Search:     Go  
The Spanish Lawyer Online
The Spanish Lawyer Online

The Ready2Invest Property Scam

For those caught in any of the Ready2Invest fiascos, such as Cerros de Turre, La Cadima or Santa Ana


Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Report From Mojacar Town Hall Confirms Works at La Cadima Were Halted in 2008

February 15th, 2012

We are in receipt of a lengthy report from the Town Hall confirming that the works on Playa Macenas were indefinetely halted by the Mojacar Town Hall on the 12th of June 2008, instigated by the architects (who are owed subtantial sums, as confirmed by them) and the building contractor (equally owed very large sums).

We are advised that Citrus Playa Macenas S.L. started the works on September 2007 and suspended them, indefinetely, on the 9th of May 2008, after which it was communicated to the Town Hall.


Uncategorized , ,

Cadima Units Show Tax Office Embargo

June 10th, 2011

The attached document, which relates to the individual property description, in construction, and its legal charges, reveals the following:

  1. The maximum mortgage this unit would be liable for, potentially. This unit has maximum mortgage liability of €139,500, on which draw-downs can be effected as the unit gets built.
  2. An embargo for a maximum of €746,160.31 Euros which is, presumably, the debt incurred in with the Tax Office for the whole development.

If we consider that these properties would have a retail value of anything between 35% and 50% less than initially sold for, it is difficult to see how the bank would be looking at buying the plot back and paying Citrus a subtantial sum, as is being suggested.



Bancaja confirms no negotiations are taking place

June 8th, 2011

Following a call with Bancaja, we are advised that no negotiations are taking place in respect to the situation with the Playa Macenas plot. The bank has also advised that the account is empty, without balance of funds. 

With regards to Turre plots, certainly no negotiations ever took place with any banker at the time since the plots that made up Turre were sold to a company called Urbanización Cerro Colorado S.L., represented at the time by a Javier Berruezo Segura, on the 11th of October 2006.

Strangely enough, these plots were sold again on the 10 of March 2008 to a company which forms part of the same group, also represented by a Javier Berruezo Segura. The reason for this to happen is unknown but, presumably, all the rights over the few properties (17) that Mr. Warren, on behalf of Citrus Playa Macenas S.L., agreed to reserve to investors who had paid deposits are no longer available.

It has also transpired that back in 2005 and 2006, a criminal complaint involving the above companies was withdrawn although we dont have more information on them (details of which can be found in Court number 2 in Vera, with number DP 358/2005).

Uncategorized , , , , , , ,

Citrus Negotiations with Bancaja

June 6th, 2011

I have been advised that our initial approach to this matter was rather like that of a bull in a china shop, because we were upsetting the negotiations taking place between Citrus and the bank, and incidentally, Mr. Crossick and Mr. Warren themselves.

I may be missing something they know and will not tell me but, having been around for 12 years and with 120 Court cases on the go, I can be almost certain that no bank will buy land these days, because, as things stand now, they would rather repossess (cheaper), particularly where Citrus Playa Macenas S.L.´s bank accounts and real estate seem to have been issued with a legal charge by the AEAT (Spanish Inland Revenue), for non-payment of taxes.

Certainly not the best way to start negotiations if these accounts happen to be with the same bank you have sitting accross the table!

Uncategorized , , ,

Ready2Invest Threatens to Sue for Libel, but Still No Trace of the Money

May 29th, 2011

Jonty Crossick and Ready2Invest have now answered to a stronger request for a full account of moneys that were sent to them. It’s about time we get them to react, after years of sweet talking althought the fundamental question still remains unanswered. Where has the money gone? But then, it appears that my statements may harm buyers if a result of them, the ongoing negotiations being held by the developer to repay buyers are prejudiced.

Also, I am told that I will be sued for defamation/libel if I do not, immediately, remove my statements. On this point only I will add that, thankfully, I do not come under UK draconian libel laws nor jurisdiction…(soon to be reformed, anyhow).

Back to the point I will add that there is no possible negotiation other than a full refund unless it can be proven that every euro was invested in the construction of the property in question. In Spain, if a developer takes advance payments, does not guarantee them and does not use them exclusively for expenses arising or directly connected to the construction of the building (promotional and marketing costs, salaries, AND real estate commissions (!) are not included), then he is deemed to have misspropriated those funds.

Below you can find the letters sent to both this site’s ISP and myself (click for full version).


