Incorrect info on Sea Terra Marina complex published in Cyprus Today

Marina1


Joined: 26/11/2011
Posts: 11

Message Posted:
26/11/2011 17:40

Taken from Cyprus Today:



'OWNERS IN MAINTENANCE DISPUTE ORDERED TO PAY UP.



A Judge has ordered owners on a Tatlisu site to couch up the fees they owe for maintenance. But Gazi Magusa Court also said that a fresh tender should be launched to find a maintenance company for the Sea Terra Marina estate.



Cyprus Today revealed last Saturday that 40 out of the 162 owners were withholding fees in a fispute about the chosen firm, Vistamar Maintenance which has been looking after the site for five years.



Many Owners are backing the firm, which has seen its contract renewed on an annual basis by the Sea Terra Committee.



A case was brought against the company by 16 of the 40 unhappy owners.



It has been adjourned until December 21, bt the court said the owners should pay up before the maintenance contract is re-tendered.



(Cont...)

Marina1


Joined: 26/11/2011
Posts: 11

Message Posted:
26/11/2011 17:41

cont.



"Vistamar charges £50 a month and employs two dedicated gardeners and a cleaner at Sea Terra Marina. But some people have never paid their maintenance fees, while others stopped forking out in May this year, ahead of the contract being renewed."

________________________________



The above was published in the Cyprus today newspaper on the 7th of November 2011 with no name to the journalist who wrote it.



The article was completely untrue - No owner was ordered to cough up.



I know the above is correct as I am one of the owners who is with holding maintenance, and have first hand knowledge from our advocate who is representing us. The next court hearing is planned for 21st December.



I also wish it to be known that plaintiffs have been taking Vistamar to court to question Vistamars legal position as M/C on the Marina.



I just wish to put the record straight with this announcement I will not respond to any questions owing to the ongoing litigation.

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
26/11/2011 17:50

My wife is the advocate for the plaintiffs and hence I am aware of most arguments on both sides but I consider it improper to get involved in any argument or even take sides on this matter. However, I must state that the case is at "Preliminary Hearing" stage i.e. informal discussion stage where the judge tries to get a feeling of the case and also try to see if a middle way can be found without a lengthy and costly hearing. There can be no question of a court order at this stage. Hence I can confirm that the newspaper report is not correct.

ismet

oliveoil


Joined: 16/03/2008
Posts: 58

Message Posted:
26/11/2011 18:00

Why should we believe someone who hides everything but a name ?

hodgeliz


Joined: 16/10/2010
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
26/11/2011 18:03

Why is it that people defend the indefensible ?

Why should the plaintiffs advocates husband feel he has to justify anything, it stinks !!!

Marion


Joined: 06/03/2011
Posts: 1816

Message Posted:
26/11/2011 19:14

I now understand why I was asked if I had written it! But of course I don't write for Cyprus Today. And I guess even if one did discover who the writer was, it won't solve the present situation. |i DO hope this isresolved satisfactorily. There are enough headaches here into which one walks, and one does want to feel that home is a haven from most of them. Sadly, does not always work that way, does it.

But we must always remember that this country is still developing, and things that have been around for a long time in some places (we had a maintenance company in Australia but it was all tied in with the law and so things could not go awry), so there seem to be hiccups here just trying to get it right. I really do hope that all is well at the end of this.

hodgeliz


Joined: 16/10/2010
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
26/11/2011 19:16

message 2

Marina1

I challenge you that you are pipie or known to her and that you have been colluding with someone from cyprus star to find out who wrote said article, will you deny this ?.

Message 3 - why do you wish to even comment on this at this stage unless you are trying to be judgemental

Lets face it you have a vested interest and please do not try to deny it, we are not impressed with your holier than thou attitude, do not as you say (improperly) get involved, a lenghty and costly case will definately be needed to put this and other cases to bed (your wifes wallet fattens).

We have seen places tell everyone that they have great complex's now since they have got rid of this or that one, but the fact remains that these and probably many others have only got themselves in to bigger holes than they had before, if only they had put what little brains they have into gear and realised that, then maybe harmony would reign instead of some advocates getting richer by the day !

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
26/11/2011 19:19

@ msg 3, elko2: (...) I can confirm that the newspaper report is not correct. (...)



▶ Ismet, sorry, but your background and side-interests make you a very unbelievable poster - in this case.



By the way: Did you post as the "Most Helpful Member" on this board (imo if it suits you), as a "Moderator", as the husband of "the advocate of" etc or what..?!

Maybe you should reconsider your position on C44..?

hodgeliz


Joined: 16/10/2010
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
26/11/2011 19:21

Well that asnwers my first question Marion as it was pipie that asked you on here - well well

We were obviously typing at the same time mmmm

keith


Joined: 03/04/2007
Posts: 272

Message Posted:
26/11/2011 20:13

Hodge you know nothing about what has gone on and the article was incorrect that is the end of the discussion

Keith

gooligan


Joined: 30/01/2007
Posts: 1591

Message Posted:
26/11/2011 20:53

A journalist not telling the truth....whatever next )

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
26/11/2011 21:05

@ msg 11, gooligan: (...) A journalist not telling the truth....whatever next (...)

▶ Only Cypriot Turkish and British journalists (hmmm...) working there - who dunnit, gooligan..?

gooligan


Joined: 30/01/2007
Posts: 1591

Message Posted:
26/11/2011 21:08

I'll wager 50 ytl on the British )

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
26/11/2011 21:20

imho, many disputes will arise via maintenance payments , frequent visitors will see no improvement to the site , less frequent visitors will see improvement , 2 gardeners and a cleaner hardly warrants £50 per month , or in simple maths ,£98k a year ? any thoughts on these vast sums , where does all the other cash go ?

hodgeliz


Joined: 16/10/2010
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
27/11/2011 03:12

Rowlo, I know you people on your site have some unique problems, a bit like Turquoise bay but your simplistic maths are really way way out

Not to get side tracked but just think about all the non payers, think about the pools cleaning, the communal electricity, water etc etc now with 82 people paying £49200 total maybe you will think on a bit.



Keith I know a lot of what has gone on and the accusations and lies told by some, the stupid childish posters put up in windows, some of you Brits need to grow up and smell the coffee, you have absolutely no idea of how the system in Cyprus works and if you want Brit standards why did you buy here, maybe it's all you could afford and now youve been caught with your drawers at your ankles and cant afford to pay maintenance, oh sorry you do pay , no matter who is in the job maintenance has to be paid to make things work and in a nutshell if everybody paid from day 1 then there would not be the mess there is now FACT

negativenick


Joined: 10/11/2008
Posts: 6023

Message Posted:
27/11/2011 06:51

mess8 - Elko is a top bloke, dutch...



a million miles more helpful than you.....



most of your posts show you as a bitter and twisted oaf........................





imho, of course....

kittyfun


Joined: 11/04/2011
Posts: 181

Message Posted:
27/11/2011 09:59

Huh, very intresting message 2 - it's all lies and I can categorically prove it beyond doubt



"The above was published in the Cyprus today newspaper on the 7th of November 2011 with no name to the journalist who wrote it".



*7th November Cyprus today

Defo NOT

;)

Deniz1


Joined: 28/07/2009
Posts: 3829

Message Posted:
27/11/2011 10:27

7th November was a Monday no Cyprus Today on that date.

kittyfun


Joined: 11/04/2011
Posts: 181

Message Posted:
27/11/2011 10:32

Thanks Deniz top of the class, now what other lyes have been told by these horrible peoples

HE he

And I thought we had heard the last of that buffoon John oops sorry negativenick

cyberhiker


Joined: 23/03/2009
Posts: 57

Message Posted:
27/11/2011 10:44

I don't know why the so-called management company involved here are complaining. They've had a free ride for years now by ignoring the elected committee, operating without a contract and 'renewing' it every year with a sham 'vote' conducted by themselves using their tame, self-elected 'committee', claiming that they have the majority of owners support but refusing to take part in an independent tender to prove it and spending owners money without their agreement. The chickens are now coming home to roost and they are panicking with this propaganda campaign in the press trying discredit the plaintiffs. Trying to garner sympathy by having lies printed in the local press won't influence the end result of the court case. They've already been kicked out of two other sites similar nonsense and their time on this site is coming to an end.

Sugarpuffbear


Joined: 14/05/2010
Posts: 64

Message Posted:
27/11/2011 12:23

Moderators

I think you should close this post whilst the courts sort this problem out.

The point has been made that what was quoted in the paper was incorrect and now it is turning into an acrimonious argument.

hodgeliz


Joined: 16/10/2010
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
27/11/2011 21:14

For once I agree mods, the people who think they have a mandate to do as they wish on Sea terra marina consistantly ignore the fact that 82 owners actually want the present MC to stay as they are happy with them but the smaller clique of around 30 cannot bring themselves to accept the majority view, such bitterness, amply demonstrated by post 20, the MC have not even got involved in this thread and are not complaining to my knowlege and I think if you read the actual article and the words used you will see that they differ slightly from what is printed above the above says "no owner was ORDERED TO COUGH UP", but did the lady judge not say "owners should pay maintenance" ? subtle difference in wording i think

babydoll


Joined: 27/07/2011
Posts: 140

Message Posted:
27/11/2011 21:36

Dutchie old boy rule 4 and when your sidekick comes along with his old chestnut rule 3

micklark


Joined: 18/06/2011
Posts: 75

Message Posted:
27/11/2011 21:37

I dont wish to get into a debate but looking at things logically it seems to me that at first some folks blamed builders problems and unfinished sites on management coy's, some even suggested that they shouldnt of taken them on till everything was in place, but in Cyprus when is anything ever FINISHED, but anybody who bought on a multi owner site should on accepting their keys pay maintenance after all pools garden grounds ect dont clean themselves and if you are not satisfied with the way the place is being run then you have to get a committee set up properly by inviting EVERYBODY to elect one and then you can get rid of them or invite tenders with a scope of works, but it seems to me most of you are or have put the cart before the horse here, yes theres problems galore but to me its ignorant to say least to blame management coys for substandard build problems and old threads on here point to folks having done just that and caused huge problems for fellow owners

Marion


Joined: 06/03/2011
Posts: 1816

Message Posted:
27/11/2011 21:38

By the way, don't know if it helps, but there is the possibility that the article in Cyprus Today was a translation from a Turkish article that appeared elsewhere or the Turkish News Agency. That is why their is no journo's name to it.

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
27/11/2011 21:42

If the apartments law was abided by then there would be no arguement by either side . Having a proper elected Management Company and a contract in place with service level agreements and a mandate to go to a proper elected tender each year if required wihout fear or favour is the minimum owners with their kochans should be allowed to do.



It is quiet simple and there should be no arguement about it -

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
27/11/2011 21:45

message 24 this is nothing to do with builders leaving works unfinished in this case it is a dictorial MC in this instance causing the problems

keith


Joined: 03/04/2007
Posts: 272

Message Posted:
27/11/2011 21:49

Hodge your facts are wrong again there are 85 oqwners behind with maintance as i have said before you need to get your facts right but as you are not on the site you never will .So what does that tell you

You just listen to one side remember a coin has two.

I also agree with message 21

hodgeliz


Joined: 16/10/2010
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
27/11/2011 22:18

Keeth

being behind with maintenance and being a non payer are 2 different things, people can be behind with payments for many reasons, so what does that tell you ?.

Anyway time will tell,

I just smile when I think back to all the fanfares Lynx got when they appeared on the island with their ISO certification (yeah right) and everyone singing their praises while they systematically milked a site for 2 years before disappearing off into the night not having given anybody back their money that was paid up front.

Theres also other sites that changed MC only to find that they have worse than they had before, but them that wanted them in were getting backhanders so it suited there purpose.

