilli



Joined: 21/07/2008
Posts: 13081

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 20:34

Hi dixie llike Pilgrim I like your logic but like Dozza who would buy it. Maybe they should donate it to Cherie Blair. Then they can challenge her xx

BillBarnacle


Joined: 20/04/2009
Posts: 167

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 20:34

Not a good idea



This could put the Orams in the position where a european arrest warrant could in theory be issued against them placing them in a far worse postion

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 20:36

The RoC ruling is for historic use of the property and those elements of the ruling that relate to this remain regardless on any future use.



By stopping to use the property now they could almost certainly avoid those aspects of the ruling that relate to fines for ongoing use , but not the ones for historic use.

Dixie Normus


Joined: 22/02/2008
Posts: 820

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 20:42

Hi Bill, Was'nt aware that they were not allowed to sell or pass on as a gift !!, the Uk has not ruled with regard to the EU ruling on asset retrieval and if they no longer had the Villa it could only be costs that had to be paid, Any legal eagles got a view?



D.N

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 20:49

If I was them and had to leave.I would hand the keys to a non EU TC .To cover myself I would also ,in front of witnesses ask them to please look after the place and give the keys(fat chance) to A when he arrives.

When asked by a court why I hadnt demolished.I would explain that the authorities wouldnt allow me.

As I would accept in court that the land was not mine anymore, anything that happened after I left(100 families camping and digging for gold!) ,could not be put down to me.

rtddci


Joined: 29/12/2007
Posts: 842

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 20:55

All cunning plans. Unfortunately the amount of money in compensation has already been decided (legal costs mounting by the day though) which is what the Orams will have to pay in the UK if the Court of Appeal goes with ECJ ruling. Whether they still have their villa is irrelevent other then the compensation for trespass on the land is mounting each day.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 20:58

Lett Gary Mongers missus squat there. With her squatting on the property no one would dare come near the place.

waddo


Joined: 29/11/2008
Posts: 1966

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 21:13

If they are in a no lose situation, what would happen if the place kind of, maybe, burnt to the ground?



Who would the insurance be payable to anyway?



It seemed to work well in London some years back I am told - just wondering....

negativenick


Joined: 10/11/2008
Posts: 6023

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 21:22

mess 1 - without doubt Dixie, the best and most constructive post you have ever put on here...



Looks like the book your misus bought you has proved invaluable (Neg Nick " how to post insteresting and constructive posts on Cyprus 44)





Nick ;0)

Littlenige



Joined: 24/12/2006
Posts: 3594

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 21:24

coz they want to visit it live in it and enjoy their investment.

TimothyCadman


Joined: 13/12/2007
Posts: 1040

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 21:38

The reason for not selling is that once in court it is illegal for you, or anyone, to sell any of the items mentioned in the formal proceedings that others claim against. The sale of the villa, or their property in the UK, could lead to imprisonment for the Orams for disobeying court rulings and could harm their right to appeal and court decision upto, and including, the highest court available to all litigants.

spider


Joined: 03/01/2009
Posts: 5527

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 21:39

well i think they should build a very large Electric Fence all around it,make it look like fork knocks...get about 10 very large stray dogs in the garden...now that should sort out any Visitors....and all us Brits,and TCs.arrive stick together.that should keep the buggers a bay...............Word spreads round this small place,we should all get up to the place in nick of time.Now thats what i call an ARMY..Do i think it would happen.i would only hope and pray.



Spider,x

rtddci


Joined: 29/12/2007
Posts: 842

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 22:21

All the time that there is a north south divide and the current political situation remains, then property on exchange land in the north is safe from demolition or eviction. It isn't safe from civil litigation i.e. demand for compensation, in the south courts as the Orams case witnesses.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
05/05/2009 22:25

Would the authorities in the South have the power to hold somebody in custody in order to pursue a case for litigation?

taraspring


Joined: 25/01/2009
Posts: 571

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 01:00

rtddci. "All cunning plans. Unfortunately the amount of money in compensation has already been decided (legal costs mounting by the day though) which is what the Orams will have to pay in the UK if the Court of Appeal goes with ECJ ruling. Whether they still have their villa is irrelevent other then the compensation for trespass on the land is mounting each day".



I have been following this case, and cannot see that the compo has already been decided? Unless I missed it. I didn't think that they could decide anyway until the judgement hs been given by the court of appeal. Otherwise isn't it pre-empting the outcome which is not allowed.

rtddci


Joined: 29/12/2007
Posts: 842

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 01:12

"The judgment required Mr and Mrs Orams to demolish the villa, the pool and the fencing, to give Mr Apostolides possession of the land, and to pay CY£7,654.83 special damages, CY£294.41 mesne profits monthly from December 2004 until delivery up, and CY£380.50 costs, all with interest at 8%."



http://www.cyprus44.com/property/orams-judgment.pdf



I have read that it was circa £13k which I assume is the above amount at todays prices.