Ready2Invest Letter Before Action Dated 26-05-11



Ready2Invest Take Down Notice Dated 24-05-11

Uncategorized , ,

Ready2Invest/Citrus Answer Questions… That Were Never Asked.

May 28th, 2011

Following the publication of a preliminary report, that include a number of crucial questions, on what I believe are allegedly fraudulent activities by the consortium Read2invest/Citrus, we have now started to receive answers to questions…that I have not asked.

Still, no answer as to where did approximately €9 million go, once they reached Citrus Europe Ltd., considering that one of the half -built development (Los Cerros de Turre) was sold to a third party, who denies no liability nor involvement in the initial project and denies responsibility in respect to Read2Invest’s clients, and a second one that did not get finished, but where presumably some form of guarantee (bank advance payment bond) could mean that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

No word of Santa Ana, where individual lenders have entrusted very large sums of money to Studios Inmobiliarios Howell S.L. as high as €750,000.



Citrus Playa Macenas Limited


Dom Antonio Flores

It has come to my attention that you have posted on the internet a report (the “Report”) of what you describe as  the  “Cerros/Turre, La Cadima/Playa Macenas and Santa Ana property Fiasco” which suggest that the projects referred to above were in some way an elaborate premeditated fraud or scam carried out by any or all of Mr J Crossick, the UK broker Ready2invest Limited (R2i) and myself, acting in concert through a joint venture involving the Spanish development companies.

Such statements are entirely false and have been made by you recklessly and without any supporting justification. By your own admission in the Report you are unable to understand the situation without answers to a number of questions. It is then a mystery to me why you as a professional lawyer have not sought to ask these questions and obtain the answers before making defamatory remarks about various parties.

Action will be taken against you and your law firm in this respect and I set this out in detail at the end of this letter.

Had you taken the time to ask any questions of me I would have explained to you the number of inaccurate conclusions you have arrived at and also answered any issues on which you had not got previous information.

I will set out below a brief history of facts in relation to these development projects and where appropriate refer to statements you have made within your Report.

Brief History

Your very first statement in your Report is incorrect. Citrus Playa Macenas SL was not represented by me at the time the project was first considered, or the land at Playa Macenas and Turre acquired or the land at Turre disposed of.

Citrus Playa Macenas SL was represented either by Richard Day (RD) or Colin Francis Smith (CFS). When Citrus Playa Macenas SL was formed they appointed a Spanish managing director.  This information is a matter of public record and I am surprised that you should be so wrong on what is the very fundamental basis of your Report

My initial involvement was only as the Representative of one of the investors at Turre and subsequently Playa Macenas.

Only when the legal dispute at Turre developed was I asked by Citrus to become their Administrator and only then did I become directly involved in the company. I was removed from that position without notice by Colin Francis Smith but reinstated in 2007 when the bank made it clear that they had lost confidence in the previous management of the company and required that I be reinstated.

However, at all relevant times, 2003, for the basis of your Report, I was not “representing Citrus Playa Macenas SL”. You say that “from the beginning” you had some difficulty in working with me. Please specify what work you are referring to , when that work was attempted, and when you tried to contact me ( saying whether that was by phone or by email)

Your Report also pre-supposes a collusion between Citrus and R2i , when in fact the relationship between them was non-existent. So much so that I acted as a go between throughout the whole of the period when Citrus was controlled by CFS and RD.

You should also be aware that Jonty Crossick and myself only took positions on the board of Citrus Europe Limited and Citrus Playa Macenas Limited under the terms of an investment agreement with Citrus, not with a view to taking equity, but as a means of control to protect, in Jontys case, the investors of R2i, and in mine , to protect my associate  who had agreed to invest in the project with. On the occasion I had shares in the company, it was only by way of security.

An arrangement prepared by lawyers and fully documented.

There is an even more ridiculous pre-supposition by your use of the words in the Report “friendly lawyer”, which clearly implies that in order for such a fraudulent scheme to succeed it is necessary for the perpetrators to persuade the investors to take the advice of a lawyer who will give them advice favourable to the developer.

The thing that makes that so ridiculous is that you were the independent lawyer recommended by R2i to advise the buyers. Are you suggesting that when you acted for buyers you did so on the basis that you were in fact doing so on the basis that you would not be acting in their best interests or would be taking instructions from some other party?