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
27/11/2011 22:34

... and that is what is so funny about what you know, who you know, and what you really DO NOT know



as said follow the law and all parties will then be happy as proper contracts and agreements will be in place no arguement from either side

cyberhiker


Joined: 23/03/2009
Posts: 57

Message Posted:
28/11/2011 10:41

Even if it was only around 30 owners in dispute (it isn't, it's much more as the 80+ non-payers amply demonstrates), that is still almost 20% of the site not happy with the management company. Yes, there may be a difference between non-payers and in arrears but no-one can seriously believe that figures of this magnitude are down to tardiness and not because of the way the site is run. And it's no good glibly saying 'get a committee set-up', that's been tried before and the so-called 'MC' just ignored them, that's why there's a court case. I know of at least one site that this MC were booted out of and they are now flourishing under a new MC, so there is hope. Why should anyone pay maintenance to a company that don't have a contract and refuse to tender?

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
28/11/2011 11:31

Exactly ! mesage 31 and this is what some fail to see or recognise but think they 'know aboutit all' . I believe those that are not paying are withholding payment and will pay their dues to a recognised properly elected MC not a self appointed MC with no contract no accounts (with receipts) ( so how can you prove you are putting your own money into the pot wihtout them I don't know?!)



Court proceedings do take a very long time in the TRNC, we are all aware of that one and the MC knows this & is playing the system. If they are that confident they will get re-elected anyway let a 'PROPER' tender be conducted and save all the expense. When I say a proper tender I mean just that not one run by the current MC as last time - an independent third party conducting the vote with no foul play ie canvanssing signatures and fudging of voted figures woudl be unacceptable

hodgeliz


Joined: 16/10/2010
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
28/11/2011 11:56

Cyberhiker I also know of at least one other site where they are having loads of problems since the MC changed so as somebody said earlier a coin has two sides and sometimes better the devil you know and maybe thats why the majority (albeit small) are happy with the status quo.

Many accusations have been made, lets see what the courts decide, lets see who has the stomach for the long fight, lets see who was telling the truth or who the courts will believe as being the more credible.

People on here have made accusations of vote rigging etc. but making accusations and having tangible evidence that has been put before the court are two different matters, and I may be wrong but I dont think any proof positive has been put forward, I would imagine that all the relevant topics posted on here and elsewhere over the past while have been put forward though.

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
28/11/2011 13:08

There is about four years evidence in this case I dont think any judge would be able to trawl through so much !! whatever happens sadly there is a deep rift between lots of people continually made worse by the MC which just illustrates in itself the trauma owners are going through and no matter what anyone says that should NOT be the case on any site where you own a property and no one should be put through this.



On another issue if the MC are putting serious amounts of money in the pot for a site ( which was sated on on others sites and PROVEN not to be the case) it beggars the intelligence and business acumen of that company – after all why would you - it is nonsensical

cyberhiker


Joined: 23/03/2009
Posts: 57

Message Posted:
28/11/2011 13:25

Yes, as you say, many accusations have been made and it's now up to the courts to decide. It's just galling that many, if not all of the group withholding maintenance, were regular payers until this situation developed and it's annoying to say the least that now they are awaiting the outcome of this case, they are being portrayed as feckless freeloaders in the local press when nothing could be further from the truth.

Hector


Joined: 26/08/2008
Posts: 2352

Message Posted:
28/11/2011 13:35

Yet another great advert for buying property in the TRNC.

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
28/11/2011 13:41

In this case the properties are ok on the whole and all have Kochans, its the dictatorship that has followed that spoilt it sadly

kittyfun


Joined: 11/04/2011
Posts: 181

Message Posted:
28/11/2011 19:33

to me its you lot thats the dictators

its the same half dozen sharpening ther knives against a company they have a grudge against as weve all seen soo often in past posts, pipie/arthur posting the original one here under an alias that she dosent like other ones doing, we,re not all as stupid, its common knowledge shes been emailing frantically the reporters & others !

& why would message 34 possibly say this

"made worse by the MC which just illustrates in itself the trauma owners are going through"

unless they had a personal vendetta going on, does it never occur to you that these people could be fighting for their very existance and livlihoods that some of you are threatening, you would think to hear you all baying for blood that they were not entitled to make a profit & to my belief they have not said anything on here since the case began but you lot have.

and why would a suposed intelligent man feel a need to make any comment in a case his wifes prosecuting against a MC.

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
28/11/2011 20:34

Lets remember one thing here the management company does not own the site - no one has ever disputed that MC's can earn a living,noone is asking them to do it for free. They can do this by way of offering other serivces, jeyholding cleaning etc, but what they must do is conduct themselves correctly. Remember they are the employed not the employer a lot of people for got this one vital fact



The maintenance monies under the new law is only adminstered by the MC and also organise gardeners etc and therefore should be non profit run, but receive a fee or salary to do so. No vendetta just owners fighting to own and run their site how they wish and not how a MC wants to - simple fact

womble


Joined: 28/11/2011
Posts: 6

Message Posted:
28/11/2011 21:25

The trouble is that you and your pals refused to participate in the election 18 months ago .Thats why we are in a right state. Had you taken part then there would have been a broader view point on the committee and perhaps we could have an agreed SLA and constitution . But no, you chose to destroy and divide a once happy camp. We are now all having to observe a battle of wills between two families, one trying to make an honest living against one who perceive that one of their own was wrongly convicted of an assault but refuse to accept that the accused accepted his guilt in court and then tried to lie about the result.



the result is is more bitterness , division and a site that will ultimately fall apart because of your actions.

hodgeliz


Joined: 16/10/2010
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
28/11/2011 22:01

Another new poster, but in the other camp its so true though all of this bitterness and some of the people who started it all have no scruples and continue to try to claim the moral high ground, these people blamed everything and anybody but themselfs for whats happened on complexes in the area now everybody is at each others throats and the hatred is spreading, can you not see you are never going to sort things till you admit you may have called some things wrong, womble has a point listen to him or her before its too late.

keith


Joined: 03/04/2007
Posts: 272

Message Posted:
28/11/2011 22:28

Once again only half a story what about all the other things that have gone womble only half a story tell it all .



what about those who failled to abide by the solicitors letter and sea terra that the committe was legal if people would have abided by that then we would not be where we are today



how some owners have been accused of doing things on the site when they was in the uk and that is just one.



Dont think it will ever be sorted now even if the courts do you will still have 2 sides unless we sweep with a new broom

keith

womble


Joined: 28/11/2011
Posts: 6

Message Posted:
28/11/2011 22:53

So, do you think its alright for owners to attack people who work on the site. Is that your idea of a new broom sweeping through the camp? Just beat people into submission, thats a really helpful way to bring about peace,duh!

hodgeliz


Joined: 16/10/2010
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
28/11/2011 23:00

Keith you will never have harmony till apologies are made no matter who is running the site to many accusations have been made and still are as your post demonstrates, do you honestly expect people to believe that people like Mrs E & possibly you are capable of accepting that they could ever be wrong, some of the ones that started the trouble have sold up and gone and left you others to try to pick up the peices, but instead of trying to build bridges you are still acting like kids, how could that committee ever have been legal when it was accepted by only a minority, even a kid knows it takes a majority in agreement to set up a committee and make decisions & a solicitors letter means hee haw without a court ruling & no matter how you want to word it the law of the land says owners on shared or communal property are legally obliged to pay their fair share for the upkeep of it.

hodgeliz


Joined: 16/10/2010
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
28/11/2011 23:22

Sienna can I ask you this one thing

i n your message 39 you say "remember the MC are the employed not the employer a lot of people forgot this vital fact"

OK THEN

will you agree that if somebody has not or is not paying maintenance then the MC has the right to consider it is not employed by that person so need not recognise them till they pay the same dues as everybody else has paid or is paying

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
28/11/2011 23:34

i did not employ any mc, it was thrust upon me by the developer , who happens to own mc , therefore i withhold my dues , why should people pay to maintain something thats not being maintained , NO MAINTENANCE NO MONEY , and we should be able to choose who we want to maintain the place , not be told who will do it , any thoughts

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
28/11/2011 23:50

Rowlo,

In cases like that according to the law you should offer to pay for necessary expenses against receipts but certainly no professional fees.

ismet

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
28/11/2011 23:55

Rowlo,



did it not form part of your contract? If there is no maintenance is the sites condition deteriorating? Who looks after the pool?



Completely agree that if no maintenance is being done, then no money is due but is this ideal, long term? Are you working as a team to sort this out.

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
29/11/2011 00:15

ismet , they show no reciepts , bradus , they gave people reduced rates of maintenance , was like candy to a baby , pay this amount and all in the garden is rosy , this offer was only available to the people who lived on site permanently , needless to say the team has been divided .

cyberhiker


Joined: 23/03/2009
Posts: 57

Message Posted:
29/11/2011 00:25

Sienna can I ask you this one thing



i n your message 39 you say "remember the MC are the employed not the employer a lot of people forgot this vital fact"



OK THEN



will you agree that if somebody has not or is not paying maintenance then the MC has the right to consider it is not employed by that person so need not recognise them till they pay the same dues as everybody else has paid or is paying



This would be true if the MC had properly tendered and been offered a contract to manage the site. If, as is the case in this instance, the MC have not properly tendered and have no contract in place, it doesn't matter if they recognise anyone on the site, because they have no business being there in the first place.

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
29/11/2011 07:38

there are few things



Firstly it would be wise to stop making Pipie Mrs E your scapegoat this issue is far bigger than one person, yes she owns on this site and is one of 162 owners.



Mesage 45 no the proper process has to be followed:

That does not mean you can ignore owners or refuse them access to the site, for example locking gyms or property that belongs to owners. owners are under obligation at the very least have to pay their share on receipts of the expenses........ BUT the due process of taking owners to court can only be followed when a properly appointed adminstration (MC) is in place with a contract and a SLA and proper audited accounts. This is not the case on this site hence why the adminstration (MC) cannot take non-payers to court and never has done.

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
29/11/2011 07:52

If in another post you are saying they (MC) are fighting for their livlihood it makes even less sense why they continue, as reported,putting their own money into running a site - this makes no business sense and certainly any professional company would find this unsustainable, therefore this does not stack up after 4 years of saying you have been doing this, complete nonense IMO



'Acting like kids' no- it is ensuring their site is run by owners in the proper manner as should all sites, it should not be not run by an adminstration (MC) that decides the level of service provided nor should they (MC) decide what owners maintenance money will or will not be spent on. They are not employed to make such decisions they are there to provide maintenance for the site with proper audited accounts, with a proper elected committee deciding how and when the money is spent with after salaries are paid out for them to do a job on the owners behalf it is quite simple

foxylad


Joined: 01/11/2011
Posts: 56

Message Posted:
29/11/2011 08:10

msg 1 is the author not Sue steel ? her name is on the original report in the paper.



http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6095/6293484743_4e5a124778_z.jpg

kittyfun


Joined: 11/04/2011
Posts: 181

Message Posted:
29/11/2011 13:31

cyberhiker i think this q was asked of sienna unless you are a DI and she can answer for herself

As for your effort at an answer

Q/ was everything set up on the side of the owners properly to be able to challenge the MC and their right to be managing the site,



A/NO it was not as everybody living here knows S O 1 is as bad as the other



PS pipie has made so much trouble and told so many lyes maybe she deserves a lot of the flak after all she dished out plenty as i remember, or is that conveniently forgot

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
29/11/2011 13:47

Kittyfun I did answer in message 51 and as an owner Cyberhike has a right ot reply anyway !