Lilli



Joined: 21/07/2008
Posts: 13081

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 01:19

Hi all I think you should all look to what Italy has done for the earthquake victims. Do you think we need worry. Each looks after ther own xxxx

zerochlor


Joined: 03/04/2009
Posts: 4024

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 01:49

im surprised that when this case first came to light that they didnt find some1 in england maybe 1 of there friends or some 1 close to them to put a first or second charge on the house.second charge if they have a outstanding mortgage on it or even take 75% of the market value from some of the companies over there who will pay you almost that percentage and u carry on living in it until u pass or there are companies who give you market value less 20% and rent back to you, so easy today to put a charge on your own house by some 1 who can say they have given you a loan and be able to show the money has gone out of the bank and loaned to you.



maybe its to late now?



or maybe my mind is working overtime !!

taraspring


Joined: 25/01/2009
Posts: 571

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 01:59

rtddci. Thank you for posting the link.



£13k in total? A very small sum to pay for peace of mind. In hindsight, was it wise to proceed to appeal?

Why did they go on?



Haven't the Court got a duty to ensure that the costs do not exceed the subject matter?



It's quite ridiculous. All that stress that followed. I can't believe, in fact I am shocked, that the total to pay was such a minor amount all things considered.

taraspring


Joined: 25/01/2009
Posts: 571

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 02:16

Zerochlor. Just read your posting. You are a genius. Absolutely brilliant idea.



Anyone having a UK/EU property, raise the largest mortgage you can on it (then rent it out to cover the mortgage of course - family/friends would be best tenants with no paper trail of cash changing hands), there will be little or no equity for any claim to take. Naughty but nice.



You cannot do this retrospectively if proceedings are issued as this will be seen as attempting to defeat the claim (I looked that up BTW).

zerochlor


Joined: 03/04/2009
Posts: 4024

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 02:22

Message 25



Taraspring. it was just a thought,managed to do it in england myself many moons ago stop the TAX man getting his hands on my 350K home.bye the way i hope ur reading it from england the tax man that is!

zerochlor


Joined: 03/04/2009
Posts: 4024

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 02:27

the TC goverment should of only ever allowed people to buy homes here leasehold.999 years.and pay a small ground rent like in england.



would people who buy the houses leasehold still be able to be took to court??

zerochlor


Joined: 03/04/2009
Posts: 4024

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 02:33

Message 25



You cannot do this retrospectively if proceedings are issued as this will be seen as attempting to defeat the claim (I looked that up BTW).





Taraspring



would we be talking about a court case in a civil court. if so i think we needant take heed of the wording of the law as above,as if im right you wont go to jail in a case in the civil court,and i suppose once the equity is took out of the property and gone ,well its gone,u cant get blood out of a stone,suppose you could come to some arrangement with the courts, £1 a week ur honour!

taraspring


Joined: 25/01/2009
Posts: 571

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 02:40

Yes these debts would be Civil proceedings.



No I thnk you have to take notice of that otherwise it looks like there are powers to stop you doing this if there is an ongoing court case and your UK house is under threat.



Yes once £ is owed to someone else like the mortgage company on that UK house, and thereis no equity the court has no power to order you to obtain a loan to pay the debt in the proceedings so its whatever you can afford every week.

taraspring


Joined: 25/01/2009
Posts: 571

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 03:02

PS to message 24. Didnt read it all. Demolish (missed that bit) and pay. Hmmm. I can see why they went on.

I was too busy reading message 23! Doh

zerochlor


Joined: 03/04/2009
Posts: 4024

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 09:12

if all property here was leasehold. who would be took to court?



The goverment as they are the land owners?



or the person for leaseing the house on the land?

madmazz


Joined: 14/01/2009
Posts: 82

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 09:27

message 31: Interesting point - the older houses in Karmi are all leasehold and they are visited on a regular basis by the owners who want the properties back.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 09:46

I understood that HMRC take preference over any debts outstanding on your home. That includes a first or second charge.

tarry67


Joined: 16/05/2008
Posts: 1053

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 15:53

I think they should be allowed to become Turkish Cypriot citizens and then give up there british citizenships, especially if this is the way the courts treat there own people. This ruling in the uk will never be given it is back to square one again.

RickF64


Joined: 07/01/2009
Posts: 173

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 16:33

With falling house values and all of the 'negative equity' on some UK properties, then maybe the courts will seek restitution from other sources/assets, bank accounts, pensions etc?

harryroberts


Joined: 05/05/2009
Posts: 117

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 18:14

the ruling will be given in the uk wake up and smell the coffee stop denying the potential seriousness of the situation the uk court has no other choice they asked for a directive and got one.

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
06/05/2009 18:18

Harry



Please be aware that the ruling of the ECJ is a recommendation and is not binding on a member state, the Court of Appeal has to decide the case yet as the trial shall continue in the case of the decision not being granted on the favor of the Orams there is a possibility of Appeal to the House of Lords. I feel strongly that on Public Policy issues the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords shall decide in favor of the Orams.

Remember this action was initally decided in favour of the Orams the law is not as cut and dried as you seem to wish.

harryroberts


Joined: 05/05/2009
Posts: 117

Message Posted:
07/05/2009 18:22

the saints



I think that you are completely wrong the decison won by the orams in the uk court never denied that the greek cypriot waqs the legal owner of the land all the courts said was that they the could not enforce the judgement and sought a directive from the european court now that has been given against the orams.



anyway if we all had the same opinions these forums would not be so interesting lets wait and see what happens.



i was just pointing out in my post the pontential seriousness of the situation.