For the record and in so far as it is alleged by you it is absolutely denied that you were ever asked to turn a blind eye to any of the issues that should have been of concern and you were never offered any sort of incentive to do so. Your obligation was always to act in the best interests of your clients.

You go on to say that you did not find it easy to work with Jonty or myself. Can you please elaborate on that? Please specify the times you had contact with me, tried but failed to contact me, what information you sought from me and what information you received from me directly?

You say you were issuing “warnings” to both companies. Please specify what warnings you were issuing and how they were communicated. On whose behalf were you issuing those warnings? Clearly, by your own admission, all those clients who instructed you, were asked by R2i to pay their deposits in the first instance to you. Neither Citrus nor R2i had any control over those deposits.

What then is the significance of you referring to the sales engine running full steam if the payment of the deposits to you, as recommended by R2i , was intended as an independent buffer of protection for the clients. Once again the clear innuendo of your statement does not make sense.

You state in your Report that you were issuing “warnings to both companies”. What companies, what warnings and to whom were they directed?    There appears to be a conflict here in what you are saying. On the one hand, you accept that R2i were advising people to take advice from you, to pay their deposits to you and were not expecting them to transfer their deposits until they had received that advice. Therefore the gathering of deposits, as you say, was in fact asking people to send their deposits to you to hold in a safe place. On the other hand you are suggesting by innuendo that R2i (and myself, but I await evidence of that) were too busy getting in deposits than worrying about the legalities of the transaction. Surely you were charged with the task of ensuring the latter and the deposits were safe in your hands?

You say, that people instructed you to release those deposits despite the fact that you advised them not to because of your concerns about the legality of the project. You say they did so because of the “trickery” of Jonty. You dont say what that trickery was, so I give you the opportunity now to spell out in clear terms how Jonty tricked people into ignoring your advice and proceeding with the transfer of the deposits to Citrus. Surely, that is crucial to any claim against R2i, which you seem to be advocating. You must therefore be clear, and have clear evidence of his “trickery”.

Let us be clear about certain things here. Those people who initially paid deposits in escrow did so to you as their independent lawyer. A draft contract was prepared but was never signed, primarily because the terms of the contract could not be agreed with you.

The opportunity to purchase a property in La Cadima at Playa Macenas was then offered to all those people who had reserved one at Turre and a new contract was drawn up to purchase at La Cadima which incorporated an option to buy one at Turre as well, as and when they might become available.

Those people therefore have a written contract and privity of contract with Citrus Playa Macenas SL.

However, if they did not transfer their funds to the la Cadima project, they have privity of contract with Citrus Europe Limited , but not Citrus Playa Macenas SL. Garcia Bosch were perfectly right to point that out to you. It would be ill conceived of Turre only purchasers to commence an action against Citrus Playa Macenas Limited in Spain in the absence of a written contract. How can you as a lawyer say anything different. The Spanish courts would have no standing. Moreover, for you to suggest that you might act in such an action is misleading at the least. You would be an active witness in the case and therefore a conflict of interest would apply. You will have to explain why you allowed the Turre only purchasers to transfer their funds without a contract being in place?

Can you also explain why you are suggesting a fraud when, having discovered that no contract existed for the Turre only purchasers, I , in conjunction with R2i arranged that each of those people were given an acknowledgement of the debt by Citrus Playa Macenas SL to protect them?

You say that the sale of the land at Turre to UCC SL was a breach of contract. What contract? That is of course in any event quite different to saying it is a fraud. I disagree on both counts.

Again, as if of some significance, you make play again of the fact that the land was not in fact sold to Promobys SL, but Promobys SL is a sister company of UCC SL and the marketing of the site at Turre is conducted by Promobys SL. Are you aware of why it was sold? If yes why not disclose that in your report. If not, why have you not made enquiry as to why it was sold? These are obviously crucial matters when determining the background.

Please detail exactly when I refused to provide you with a copy of the contract of sale. You say that you subsequently obtained a copy of the title deed. Who were the executing parties to that deed?

Turning to La Cadima at Playa Macenas, you suggest that the scheme has no licence, no guarantee and that the contract is in a form that is illegal.   You will be aware that a subsequent legal due diligence report was prepared by  a firm of Spanish lawyers by the name of Legalex on those very points.

It confirmed the following:

1. Conclusion: CITRUS PLAYA MACENAS S.L. is a properly incorporated company that complies with all formalities of Spanish law. It is trading with no liabilities.