A/ Owners have the right to to tender and set parameters for that tender on any site



MC's are employed like any job or service if you are not satisfied you can change them some have for the better there is good and bad in every company and service - Itsi not a challenge its right of ownership











As stated move on from ones persons issues this is a lot bigger than one person being used as a scapegoat

womble


Joined: 28/11/2011
Posts: 6

Message Posted:
29/11/2011 14:06

It’s old news that anyone sufficiently interested in the goings on here knows that the judge has told the non payers they should pay. That is not a legal instruction and unless the judge makes a legal order enforcing payment with some kind of penalty attached to make non payers think again, then this will send the completely wrong message to those who choose to defy correctly elected bodies. Failure to back the elected body would have a huge, detrimental impact at sea Terra but also at all other sites across the TRNC. There are too many owners happy to be subsidised by others and the judge will no doubt see the bigger picture.



This decision should set a precedent that other sites that have trouble with non payment can follow. The onus is on the judge to get this right for everyone who accepts their responsibilities as owners.

flutterby


Joined: 11/01/2008
Posts: 214

Message Posted:
29/11/2011 15:43

I think Womble you may find that these people are not actually non payers and according to the TRNC Apartment Law that is as now, UNLESS correctly prepared SITE accounts are presented, they do not legally have to pay, and I think you may find that these said people have requested these accounts. You I think will also find that if these SITE accounts are not available, that is receipts of ALL site expenditure kept in a chronological order, that the said MC could face very hefty fines. Now I am sure that the Judge is perfectly aware of this, or should be. If correctly elected bodies are in place, then correctly prepared accounts should be kept and vetted by the owners.

Yes, precedents at all sites should be set, and run in accordance with the law, not everyone and their dog's interpretation of it!

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
29/11/2011 15:51

I think also some of these owners withholding payments have offered to pay their share on sight of receipts and proper accounts - this offer was rejected

Moreisless


Joined: 29/11/2011
Posts: 9

Message Posted:
29/11/2011 17:04

I’m normally a 44 lurker but feel compelled to add my thoughts to this discussion. As a STM owner I pay my maintenance but fully understand why others have chosen not to – that’s coming from a payer who appreciates the site will suffer from lack of revenue. The real issue is not about withholding payments but the authority of the incumbent to demand it. The real offenders here are the small group of owners whose only interest appears to be keeping the current MC at any cost and ignoring the only properly elected committee (endorsed by Seaterra and election overseen by a qualified legal body) who ran the only legal tender. The only processes they have initiated have been self governed with no accountability - if you are a supporter of the present MC then support a proper legal process that employs them, not the sham these people who purport to be elected representatives are trying to implement.

Well done Cyberhiker and Sienna for presenting a balanced and accurate précis.

Cyprus Tod

Moreisless


Joined: 29/11/2011
Posts: 9

Message Posted:
29/11/2011 17:12

I'm not Cyprus Tod, the last line should have said -



Cyprus Today have produced a very unbalanced article, not bothering to research the other side of the story. Lazy and unprofessional, shame on them.



Guess I ran out of characters

Marina1


Joined: 26/11/2011
Posts: 11

Message Posted:
29/11/2011 17:13

Can I just inform readers the FACTS here.

A majority of owners holding back maintenance have only stopped paying since May 2010.

One of several reasons.

Vistamar was ordered to go to tender or get off the site by May 2010 by an advocate and Sea Terra developer.

Vistamar refused to tender, but the elected committee added Vistamar to the tender as a good will gesture.

Vistamar's employee working from the Marina office unethically voided the tender. (the details of this would make front page news )



Can I also inform readers that since May 2010. These owners on several occasions have offered contributions towards the overheads at the Marina to Vistamar.

VISTAMAR have REFUSED this offer and Vistamar refuse to produce detailed bills to all owners.

VISTAMAR moved office off the Sea Terra site in 2010.

VISTAMAR employ 2 gardeners on site working approx 3 hours per day on site the rest of the time they do private work for Vistamar.



cont...

Marina1


Joined: 26/11/2011
Posts: 11

Message Posted:
29/11/2011 17:13

...cont.



VISTAMAR employ a cleaner that works approx 2 hours on site daily the rest of the time she works private for Vistamar.

_____



I need to put the question to Micklark hodgeliz and Kitty fun why they are so interested in Sea Terra Marina ?



Is it true that you are a mouth piece for Greg from the past business Glencoe ?



Can I also Inform readers that although it appears that the mouth pieces for Greg may appear on the surface to be siding for Vistamar, Glencoe failed to side for Vistamar back then when Glencoe failed the application to tender for the Sea Terra marina site back in 2009/2010.



Glencoe was rejected and failed to get past the application stage for the tender for the Marina site as Glencoe had a history of bad management of the one and only site he ever managed which was Turquoise bay.



I need to put the question to the mouthpiece Kittyfun hodgeliz and Micklark, did VISTAMAR know Glencoe put a tender in for Sea Terra marina in 2009/2010...

hodgeliz


Joined: 16/10/2010
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
29/11/2011 17:59

pipie/marina1

I certainly dont or didnt know anything about greg or glencoe putting a tender in for Sea terra marina in 2009/10 nor do I care, it has nothing at all to do with this debate and once again you show your true colours it would seem that everybody who takes a different point of view to you is wrong and you are right, there is plenty on the glencoe forum for anybody who is interested to take and digest, most is balanced and honest more than can be said for a lot of this discussion.



In true pipie fashion you again impress us all

taken from your last line in post 1 & 2

I just wish to put the record straight with this announcement I will not respond to any questions owing to the ongoing litigation.

OH REALLY ???????

May I also throw into the ring as you accuse me of being a mouthpiece for greg are moreisless, cyberhiker, sienna,keith mouthpieces for you and your spiteful drivel at least I can debate unlike some who cannot even string a sentence together

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
29/11/2011 18:13

Yawn!

Here we go again.

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
29/11/2011 18:30

Yes it is yawn when it gets to this stage Hodgeliz I am no ones mouth piece but speak for myself why cant you stick to the issues and take the personality clash elsewhere - if you look back pipie and and I have differed in our opinion so you are way off



I would like to see MC's regulated so they have to comply with the law then there is no arguments which is why I get involved (similar to the estate agents law) it would stop the bandits and stop giving the good MC's bad publicity as there are some working for the owners as it should be



Message 59 is spot on and good to hear a new posters opinion that owns on the STM

micklark


Joined: 18/06/2011
Posts: 75

Message Posted:
29/11/2011 18:35

Marina1 not worth a reply to you

hodgeliz


Joined: 16/10/2010
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
29/11/2011 18:35

Interesting

quote

Glencoe was rejected and failed to get past the application stage for the tender for the Marina site as Glencoe had a history of bad management of the one and only site he ever managed which was Turquoise bay.



I need to put the question to the mouthpiece Kittyfun hodgeliz and Micklark, did VISTAMAR know Glencoe put a tender in for Sea Terra marina in 2009/2010...



ive been on the phone for the past 5 minutes with someone & again somebody has got their FACTS wrong and is being very vindictive and lying, it appears that the Glencoe business was sold in early 2009 to its present owners and certainly there was no question of any application to run the Marina in 09/10, surely those of you fighting your corner must distance yourselves from this liar, please also note the "he ever managed" bit, that is a typical pipie trait, as pointed out many times Glencoe is a company not a person.

keith


Joined: 03/04/2007
Posts: 272

Message Posted:
29/11/2011 20:18

Hodge i speak for myself as a owner on the marina think you need to sort your differences out with pipe maybe you two could start your own forum and let others debate on here.



You have nothing to do with the Marina apart from every time you want to attack pipe even if we are not talking about the Marina.



Your childish comments that some cannot string a sentence together are out of order .we may not all be educated to your standard but we know right from wrong.



Keith

womble


Joined: 28/11/2011
Posts: 6

Message Posted:
29/11/2011 21:03

Well keith ,right or wrong .Now is your chance to put the record straight. Is it right or wrong for a fellow neighbour to to attack an employee of the MC on our site?



I notice you failed to answer he previous point along similar lines

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
29/11/2011 21:07

are we witnessing more double ids on this thread ? step in mods .

tworowans


Joined: 14/11/2011
Posts: 3

Message Posted:
30/11/2011 12:07

I have a contract on an Sea Terra Marina re-sale unit -but as yet no due diligence. You might imagine how I groaned when I read this stuff...

Putting both TRNC Legal Title and acrimony to one side, the highest risks on this totem pole are inadequate property maintenance and sinking fund. i.e. asset protection in perp for the benefit of successors in Title

I have properties in 3 different jurisdictions. The MC's have quite different legal personalities. They all deliver. In one location $80k has been spent on upgrading a communal pool with a minimal increase in fees and all buildings' external features are maintained and re-painted

Presumably all owners entered into an agreement with each other and the developer (which I presume still exists and owns the communal areas) and which requires a legally constituted MC to deal adequately with Health & Safety, maintenance, servicing and insuring of land, buildings and other amenities with SC contributions allocated to a sinking fund?

Or n

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
30/11/2011 12:41

In Turkey the system works very well. Once a management team is elected properly, they have the power to instruct the bailiffs of the courts to collect the arrears and failing that they can put the offending unit on sale. However there are lots of handbooks available for the layman and lots of accumulated precedents to guide the courts.



My daughter used to run a showroom in Modoko, Istanbul which was a site with over 400 furniture showrooms and the site management not only looked after maintenance and insurance but they also advertised the place regularly on national television which meant a big budget.



Now there are lots of housing sites in Istanbul with on site security and mechanics ready to help with minor repairs. Managing such sites is a big business. They usually have shops, restaurants etc. on site which bring in revenue that goes towards maintenance.

ismet

Moreisless


Joined: 29/11/2011
Posts: 9

Message Posted:
30/11/2011 13:29

Liz, I’m disappointed that you think I’m a mouthpiece for Pipie Google Queenita, nothing could be further from the truth. Her abrasive, know-it-all and less than constructive approach has done nothing for harmony on the Marina, I wish she wasn't involved.

Please don’t lose sight of the real issues here which is the legality of the MC position and more importantly I feel the legality of the self governed group of people that incorrectly claim to represent us all.

tworowans


Joined: 14/11/2011
Posts: 3

Message Posted:
30/11/2011 14:41

If proceedings had been issued in the UK Commercial Court for a matter such as this, under Civil Procedure Rules it would be incumbent upon both sides to use best endeavours to arrive at a settlement - and failure to follow pre-action protocols may result in cost penalties irrespective of the outcome. Hence Mediation is usually responsible for most claims being settled without a Court hearing

Surely allowing professionally qualified mediators (they are usually lawyers anyway) to intervene here by mutual consent is a sensible course of action

From what I've read it would be cheaper to fly a pair in from the UK and put them up for a few days than to take up local Advocate and Court time. Mediation hourly rates are cheaper - even when the mediator is a lawyer

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
30/11/2011 15:25

ha ha have you ever tried compromising with this Company lol now that is funny good idea but hilarious what do you think has been goign on for the past four years there is no compromise because they think they own and rule the site and have no respect for some owners whatsoever - only the favoured few



If they did and feared nothing they would enter a legal tender with professionalism this has never been accomplished

womble


Joined: 28/11/2011
Posts: 6

Message Posted:
30/11/2011 16:37

Elko 2

What is the current situation with the TRNC apartment law. Is it in place now or not?

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
30/11/2011 16:52

Womble that is the whole crux of hte discussion Management COmpanies ahoudl abide by it yours doesnt in any way shape or form

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
30/11/2011 17:47

msg.76

It is in place but not detailed. The old law about apartment maintenance is cancelled and the new law caters for apartments as well as sites, all inclusive.



The old law with apartments allowed you to register the elected manager with the Tapu, have their seal of approval and thus it enabled me to open a bank account and also register the electricity for the stairs and the lift in the name of the Management. There is no such provision in the new law and I wonder how people will open bank accounts or even register the elctricity of the communal areas in the name of the site management.

ismet

womble


Joined: 28/11/2011
Posts: 6

Message Posted:
30/11/2011 18:21

Thank you ,



But still confused in place but not detailed ,what does that mean?

has it been passed by parliament and implemented in whole or just in part and as of when?

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
30/11/2011 18:50

It is law 35/2010 which was passed in July 2010.

Clauses 29-43 deal with site management etc., the rest is about the new system of having title deeds at planning stage.

You can download the original document from here http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26171843/35-2010kat.doc

and then get Google to translate you the relevant clauses. Good luck.

ismet

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
30/11/2011 20:38

keep up womble lets hope you are still not advising others if you havent read the law yet !

hodgeliz


Joined: 16/10/2010
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
30/11/2011 21:05

Please check floor ownership law part 3

General rules in establishment of floor ownership & floor easement part 13 plus parts 15 /1 15/2

Please also google translate is not a good translation

TRNCvictim


Joined: 17/08/2010
Posts: 1417

Message Posted:
30/11/2011 21:22

My goodness your all welcome! if there was any posting for NOT buying anything in the TRNC this one must near to top!



The best of luck

hodgeliz


Joined: 16/10/2010
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
30/11/2011 22:57

I perhaps should also have quoted part five 21 (1) which states



floor owners are under obligation for maintenance and architectural condition and for protecting the beauty and soundness of the main immovable with special care



That reads to me that owners are obliged to pay maintenance to look after the communal areas and buildings.



Part 22 (1) (A) Unless there is a different agreement among them all, each one of the floor owners



(a) Is under obligation to participate equally in proportion of his own plot share in advance to be collected for doorman, boilerman, administrator salary, gardener, watchman expenditure and these to be collected in advance.

It goes on to say in 22 (1) (C)

Floor owners can not refrain from paying the expenditure and advance share by means of putting forward that they do not need or necessarily benefit from these because of the condition of their own independant section or by means of renouncing their right to use of the common areas or facilities

hodgeliz


Joined: 16/10/2010
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
30/11/2011 23:12

I do hope you can see what the new law says and I do think Ismet will say this is a good translation however as there are vested interests some will attempt to put their own slant on it.

Its a pity people have so much hatred for others and can not see the wood for the trees, sometimes an apology or two and a handshake can go a long way to resolving disputes but it seem like it is the Brit way to continually stir the pot.

Can I apologise to moreisless for my remark about him or her but from where I was sat it looked like you were a big pipie supporter and as a new poster at that, but she invents a new user name just to post the first two posts and she is the one that hates double identities, wonder what slant her and kieth will put on the quotes from the law, all ive done is get it translated no slant but 'I' think it is self explanatory, what do others think ?

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
01/12/2011 08:25

I agree, BUT you cannot take two sections from a whole there are other terms that have to be followed by the administration (MC) which put these in context

hodgeliz


Joined: 16/10/2010
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
01/12/2011 09:41

sienna it is the law as stated these sections are stand alone there can be no buts so why do you want to question it, its not out of context its explicit, it spells it out

its there its the law

The main terms that have to be followed are all in the law even down to EXACTLY how to set up the board of representatives so theres no misrepresentation, you and me read and contribte to the other board so you know the law is there for all to see.

hindsight is a great thing and if everyone had known the right way to set up everything 5 -6 even 10 yrs ago dont you think most would of done it, the law and the guidance are there now but still many are trying to cut corners, its not good enough it must be used properly & set up right.

Also the admin doesnt have to be a MC it can be the BOR or a person.



please dont make a statement without giving an example theres too much of that here

eg: we're right cos your wrong end of !!!!!!!!!!!!

That is whats happening on here all the time

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
01/12/2011 09:57

correct the main terms are in the law ALL of the terms including the one where receipts of expenditure have to be given and full accounts. Full translation is avialble on the hombuyers TRNC site I am not twisting anything I agree owners have to pay ther share of maintenance of course they do how woudl a complex run !BUT to the proper legal adminstrator



I am agreeing nothing to do with your wrong I amright at all you read far to much into post liz calm down

hodgeliz


Joined: 16/10/2010
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
01/12/2011 11:01

I would like to go back to mess 35

Yes, as you say, many accusations have been made and it's now up to the courts to decide. It's just galling that many, if not all of the group withholding maintenance, were regular payers until this situation developed and it's annoying to say the least that now they are awaiting the outcome of this case, they are being portrayed as feckless freeloaders in the local press when nothing could be further from the truth.



Why dont you pay maintenance till the outcome of the case if you are not freeloaders, because that is currently what you are, you are not paying maintenance but are benefiting from the facility because of those who are paying and no amount of argument or counter argument changes that, are you at least paying it to your "other" committee to be used as and when you get your percieved result at court or are you putting your fees into an ESCROW account, somehow I doubt it.

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
01/12/2011 11:22

Because they are questioning the legality of the MC and so called committe that works in the hand of the of the MC and they have not been provided with proper audited accounts or receipts.



Payments have been on offered for expenses on sight of receipted audited accounts the Management refuse as 'it is their business' and it is their profit !

hodgeliz


Joined: 16/10/2010
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
01/12/2011 11:42

With respect sienna can you please let cyberhiker answer for themself, it was asked of them not you, your info is like mine second hand as has been pointed out so often by others, it is so very obvious from your postings that you have a real down on Vistamar almost to the same point as pipies hatred with the old Glencoe, (who were like saints compared with whats gone on since to get my dig in ;) ) with quotes like "so called committe that works in the hand of the of the MC"

If payment was offered then hopefully its in an account as mentioned above otherwise they will be freeloaders to me lol

cyberhiker


Joined: 23/03/2009
Posts: 57

Message Posted:
01/12/2011 11:45

Pay maintenance to whom? There is no contracted management company on the site. I am withholding my maintenance money until the situation is resolved and a contract and SLA is in place. I can't think of any other service I would buy where I would hand over money without knowing what I was getting, without being allowed to choose where I made my purchase and where I received no invoices detailing what my money was being spent on. I don't, in the UK, expect a company to turn up at my house uninvited and start painting the exterior, maintaining the gardens and making decisions regarding a new conservatory without consulting me and then expect to pay for the work! Those withholding maintenance have constantly offered to pay Vistamar for any work carried out on site, on the production of invoices, while the dispute is ongoing, but these offers have been refused. When this situation is resolved, I will pay my maintenance up to date. Where I keep the money in the meantime is my business

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
01/12/2011 13:14

with respect Hodgeliz you havent suffered at the hands of the Company in question, so you are not qualified in anyway to know or judge what owners have been thorugh on both sites Like I wouldnt comment on Glencoe as MC as I don't know neough about them on a personal level

tuscanysun


Joined: 01/12/2011
Posts: 4

Message Posted:
01/12/2011 15:12

The Judge has not ordered non payers to pay as yet. To avoid a lengthy trial the Judge suggested by way of settlement before 21st December that owners withholding maintenance pay for services already provided by the current MC and then to move forward with a tender to complete in time for the 1st May 2012. The previous tender was not made void by an individual but by the bor committee who had organised the tender. They made the tender void after the end date when all votes had been recorded. The MC who received the most votes was Vistamar Management therefore if it had not been cancelled the current MC in place would be in with the majority of votes. The bor committee were voted in by 48 apartments. The more committee were voted in by 82 apartments (more than 50% of owners) and are currently preparing tender papers in the hope that non payers pay their dues.

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
01/12/2011 16:03

msg.94,

Tuscanysun,

You seem to know what you are talking about. So do I

Could you please confirm a few points:

1. Did you have access to the spreadsheet (inadvertently) throughout the tender?

2. Did you try to vote for some owners?

3. Did you divulge how some owners voted?

4. Did Vistamar refuse to take part in the tender but they were included nevertheless by the tender committee?

5. Did Vistamar send notice to tender committee threatening court action if they proceeded with the tender?

6. Did Vistamar refuse access to site to some companies who wanted to tender and also threatened to call the police?

7. Did Sea Terra officially terminate the contract (if any) of Vistamar by 31st May 2010 and asked them to vacate the premises on that date?

8. Did Vistamar, Bor and Sea Terra in the presence of their respective lawyers agree on a plan forward and a week later Vistamar renegaded?

ismet

cyberhiker


Joined: 23/03/2009
Posts: 57

Message Posted:
01/12/2011 16:14

Two of the so-called MORE committee aren't even owners on the site, they are renters. One of the two renters is very vociferous in his support of Vistamar and in his condemnation of the BOR and now has the temerity to appear photographed in the local press as an owner, lecturing others on the non-payment of maintenance fees. There was no suggestion by judge requiring payment of withheld maintenance, this was an untruth perpetrated by Vistamar.

The BOR voided the vote because of the actions of an individual employed by Vistamar who was discovered to have tampered with the vote. If Vistamar had a majority, why did they refuse to take part in a re-tender? Surely, if they had a clear margin of support, it would have clarified the situation beyond any doubt had a 'clean' re-tender been carried out without any interference. Perhaps they weren't so confident in the outcome of a second result if they had no control over it.

Moreisless


Joined: 29/11/2011
Posts: 9

Message Posted:
01/12/2011 18:23

Message 94. The BOR made every effort to contact all owners but were hampered by lack of contact details because neither Seaterra nor Vistamar would release email addresses. Despite this the BOR managed to hold an election with the process overseen by a legal body with Seaterra endorsing the BOR. At least one of the original BOR (also employed by the MC), joined the Kangaroo committee labelling themselves as MORE, it was this person that the BOR believes was able to breach the security of the tender process.

MORE whose members included two Vistamar employees had no authority to hold an election but were somehow furnished with contact details for all owners, strange that..... MORE had a massive and unfair advantage. Unauthorised MORE collected and counted the votes in their own election.

Doesn't take a genius to work it out does it.

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
02/12/2011 07:25

This thread must be a very good reminder to people who try to be too clever and try to avoid legal and democratic routes. At the end it hits everybody and all suffer. at the end of the day, if all mediation efforts fail, either you surrender to strong arm tactics or you resort to court.

ismet

kittyfun


Joined: 11/04/2011
Posts: 181

Message Posted:
02/12/2011 09:08

As you say it hits EVERYBODY

Its a good reminder to all to pay there dues and use proper ways to get rid of unwanted MC, i just love the freeloaders tag its so cute and apt

If all these ever so smart brits had done things properly in the first place there would be no need for these silly slanging matches.

He he



Well done pipie for starting the thread off, oops sorry it was marina1 wasnt it tut tut silly me



He he

millzer


Joined: 12/04/2007
Posts: 978

Message Posted:
02/12/2011 10:50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCAg8pIOMOM

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
03/12/2011 08:07

kittyfun/hodgeliz,

You did not get the message, did you? Please examine my message 95 carefully and you will begin to understand the background to this mess. Would you reward such aggressive and poor ethics?

ismet

kittyfun


Joined: 11/04/2011
Posts: 181

Message Posted:
03/12/2011 09:36

Sorry me Lud

I didn't know there was a message to get, but to me you seem to be coming on strong to try to justify yourself and others, for me I dont care too hoots about Sea terra marina just always say that too many Brits do too much mouthing off and trying to get ways not to pay for services given, just like all those on another site that blamed everything on the MC when it was clear to even the blind it was developers problems whish is well demonstrated and documented on here now, sure the MC on the site you wife is taking to court might be in the wrong about some things but the non paying owners are as well and 2 wrongs don make a right, if the MC refused to take money offered then more fool them, they should of taken it against the money owing, end of

As for aggressive and poor ethics, who are u kidding this is the TRNC. an your other post thats running sums that all up.

Have a nice day I know I will

sHe666


Joined: 20/01/2008
Posts: 47

Message Posted:
03/12/2011 11:26

msg 95



Tuscanysun would lıke to know why her reply has not been put on !!!

tuscanysun


Joined: 01/12/2011
Posts: 4

Message Posted:
03/12/2011 11:29

Msg 95.

1. I only had viewing access along with 8 others. (I noticed a vote had been moved and emailed the Chairman asking why this had been done) PERMISSION TO VIEW. I COULD NOT ALTER IN ANY WAY. Can show proof.



2. NO I did not try to vote for some owners. Some owners without their own email asked me to place their vote (I clearly stated the owners had asked me to this on their behalf)



3. I notified the TMA that some owners votes were not recorded. I knew this because the owners had emailed me to say they had voted.



4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Why are you asking me !



Msg 96.

Incorrect no one on the MORE is a renter.



PLEASE STOP ACCUSING A VM EMPLOYEE OF TAMPERING WITH THE TENDER. I only had permission to view. Any tampering could only have been done by persons with permission to add, edit and delete. The persons who had permission to do this are Bob, Clive, David, Gillian, Jim and Keith.

PLEASE ASK THESE PEOPLE IF/WHO TAMPERED WITH THE VOTES



VM still won.

sHe666


Joined: 20/01/2008
Posts: 47

Message Posted:
03/12/2011 11:35

Msg 95



Questions 4,5,6,7,8 will all be answered in court with facts and proof.



Regards



Bea Rizalar

Vistamar Management

Marina1


Joined: 26/11/2011
Posts: 11

Message Posted:
03/12/2011 13:59

Tuscanysun (Sharon).



A courteous reply would be appreciated.



Can you explain why you assisted Vistamar breaking the law when a padlock was put on the Marina gym door preventing access to certain owners ?



Can you explain why you were involved with informing out side tenders half way through the Marina tender process that the tender was off as Vistamar had won the Marina tender even though this was a complete lie as the tender was only half way through ?



Can you explain your involvement in the preparation of an official tender on behalf of Vistamar for Sweetwater bay even though Vistamar refused to tender officially for the Marina the very own site they were maintaining.



While employed by Vistamar why did you tear up in the face account papers of an owner who questioned the contents.



cont.

Marina1


Joined: 26/11/2011
Posts: 11

Message Posted:
03/12/2011 14:00

Tuscunysun. sadly your reputation spiralled rapidly when you worked illegally on site for Vistamar, voided the vote unethically asked told owners you had collated a poll then tried to turn this poll unethically into a vote, bulldozed your own committee unethicly forward even though you had conflict of interest as you worked for Vistamar as a result of this you still were not satisfied, with the sole intention to assist Vistamar to divide and rule your mission was accomplished, you boast of ''feeling proud to break people'' need I ask have you ever received a bonus for all of that ?





Womble Callum.



Why do you continue to look in the rear mirror, this only fuels bad feeling. You are either oblivious or a desperate muck raker.

Will you ever grasp that this democratic fight is for all.



Moreisless. You portray to speak with a democratic voice but many know it is just with fork tongue depending what company you keep.



Will your bum ever get off that f

Marina1


Joined: 26/11/2011
Posts: 11

Message Posted:
03/12/2011 14:15

...fence ?





Cyberhiker. My old sensible chap no doubt YOU SHOULD STAND FOR THE COMMITTEE.





Millzer. message ??????

tuscanysun


Joined: 01/12/2011
Posts: 4

Message Posted:
03/12/2011 15:09

Marina 1 (Anita/Whoever)



Padlock ? It was a keypad. I did not assist. In my opinion it was pointless because it only took one non payer to pay and pass on the code to all non payers. I would like all non payers to have no access to communal services which works well in other countries, unfortunately this is difficult to action in TRNC. Anita did threaten to call the police if I didnt assist with allowing non payers access so I gave you/her my phone and the telephone number.



I was not involved in informing outside tenders it was off !



I had no involvement in preparing a tender for SWB or any other site. Why would I ?



I did tear an account up and put in the bin after explaining the contents of the account and the person was still being aggressive towards me. I politely disposed of the account and told him I was not his Secretary and he could keep his own record after being notified of fees due of course.



I DID NOT WORK ILLEGALLY. I HAD A WORK PERMIT



Cont ....

tuscanysun


Joined: 01/12/2011
Posts: 4

Message Posted:
03/12/2011 15:19

I did not void the tender as stated previously.



The Marina was already in conflict when I arrived. I went to live there for peace and quiet. Having listened to all sides I decided to find out what the owners wanted because I truly believe the only way for peace and harmony is to stand by the majority and any changes to be discussed then only implemented with the approval of the majority. I stood in the election because owners asked me to and again I was curious to know if the majority agreed with the conflict of interest and if they did then I would not be voted for. I was voted for fairly in two elections.



No matter what has happened or happens in the future VM have been supported by the majority and thankfully the majority are still paying the maintenance. Until non payers realise they are devaluing the Marina and the prospect of any resolve is impossible unless they pay. Unfortunately if they do remove the current MC due to lack of funds paying owners may not pay. SAD

hodgeliz


Joined: 16/10/2010
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
03/12/2011 17:31

Anita why dont you stop kidding everybody on with your riteous behaviour, you despise multiple ID's yet you have 3 at least FACT !!!!!!!!!

You would be respected a little if you were capable of telling truth, but you tell so many lyes, sad really, you should stay out of things but you have to get involved and when you do it only bu**ers everything up

hodgeliz


Joined: 16/10/2010
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
03/12/2011 17:35

Bye the way she 666 dont show your hand this is what they are trying to get you to do

keith


Joined: 03/04/2007
Posts: 272

Message Posted:
03/12/2011 19:22

Sharon you know what you did in the voting process one minute you where telling VM supporters not to vote then after you had seen the voting you asked them to vote.



As for the tearing up of accounts i do believe it was you who was aggresive because you could not get them right.



keith

Marina1


Joined: 26/11/2011
Posts: 11

Message Posted:
04/12/2011 03:32

tuscanysun



Thank you for the replies. Although I do not agree with how you have explained yourself at all.

never the less when you bear witness in court we should then have MORE in detail.



What does puzzle me though is you could not see any wrong in working in the Marina office, setting up a committee and unethically watching a voting process

Do I take it Sharon you still take the stand you did not see all of the above as conflict of interest ?

Did you not see any wrong doing by you in any way ?



Let me put this another way





Would you have objected if an outside tender company's employee did exactly what you did by accessing the the voting process and placing votes ?



Sharon it seems you are not employed by Vistamar now, was this due to peer pressure to hand in your notice ?

Or did you simply acknowledge the error of your ways ?



cont

Marina1


Joined: 26/11/2011
Posts: 11

Message Posted:
04/12/2011 03:34

Cont...



Why do you think it is acceptable for Vistamar to accept maintenance monies from owners on the Marina yet Vistamar have moved office off site showing no presence on the Marina.



Are you aware that your staff on the Marina only working an approx two hour day on the communal areas?



Vistamar stated through a news letter released by MORE last week that 85 owners were in arrears do you stand by that number?



Why do you think it is acceptable Vistamar refuse access to some owners to the roof area to check and carry out repairs on individual solar tanks and satellite dishes. ?



Why do you think it is acceptable for Vistamar to refuse to hand over owners keys to apartments which they own?

clairegordon


Joined: 18/11/2010
Posts: 105

Message Posted:
04/12/2011 08:45

marina for one who stated the below



Quote

"I just wish to put the record straight with this announcement I will not respond to any questions owing to the ongoing litigation"



You have plenty to say & are making a complete prat of yourself and if the other preople involved in this affair respond they are not helping matters



Your statement in message 114 was a laugh as well

"Do I take it Sharon you still take the stand you did not see all of the above as conflict of interest ?"



Conflict of interest in North Cyprus NOW THATS A JOKE surely

Marina1


Joined: 26/11/2011
Posts: 11

Message Posted:
04/12/2011 10:59

Sorry message 115 was for Vistamar in the hope of a courteous reply.

tania


Joined: 09/12/2011
Posts: 116

Message Posted:
24/12/2011 06:36

Any news on how the court case went?

Thought there would have been an update by now?

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
24/12/2011 10:32

The case was postponed to 28th February. The judge had asked for the English documents to be translated into Turkish. The plaintiffs had done that but Vistamar did nothing. Vistamar came up with some proposals and these will be put to the plaintiffs who may a) accept, b) reject or c) come up with counter proposals. I do not have the priviledge to disclose what the proposals are.

ismet

tania


Joined: 09/12/2011
Posts: 116

Message Posted:
24/12/2011 12:11

Thank you ismet for your reply.

just thought some of the posters above would have been on about the case!

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
24/12/2011 12:45

lol still ducking and diving when will it ever end Vistamar are always wanting to call the shots with thier 'proposals' never the twain shall meet !

Isabella


Joined: 02/10/2008
Posts: 199

Message Posted:
24/12/2011 12:54

I am surprised to see Ismet getting involved a case his wife has a professional interest in. This would never happen in the UK. It could be thought that his wife comes home and discusses all her cases with him and allows him to report on an open forum!

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
24/12/2011 12:59

some people have more professionalism than some would ever hope to have ! Happy Christmas Ismet

tomsteel


Joined: 22/06/2009
Posts: 482

Message Posted:
24/12/2011 13:08

Msg 122 - how do you know he is 'involved' in this case? My reading of his post was to answer a query (Msg 118) about the state of the court hearing. Maybe you know different?

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
24/12/2011 13:15

oh the author of message 122 knows everything as she holds court quite often with the owner of the company in question, maybe their professionalism should aslo be brought into questions like, data protection and confidentiality that they (MC) keep bleating about.......... one rule for one and all that jazz !! it is a complete farse



If you do nothing for court hearings and keep coming up with proposals probably to suite them (MC) and wear owners down then in their minds (mc) they can rule for another year on the site.

Isabella


Joined: 02/10/2008
Posts: 199

Message Posted:
24/12/2011 13:31

Message 124 - please read message 3 for your answer.

oliveoil


Joined: 16/03/2008
Posts: 58

Message Posted:
24/12/2011 13:50

sienna might I point out that you are doing EXACTLY the same as you told someone in message 65 *and take the personality clash elsewhere*

you are one of the worst on here you are always attacking vistamar management even though they have nothing at all to do with your complex now, why dont you take your personality clash elsewhere as well.



As for the most helpful member getting involved in public on a forum where his wife is representing one of the parties, sorry it stinks and they have banned two of the posters from earlier posts, for daring to live in the same block and share an internet connection, it smacks of a cover up and the lies are still being allowed to be spouted, my take on it is that this board is trying to influence peoples thoughts towards one party only, as those who are continually attacking vistamar seem not to be accountable.

And the fact that pipie is marina1 and Arnold speaks volumes to this reader

I await my ban for daring to spot these things and speak out

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
24/12/2011 14:24

and praise us all that we no longer have them the best way forward .... I do not hide the fact that in my opinion they are the worst company to run a complex and by god I know!



so that makes me the worst on here lol heavens above that I as an individual have an opinion and where have you popped up from oliveoil and what connection have you got lol you lot make me smile



Season greetings

oliveoil


Joined: 16/03/2008
Posts: 58

Message Posted:
24/12/2011 15:07

Having been a member of this board for 4 years, I do not feel the need to get my thoughts noticed on a regular basis as to me it shows a want/void in peoples lives and for the most part I have better things to do with my precious time.



It never ceases to amaze me that there is a small band of people on most complex's in the TRNC (& elsewhere) that just cannot get on with the incumbent operators, and want to get things done their way or use people of their choice, ( mostly for reasons of self gain) while the silent majority are usually happy with the way things progress, it has been apparent on this forum over the past 4 years that several companies have been slated by mostly the same few people, and the complex's affected have gone into a state of disrepair, one of the complex's even had a "professional" company with an ISO qualification ??? running it for 2 years and where are they now I ask ?



Please read things properly I did not say you are the worst, merely one of the worst

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
24/12/2011 15:19

Oliveoil you have nothing to do with any of the sites have you ? so you are just going on what you have been told and probably only one side of it too so not an informed opinion a biased one !



Owners should not necessarily get on with the incumbant, but agree it helps, as they are employed to do a job, if they are not doiing the job to expectations and fulfulling their obligations like in everything we are entitled to change. One of the main criteria is to keep proper accounts and receipts I as an owner will not tolerate a dictatorship Management style stateting that it is their business when it is our fund money and not procuding these!



What self gain reason are you talking about please share ? lol as said you have no idea about the real truth only what you have been told. Yours and others vendetta on another site has blighted your opinion of what goes on the ST sites



Because I air my views through my experiences - it is not liked and makes me merely on of the worst pos

eyebob


Joined: 22/06/2010
Posts: 143

Message Posted:
24/12/2011 15:27

This has to be the most boring topic on any website anywhere in the world!Why don`t you people just all get together and sort it instead of behaving like children.

oliveoil


Joined: 16/03/2008
Posts: 58

Message Posted:
24/12/2011 15:52

sienna, I have formed my opinions over the past 4 years, reading the various posts and topics on the subjects, and it does not take a brain of Britain entrant to see that it is the same maximum 10 people who are the main protagonists, have these people ever stopped to ask the silent majority for their views, because it seems to me that on at least two of the complex's the majority voted for the incumbent and were happy with them, yes there are arguments raging about who is right and who is wrong and who is lying and who is not, but by reading the many posts it is not too hard for someone of moderate intelligence to see where the truth apparently lies.

You constantly attack vistamar, this to me shows your lack of debating skills it just shows your hatred, pipie (marina1) constantly attacks glencoe, even bringing them into this thread, this again shows only a hatred, not a recipe for a successful debate, and to me you lose any credibility and thus the debate

Merry Xmas all.

flutterby


Joined: 11/01/2008
Posts: 214

Message Posted:
24/12/2011 18:52

Message 122, you are damned right this would not happen in the UK, in the UK you would get detailed accounts and statements of where and what your monies were spent upon. But hey, this is NOT the UK is it?

millzer


Joined: 12/04/2007
Posts: 978

Message Posted:
24/12/2011 20:08

Mess 132 Try actually READING & understanding message 130 in particular para 2. U can go on all you like about personalities & who's right & wrong but FACTS can't ignored.



Some aren't bothered where their maintenance monies go, BUT SOME ARE.. If Vistamar management produced proper accounts in accordance with the LAW which showed WHERE money was spent and WHAT ON, then ALL owners could decide if they thought they were getting value for money and make an informed choice as to whether or not they should seek better services elsewhere, or not, as the case may be. Until they do this then the current situation is always going to prevail.



Everyone accepts management companies aren't charities and need to make a profit in one way or another but only if alls above board and upfront. VM like to use the buzzword VFM (value for money) so all they need to do is PROVE this is the case by giving PROPER ACCOUNTS, but until they do some people will always think they have something to hide END

minertor



Joined: 14/02/2009
Posts: 1238

Message Posted:
24/12/2011 20:53

msg 132>................................yes there are arguments raging about who is right and who is wrong and who is lying and who is not, but by reading the many posts it is not too hard for someone of moderate intelligence to see where the truth apparently lies.....................



obviously beyond you then, oliveoil.

It seems simple to me, those that pay, have your say, non p(l)ayers keep off the board.





T

steps426


Joined: 05/12/2011
Posts: 108

Message Posted:
24/12/2011 22:44

Nice one minertor couldn't agree more these non payers need to be hung drawn 'n' quartered thats what people have been arguing all along, but some think it is OK for them not to pay while others do pay

please keep up



millzer

so the other half rides to the defence of his floundering partner, admirable but !!



May I ask

do you get a statement of account from your belediese showing how your money is being spent, simple answer NO but betcha you dont refuse to pay them EH ??? and please dont bother to come back with any quackers answer, and we are in the TRNC just to remind you lol



Happy christmas

millzer


Joined: 12/04/2007
Posts: 978

Message Posted:
25/12/2011 00:42

hmmm steps426 joined 05/12/2011 name Liz H say no more !!!!........... could you not make up another name and make it less obvious LIZ H I thought you hated double IDS



Unfortunately you have no substance to any debate and that old dragged up excuse of 'we are in the TRNC' doesn't hold, and with that attitude the TRNC will most certainly not move on.



Some companies do conduct themselves in the correct manner don't blight all companies with the same unprofessional brush, just because its the TRNC ! like that should be acceptable



A Management Company are employed by the owners, the local council are not so there is no comparison and if you think there is I think it is you that is quakers



Someone said have the silent owners been consuultated - the answes is yes all the step of the the way however if they remain silent then there is nothing anyone can do about that but keep moving on

for the sake of those that do care about their properties and complex

oliveoil


Joined: 16/03/2008
Posts: 58

Message Posted:
25/12/2011 07:42

I know it was Xmas eve but what is that meant to be sienna as I presume it was you who wrote it as your diction is not always as it should be lol ;)



have the silent owners been consuultated - the answes is yes all the step of the the way



however if they remain silent then there is nothing anyone can do about that but keep moving on

- agree but not forcing ones will on them





- have a nice day



PS you should learn not to hate it is not very Christian - then again maybe it is !!

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
25/12/2011 09:42

'I never told my own religion nor scrutinized that of another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change another's creed. I am satisfied that yours must be an excellent religion to have produced a life of such exemplary virtue and correctness. For it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be judged'

steps426


Joined: 05/12/2011
Posts: 108

Message Posted:
25/12/2011 10:06

Why oh why do you want to make it personal

*hmmm steps426 joined 05/12/2011 name Liz H say no more !!!!........... could you not make up another name and make it less obvious LIZ H*



Have you checked out your profile recently ????

is it the TRUTH ????



*A Management Company are employed by the owners, the local council are not so there is no comparison and if you think there is I think it is you that is quakers *



Now I know you are not thinking logically, why ? of course the council IS the employee of the citizens, voted in by them to carry out the required works for which they pay by way of taxes collected, however this is old ground being covered time and again, it would seem that few have any ideas how to get things working properly, the PROVEN MAJORITY on marina have accepted the incumbent so in most sensible peoples minds they should be allowed to work and if they are doing anything wrong then it needs to be sorted by discussions

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
25/12/2011 10:35

steps426



you state that the ''proven majority on the Marina accepted Vistamar.''



Can you tell me how this has been proven ?



Did the Marina ever go to tender ?



Should the Marina go to tender ?

steps426


Joined: 05/12/2011
Posts: 108

Message Posted:
25/12/2011 11:02

Pipie merry Xmas



A/ The majority of people that replied by email (82) each email is stamped, recorded and has been verified by an independent advocate,

question answered.

B/ The Marina has not, as I believe gone to tender, this could be something to do with the fact that the majority are happy with things as they are or possibly because of the disruption being caused.

Question answered

In my opinion the marina should go to tender if the majority want this.

Question answered

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
25/12/2011 12:18

Steps. Meery Christmas.



A/ I am an owner on the Marina and I have never seen any proof of what you have stated in your response.



B/ I am an owner on the Marina and I voted in the tender that did take place on the Marina.



I am an owner on the Marina who the saw the tender vote made void because of a Vistamar employee unethically accessed and viewed the votes as they came in by Marina owners.



Steps426 are you an owner on the Marina ?



A tender should be carried out periodically and not on the heresay that a number of owners are happy. The outcome of a tender is then proof of what the majority want.

steps426


Joined: 05/12/2011
Posts: 108

Message Posted:
26/12/2011 12:38

It is Merry not Meery unless!



I have answered your questions, and as the plaintiffs have instigated a court case, the proof in defence will no doubt be put before the judge.



I am so glad that YOU actually saw the tender vote being made void by someone (an employee) who could only view the e-mails that had been sent - very interesting statement in light of the fact that this has already been disproved.

May I answer your question re owning with one of my own,

Do Martin (millzer) and Lesley (sienna) and Ismet (elko2) own on Marina ?



The frequency as to when a tender should be carried out is down to when the majority decide it is time for change.

Message 124 tomsteeel perhaps you should read message 95 and ask yourself how Ismet (the husband of the plaintiffs advocate) knows to ask all of those questions on a public forum especially as the company is still trading, is he being a morally or ethically responsible moderator/member .

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
26/12/2011 18:22

NOooooooooooooooooooooooooo we don't own on the Marina and praise the lord for that !!!



Our site has moved on ...............shame others cant have the same feeling we all had when we got a new mangement company breath of fresh air! maybe one day Marinas

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
26/12/2011 19:20

steps426



Ah now i know who you are, a banned member !! you have reinvented yourself under a new name.



Would not have bothered asking you questions if i had clicked on before !!

oliveoil


Joined: 16/03/2008
Posts: 58

Message Posted:
26/12/2011 20:34

Amazing how pipie knows who is banned and who is not isn't it good people ??



Also dont be fooled Marina owners into thinking everything is rosy in the Esentepe ST garden because it's not, but of course those who were the most vociferous in making trouble cant be seen to admit that their present company is no better than the past one, with pool problems, garden problems, committee resignations etc. a bit like the scenario on TQB when they put the magnificent Lynx in place and they ripped them off for two years till they left with the place in a much worse state.

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
26/12/2011 21:29

Oliveoil



I have explained this on another forum but...... you speak from a totally ill-informed postion



yes some committee members did resign at the AGM merely as they had done their time and one sadly passed away last year, but I hate to disappoint we are all still 'friends'



Yes there were problems with the pool these have been sorted out the difference is they are sorted out with the MC



There is a lot of sour grapes from the last management company and their friends if you are silly enough to believe it then so be it I am comfortable with what happened and make NO apology for it



I really do not have to justify anything and I make no apology that the site is better now. The current company are a 100 times better, twist the truth how you wish I know better !



Our site was built in 2006 over five years ago of course there are going to be issues because equipment wears out and has to be replaced and maintained but when they do it doesnt mean there is trouble at Esent

flutterby


Joined: 11/01/2008
Posts: 214

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 07:53

I concur with message 148 totally. It seems Olive Oil that you are totally misinformed, but now why does that surprise me. Esentepe is run by a totally professional management company, who provide us with site accounts and statements in liaison with the Committee on a regular basis. The difference on our site is that when something does go wrong, as, of course it will do with the facilities we have, we have monies set aside to remedy, not excuses so that the money can be pocketed as profit for MC!!! I am sorry to say Olive Oil, to me now, you just come across as very misinformed, listening to the usual vicious gossip!!!

steps426


Joined: 05/12/2011
Posts: 108

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 09:17

Flutterby

Never has anyone ever questioned the present management company's abilities on ST Esentepe, however let me guess that yes they furnish receipts and keep a record for owners of expenditure which is as should be, however I have a small doubt that they supply regular properly audited accounts for inspection.

With the benefits of having a smallish complex that had been kept well (debate already covered) & had a committee in place it was relatively easy for a company to take it over and be able to set up a proper working relationship, this could NOT be acchieved on TQB, or Arapkoy or the Pines, but that is not the debate here.

This is about a company who had a majority of owners say they were happy for them to continue, and about a minority refusing to accept this, it's about accusations and counter accusations as the one made in message 143 re voiding a vote, is it not ?.

Cont

steps426


Joined: 05/12/2011
Posts: 108

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 09:28

If someone watching & seeing how a vote is going is unethical then surely every vote in the UK would be void because of the observers at every count and every political party who run their supporters to and from polling stations would be classed as unethical.

Something else that this debate has highlighted is the fact that the minority group said that they had the backing of Sea Terra company, yet if that was the case Sea Terra wouldn't release the e-mail addresses for them - very strange !



From where I sit there are many sites with problems, but there are two in particular that are high profile and they both have a common denominator



Thank you moderators for your patience, but with the amount of views, despite some comments this thread is the single most viewed one on the board so is obviously of interest to many.

flutterby


Joined: 11/01/2008
Posts: 214

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 09:48

Steps,



With all due respect, Oliveoil's comment below, to me, certainly does question the abilities of the present management company.



Also dont be fooled Marina owners into thinking everything is rosy in the Esentepe ST garden because it's not, but of course those who were the most vociferous in making trouble cant be seen to admit that their present company is no better than the past one, with pool problems, garden problems, committee resignations etc



The debate that you say 'has been covered' and if the outcome was that Esentepe was left for easy takeover, which, again, it most certainly was not, has not been factually debated at all, and this also leads me to believe that your facts are not being correctly presented either. But that is for you all to sort out amongst yourselves. Just please do not have people mis-inform about Esentepe site, of which is now running as it should be, with a Committee made up of people who represent the owners, not the MC!

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 10:31

steps426

This is about a company who had a majority of owners say they were happy for them to continue, and about a minority refusing to accept this,



My response here is this



Only the result of a legal tender would have been proof of this NOT HERESAY.









Steps426 the way you try and excuse an employee at that time employed by the present M/C on the Marina for accessing the voting of the tender is unacceptable, no matter how you try and make silly & wild comparisons. It is these sort of excuses you have stated that you try and take unethical practices acted out by this employee into grey areas of being ethical.



My response to this.

I ask you this ''would it have been acceptable in your view if one of the outside tenders tendering for the contract at that time on the Marina had an employee accessing the voting and did exactly what the VISTAMAR employee did ?

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 10:42

all of the quoted below is a lot more than our previous MC showed owners, so delighted you agree that is what the minimum should be because this is the basis of what a lot of the arguement is about that Vistamar would not show any ligitimate accountancy



'however let me guess that yes they furnish receipts and keep a record for owners of expenditure which is as should be, however I have a small doubt that they supply regular properly audited accounts for inspection. '



what our MC produces is a spreadsheet monthly and scans of the bank accounts and this is all audtied by an owner every time she goes over who is an accountant and all receipts are checked back. Which is how it should be and what we never had before.......



Also there may be a common demonator on both sites, Marina & TQB, but one person cannot be blamed for any situation on either, that is a very naive statement, there is a lot more involved and as said proves how ill informed and blinkered some commentors are

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 10:44

I also wish to point out to readers that this employee at that time of cause of voiding of the vote claimed to and still claims she is stll a represenative for owners on the Marina.



I shake my head in disbelief and shudder to think that any one would agree that this person should have any type of involvement in representing any owner on the Marina.

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 11:25

There was definately a conflict of interest, serving on a committee and getting paid and being employed by the the serving Management Company management company and being involved in the voting - even my four year old grandchild could work that one out was not correct



But these are the kind of things that are deemed acceptable by the MC on the Marina



The bottom line owners should decide when to go to tender and how their site is managed it is a natural course of events in any professional business to tender for business. It should not be hindered in anyway shape or form and certainly not dictated how to be conducted by the incumbant supplier and I thiink that is what is getting missed in this whole debate.



Owners have withdrawn their payments as they are not happy with the current management company so they should be allowed to go to tender, but they were/are not allowed to do this without going to court as the Management Company does not respect their rights as owners.

sHe666


Joined: 20/01/2008
Posts: 47

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 11:30

msg 154



'what our MC produces is a spreadsheet monthly and scans of the bank accounts and this is all audtied by an owner every time she goes over who is an accountant and all receipts are checked back. Which is how it should be and what we never had before....... '



Sienna lets show all readers the accounts summary that VM had sent out to owners and what your current MC sends out ... very identıcal. The accountant that checks the accounts now could ıt be the same person that had worked for VM and ıf so how does ıt make ıt a legal audıt?



The dıfference ıs now they have to show accounts as your contracts are as a fund, however I dıd not have to show them as a fee but you got the accounts summary and the same person workıng on them ... the dıfference ofcourse ıs the words you choose ))



Bea

Vistamar Management

sHe666


Joined: 20/01/2008
Posts: 47

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 11:53

msg 156



ıt was NOT the mc that voted her on the commıttee ... ıt was the MAJORITY of owners that already knew she was workıng for the MC that voted her ın.



WHY has your sıte not gone to tender ?? are all owners on your sıte happy???



Marina dıd go to tender and VM got voted ın ... FACT



This thread should be closed as the case ıs stıll ın court ... unless the admın who ıs a close frıend of yourselves and pıpıe and few others have a dıffrent strategy.



I would lıke to see facts put on wıth accusatıons, not just words.



Bea

steps426


Joined: 05/12/2011
Posts: 108

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 11:59

Pipie I don't wish to be disrespectful - but please your postings 153 & 154 are just a jumble of words making no sense to readers.

Let me try to digest what you appear to be saying, you seem to claim that an employee of Vistamar altered or amended the votes of owners as they were coming in, if this is indeed what you are claiming it is very serious indeed, however all the e-mails will be tracable back and as that has already been denied by the worker and all of the e-mails have been verified by an independent advocate and agreed as legitimate by other advocates this argument seems to be proven, you also accused the person of working illegally which has also been denied (and I believe it can be readily proved).



I also thank she666 for her input with post 157

Sienna

there is no law anywhere that says an employee of a company with vested interest in a site cannot be elected onto a committee on a site where they own a property, so shall we put that one to bed, its a non starter

flutterby


Joined: 11/01/2008
Posts: 214

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 12:13

No She666, the person checking the accounts is not the person that worked for VM - FACT!! And the accounts if compared, are most definitely very different. But be under no illusion, whether a fund is run OR a fee is paid, SITE expenditure, by law, not COMPANY accounts, these are 2 totally separate entities, must be kept as in accordance with the TRNC Property Law Regulations.

steps426


Joined: 05/12/2011
Posts: 108

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 12:18

Sorry I ran out of available space.



The group of owners who are against vistamar continuing in their role have made several claims including that the Sea Terra Development company only recognised them and their committee, this has been denied by Sea Terra management and everyone received copies of that communication.



Cracks in a pool were blamed on vistamar by this same group, that is till the developer fixed them, I would question that the developer would have done that if it was not a design fault or build problem.



It has been claimed by the same group that there was an unusually large incidence of ear infections due to vistamars maintainance and maintaining of the pools, this is again strange as it is Esentepe pools who look after the pools on site and they are a very reputable company who look after many many pools in the area including those on TQB and other complex's, and I would think they wont take kindly to people making unfounded accusations of this nature

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 12:21

Bea what absolute rubbish they were not identical at all LOL firstly as it is our money not yours ! and there is not such thing as a fund or fee - maintenance monies belongs to the owners that is your downfall theory about fee belonging to YOU



so you provided us with every single expenditure on the site with back up statements of accounts yea right what you produced were disneyland accounts made up by yourself



No the accountant is not the same one that worked for you and that person did not profess to be an accountant ! so you are incorrect yet again



We have not gone to tender as the incumbant supplier put forwards a projection for the coming year and it is decided at the AGM whether owners should keep the Mc or tender. Because they are doing a good job currently and as there was NO objections recorded at the AGM then they were appointed so yes you can only presume everyone is happy they are invited to comment



So all your information as usual is INCORRECT

steps426


Joined: 05/12/2011
Posts: 108

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 12:32

Flutterby

As a limited company it is required by law that proper accounting is kept, and on a complex that proper receipts and records are kept, that is agreed, as it is written in the new floor easement law, however it is also written in the same law that the board of owners must lodge books of registration with the district lands office to keep withing the framework of the law.

There is no obligation for a company not operating as an owners fund to produce their accounts to owners, they need only issue a spreadsheet or similar to paying owners detailing income and expenditure unless there is a written agreement to the contrary.

flutterby


Joined: 11/01/2008
Posts: 214

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 12:35

Steps 161, you are totally correct about unfounded accusations, there have been quite a few in the previous half dozen posts or few, let's just hope they don't rile anyone enough to make them want to add to the court case!!

steps426


Joined: 05/12/2011
Posts: 108

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 12:45

It is again evident that the hatred of some people is blinding them to reality and they are trying very hard to sway peoples opinion again by rubbishing yet another company and individual, the fact is that most people want to have a quiet life and enjoy their properties, and for the past 5 years a few people have made that very hard for them, and it has caused their investment to stagnate and done untold damage to their respective areas, some have passed away during this time and have known only grief and strife where they thought they could enjoy peace and relaxation in their later years.

In the arguments that have been raging, pipie is demanding that places should tender, on the other hand in post 162 fourth paragraph we have sienna saying its not needed as the majority are happy - how mixed up is that ? they don't know what they want !

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 12:50

Steps426

Any intelligent person would be able to understand my post, let us hope they can read between thr lines the twisted slant you have put on it.

flutterby


Joined: 11/01/2008
Posts: 214

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 12:53

I think Steps, you are mixing up the views of 2 very different people and 2 very different scenarios. I think all people really want is transparency, honesty and trust and I hope we all find it. You, too, do come across as trying to sway peoples' minds, and perhaps a bit one-sided. Let's hope it all works out for the best of the people who have their investments here!



Wishing you all a very happy, healthy and peaceful 2012.

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 14:06

Message 158 states 'This thread should be closed as the case ıs stıll ın court' -



Did you think of that when you went to press to have your momnet of poor me poor me have some respect for the owners



Your user name She devil (she666) says it all



I rest my case

steps426


Joined: 05/12/2011
Posts: 108

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 15:39

Once again both pipie and sienna become personal - such a shame incapable of rational debate



A/ *Steps426 the way you try and excuse an employee at that time employed by the present M/C on the Marina for accessing the voting of the tender is unacceptable, no matter how you try and make silly & wild comparisons. It is these sort of excuses you have stated that you try and take unethical practices acted out by this employee into grey areas of being ethical*.

I at no time made wild or silly comparisons, I made reasonable comparisons, the person YOU accused by posting it on a public forum has not interfered with any vote, she merely observed, this has already been accepted by both sides, now why can YOU not accept this unless it is just personal hatred ?.



*I also wish to point out to readers that this employee at that time of cause of voiding of the vote claimed to and still claims she is stll a represenative for owners on the Marina*.



All I say to this is EH ??

steps426


Joined: 05/12/2011
Posts: 108

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 15:56

message 166

If my opinions are portraying a twisted slant in your opinion pipie I can imagine what yours are portraying to the masses, the mind boggles !.

Oh dear ! please excuse the temerity of my postings, daring to have a different outlook or point of view, I forgot for a moment that we must all toe the p(i)a(p)r(i)t(e)y line.

I have tried to stick to the debate without getting personal, and to put to you what more people than you might imagine are aware of and are thinking, and heaven knows you are doing well in persuading those people where the best course lies, for that you must be applauded.



Flutterby

Most decent people want honesty and transparency, however that does not give small groups of people the right to publish downright lies on these forums without fear of retribution, sure people have made mistakes (it is a human frailty) but to be branded a liar/thief/con artist/cheat is unacceptable and those responsible must be made answerable for their actions.

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 16:03

Is there anyone in this thread who can tell outsiders what this thread is all about (after 170 posts - only in THIS thread)?

PS. You have about 1000 characters to explain...

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 16:04

steps you are not debating you are clutching at straws as you are ill informed and definately do not possess the full details or truth so how can you be anything else but biased You have nothing to do with either site so how can you know first hand only what garbage you are fed - incorrectly I might add



I speak from experience and knowledge of it all- your posts are patronising and condesending and full of incorrect infroration , and infact its you that got personal if you read back



We dont have to prove anything as WE gratefully do not have to put up with this company anymore thank god what is a tad annoying is seeing such garrbage incorrectly reported



The whole vote was farcical FACT believe what you like it wont make it right or a professional way to act ))))))

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 16:11

message 170 quote 'fear of retribution'



have you been taking lessons - as I have always said many owners do not say anything because of the quoted sentence as the sites are run by fear or favour if oyu are favoured and toe the line you are fine



Keep digging because you have proved my point - END

steps426


Joined: 05/12/2011
Posts: 108

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 16:19

DC it takes all kinds of threads and this one is not for you ;) but thanks for your input.



sienna

Unlike you I don't have to clutch at straws and as you said about me, you also have nothing to do with the Marina so your information is as good or bad as mine, however my advantage is I do live and work in the vicinity and in the industry unlike you and pipie who fire your bullets from afar, my information comes on a regular basis from owners who live on and holiday in Sea terra Esentepe. Marina and many other complex's in the locale and is for the most part reliable as these people have no axe to grind excepting to tell me what they think of certain people and the way they always try to cause trouble on here.

And by the way it was not Vistamar who involved the press so once again YOU got YOUR facts wrong.

I have stated a case and will leave it there and let you and pipie/marina1 have the last word as usual if it makes you feel bitter

steps426


Joined: 05/12/2011
Posts: 108

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 16:20

OOPS sorry "better"

lol

))

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 18:24

Dutch.

Owing to the court case I can only give you a brief history here. Hope it helps and I welcome you in the debate. It would be good to read an unbiased view.



Vistamar have managed the Sea Terra Marina site since 2007.







Owners on the Marina on receiving kochans then had the right to tender in 2010.







Vistamar resisted and refused to tender.







The committee rightly or wrongly included Vistamar in the tender.







The tender was made void by the committee, as a Vistamar employee working in the Marina office accessed the voting process enabling her to view live votes as they came in.







Plaintiffs are now taking Vistamar to court to question if Vistamar have legal mandate on the Marina.

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 20:16

Steps426.



Just because you reside in the vicinity of the Marina and you hint you are in the industry, you need to understand it does not give you any such advantage over any owner who lives afar.

I am an owner on the Marina. You are not.

The attitude you portray shows you to appear completely one sided, mischief making,and a person who simply cannot prove any of your statements.

If you are in the industry (as you so hinted ) I presume this is just managing the odd villa or apartment as no way could you smoothly run a site, not with showing the above mentioned characteristics.

What you need to take on board steps426 is that M/C's way back had the same line of thinking as you and some walked before they were pushed.

You residing in the vicinity I wonder maybe you were acquainted with these failed sites.

You need to learn that owners not only have obligations buying on a communal site, but owners also have rights, these rights are just what some are fighting for.

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 20:27

What's the name of the site? "Kindergarten"? Why don't you all sit down together and shout a little bit before solving the problem. You all go on calling each other names instead of behaving like reasonable grown-ups. Tsk.

oliveoil


Joined: 16/03/2008
Posts: 58

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 21:03

Pipie I have never heard such condescending drivel in my entire life, you think so much of yourself, if you were chocolate you would eat yourself.

For all you know this person may own a large operation, whatever,! it does not give you the right to presume , what are you trying to portray yourself as, do you think you are of superior intelligence, (laugh).



*What you need to take on board steps426 is that M/C's way back had the same line of thinking as you and some walked before they were pushed.*



If as I suspect you are yet again referring to TQB yes a good MC walked away, because of non payers like you who blamed them for all the things the developers left unfinished, and you whooped about the great Lynx, who then milked you for 2+ years before dropping you all in it again, at least the first MC did the honourable thing and left.



You cant let go can you ? your hatred is sad & you didnt know a good thing when you had it and suffered almost 3 yrs of a rubbish site

Cont

oliveoil


Joined: 16/03/2008
Posts: 58

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 21:10

Where many people couldn't let their apartments (including you), pools that were stagnant etc. while the really top notch 'professional' Lynx milked you for all they were worth, and then walked out on a months notice and without refunding monies due to owners unlike their predecessors, dont even try to compare as you are talking utter garbage.



No wonder I stopped contributing to this forum, as DC says tsk ! you just dont know how to let go

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
27/12/2011 21:13

Dutch.



We did try for 3 years to no avail hence the court case !!



Olive oil kindly keep om track.

minertor



Joined: 14/02/2009
Posts: 1238

Message Posted:
28/12/2011 16:55

msg 180>No wonder I stopped contributing to this forum, as DC says tsk ! you just dont know how to let go



oliveoil.you posted this "utter garbage" at 21-10 YESTERDAY. When you stop, you really stop, like a hot engine choked with carbon deposits.

Still, it makes good reading, you makes the rest of us look intelligent.



T

johndp


Joined: 08/09/2009
Posts: 497

Message Posted:
28/12/2011 22:46

Minertor

You makes the rest of us look intelligent

in your case impossible

) )))

frankedad


Joined: 21/11/2008
Posts: 346

Message Posted:
29/12/2011 01:00

i am a simple soul , i own 2 units there , but the marina site has been looked after so well by vistamar , there is no contest.,. there are are many investor owners not paying contributions , well done vistamer for keeping it going with out these payments.. all you wingers really need to get a life.. forget all the rubbish talked by so many.. vistamar is doing the job though all the problems thrown at them.. there are a lot of bitter twisted people causing problems ??? why ,,, get a life... keep up the good work Bea , we are normal people , not whingers.. normal.., why are u whingin.. its very sad .. .. enjoy this amazing island. if u cant u have a problem with your personal life.. very sad..

frankedad


Joined: 21/11/2008
Posts: 346

Message Posted:
29/12/2011 01:05

ps any whinger wants to have a word in person . i would love to have chat about it nose to nose, i will be there x i love whingers..

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
29/12/2011 03:16

frankdad

You have had the chance to meet up at 3 meetings !!

steps426


Joined: 05/12/2011
Posts: 108

Message Posted:
29/12/2011 09:38

Message 184 well put.

Nice to know that you appreciate what is being done and you own 2 UNITS,

Anita 3 meetings organised by who ??? a few renegades and someone who does not even own there now I would lay odds.

Once again we have posted actual happenings but you as is the norm have not responded to them with answers, you have all been supplied with evidence by e-mails from advocates - yet you STILL refuse to accept it ! your trouble is it is a personal hatred yet again, this time against Bea and Vistamar



You keep bringing up another company you have the same hatred of, yet tell others to stay on track .



To those who come in with their one liners and witticisms, if the thread does annoys you please skip to the next one you are not being forced to read it and you are not displaying or putting in anything of worth.

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
29/12/2011 10:19

Steps426

I do not hate anyone.

3 meetings have taken place and all owners were invited or send points to be discussed. You were not present so kindly do not presume anything !!

As far as I can see steps 426 you appear to be looking in from the outside, you are not an owner on the Marina, so you are not privy to any facts just hereday. In my opinion I think you are using this thread for your own agenda.

Of course all readers on this board are entitled to post, no problem, however using this thread the way you are doing I hope others can see through you.

I will answer or debate with anyone who genuinely wishes to discuss issues,relating to this thread,

But you are presenting yourself in a way not capable of debate.

All I want as an owner Is what I am entitled to within the TRNC Law.

If you disagree with me as an owner for fighting for what I am entitled to then let us agree to disagree .

/2

steps426


Joined: 05/12/2011
Posts: 108

Message Posted:
29/12/2011 11:14

Now now pipie, you are contradicting yourself, you put plenty of effort into other threads on complex's where you are not an owner, so it looks as if that is OK seeing as it's you, and yet you assume that I dont own or part own on the Marina, tut tut, never ass-u-me in makes an ASS of U not ME.

I am putting before you things that can be proved conclusively, yet you refuse to accept this, why I wonder ? are you doubting that your agruments are a little frayed round the edges, you seem to have opinions on many things as your postings on the forum would substantiate, however the truth is what REALLY matters and there is DEFINITELY a record that a majority of owners voted for the incumbent MC to continue, you say there isn't, PROVE IT - we can.

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
29/12/2011 12:02

Steps426

The tender was made void and the reasons why have been stated.So nothing proved on Your statement that VIstamar winning a majority.

In my view in order to go forward we need a fresh tender for the Marina.

A fresh tender is the only fair solution to end this ongoing fiasco.

batterboy58



Joined: 20/04/2008
Posts: 442

Message Posted:
29/12/2011 13:45

Just like in government, keep on having a fresh (tender, vote or referendum) until you get the decision that you want.

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
29/12/2011 14:08

batterboy58.

Owner on the bay under Vistamar management for 4 years !! Owners on the bay have never gone to tender either. Very democratic !! NOT.



I disagree batterboy 58 if a vote was made void then a fresh vote would simply vote in the winning tender all would have to abide with this. If it is Vistamar so be it. This is democratic !!



I am simply amazed that a simple soloution of a new tender is resisted by all who support Vistamar who say Vistamar have the majority. Why are these resisting, so afraid of ?????

bazzagirl


Joined: 09/05/2010
Posts: 525

Message Posted:
29/12/2011 14:17

They all get away with it and they know they can, ours FIRST CONSULT CYPRUS, CHARGED US EXTORTIONATE INTEREST ON A YEAR AND A HALFS PAYMENTS, with which we held back as we were instructed to do due to by our advocate Pinar from SENAR LAW FIRM, THE ONLY REASON WE PAID THEM IS BECAUSE WE HAD TOO, otherwise they would not let our sale go through on our property, this so called family business Incilay Fell, Sayman Fell, Claire Wright etc know exactly what they are doing but do they care alongs the coffers keep rolling in they don't give a toss. But I am a firm believer in what goes around comes around, i hope all the people paying them maintenance are proud to be renovating there hotel in Folkestone Kent , yes that was once on facebook, true true true. These people are nothing more than t-----s, and what better place than to practice c--------n than the TRNC. So happy to be rid of them, xx

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
29/12/2011 15:34

Bazzagirl.



I disagree, dishonourable folk only get away with doing dishonourable things in our case only if you allow them to do it. You have to fight and this is what we we most def intend to do



Only you know what you have gone through and it sounds horrendous. Not sure what was in your contract and what warranted you losing out so much financially so cannot really comment, only sympathise.







However we do have the apartment law that gives us guidelines on a way forward for complexes. If we as owners follow these guidelines, all on these complexes should have few problems.







I have stated more or less in my view a democratic and simple way forward for the Marina that is agreement with other owners on the Marina, which is a tender.



All owners who own part of the communal areas and it states this in the contract of sale has an automatic right to choose management to manage what owners own, and not a dictatorship M/C who tries to prevent this from happening.

batterboy58



Joined: 20/04/2008
Posts: 442

Message Posted:
29/12/2011 17:29

Pipie



"Owners on the bay have never gone to tender either. Very democratic !! NOT. "



Quite frankly you are so eaten up with loathing and as a result have become so fixated with pedalling your dogma that you wouldn't know democracy if it smacked you in the face!



It so happens that our owners have chosen thus far to remain with the existing MC so contrary to your unvalued opinion this is very democratic.

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
29/12/2011 18:08

batterboy.



I do not agree. In my view fear or favour is the reason you have not got to tender on the Bay.

However the bay are not my concerns. I prefer to keep on track of this thread

tania


Joined: 09/12/2011
Posts: 116

Message Posted:
29/12/2011 18:32