2.Conclusion: there already exists an independent registered title for each unit that is the object of the contract of purchase and sale.

3. Conclusion: all the valid building and environmental permits have been granted by the relevant authorities.

4. The project complies with all the necessary requirement of Spanish Law for this type of development. Both at planning and administrative levels, the project is approved and the company selling it has full freehold ownership of the project without any charges or liens expect the charge for the construction finance as explained above.

The amounts paid under the terms of the contract are not guaranteed in the event of non completion of the site.

On the question of Guarantees

5 Guarantees

The developer is not providing a bank guarantee or insurance policy to cover payments already made under the purchase agreement. In other words there is a commercial risk in the transaction that must be brought to attention

Whether or not you agree with that advice, how can you begin to justify a suggestion that R2i /Citrus/ myself were purportedly acting fraudulently if acting under the guidance and knowledge of such advice?

Is it your suggestion, that Legalex are also involved is some sort of fraudulent activity? If so please make it clear and I will pass on your comments to them.

I note you say their advice is wrong, they disagree with you.

Significantly, every purchaser at Playa Macenas was given a copy of that due diligence report before being asked to sign the updated contract. It clearly identifies the commercial risk taken when a bank guarantee or insurance policy is not available from the Developer.

In the event, at my request, the bank as you rightly pointed out, confirmed the existence of a guarantee. Why would the bank issue such a confirmation if there was any doubt at that stage of the bona fide nature of the project?

Despite the fact that the bank, without good cause in my opinion, breached the terms of the developers mortgage by refusing to continue to fund the La Cadima project, and despite the fact that UCC sl failed to deliver the  properties as contracted, I have continued in my position as Managing director, without any payment for doing so, travelling back and forth to Spain at my own expense in an effort to persuade the bank to honour its agreement to the company and/or   repay the the deposits under the terms of the guarantee.  How then does that fit the profile of a property swindle you would seek to project in your unsubstantiated postings?

I do not know what your motivation is for posting the Report. I must say for my part it appears to be some attempt to offer your services in bringing a legal action against a variety of persons, including myself based upon a fraud.

I wish to make it clear form the start that I in no way wish to influence the decision of any of those persons who fall into the category of purchasers who have not received either a property or their deposit back, not to seek legal advise and if advised to do so take the appropriate action.

I am concerned though, that they should not be encouraged to expend further sums on legal fees in a Court case unless they are aware of ALL the relevant facts and not driven by an opinion based upon clear inaccuracy and fuelled by unsubstaniated emotive words as trickery fraud and property swindle. More particularly where those words are used by someone who clearly seeks to make financial gain from such an action and were themselves involved in the transactions.

Your comments are defamatory but I prefer to take the view of what we call in the UK “sticks and stones”. That may not be the view of R2i when they become awrae of your posts and my comments here. I intend to copy this to them not because of any association with them but because I have mentioned them and they should be allowed to spaek for themselves.

I would though invite you to justify your post or remove the same, not least because it serves to mislead those purchasers who await their deposits and no doubt will deflect them from the action that they should really be contemplating to recover their money.

If I do not hear form you within 7 days with clear evidence that will support your assertions then I intend to copy  this note to each of the persons who wer prospective purchasers of Citrus and who have to date not received their money back.

Yours faithfully

Ray Warren

Cc Jonty Crossick

Cc Ready2invest Limited


Uncategorized , , ,

La Cadima in Playa Macenas: Proposed Legal Action

May 21st, 2011

Following the legal analisis done for Los Cerros de Turre, I will list below what, in my opinion, should be the best course of action for those affected in the La Cadima/Playa Macenas failed development. The options are listed in order of appropriateness:

  1. Action against the bank involved: there is a bank guarantee issued by Bancaja, which is a global master guarantee to ensure deposits are safeguarded against the risks named by the 1968/57 Act on Bank guarantees, i.e. lack of building license and lack of license of occupancy. Furthermore, a letter signed by Bancaja states that a special account is opened with Bancaja and is blocked from the Banks customer, this meaning that the company, Citrus Playa Macenas S.L., cannot access this money and the money will be released to them only when they build the property of the depositor. It then goes on to affirm that the bank will issue a bank guarantee to each depositor which guarantees that the money will be released to Citrus Playa Macenas only when, as they build the property and if the property is not complete the money will be returned to the depositor. An action against Bancaja is a must in the case of Cadima, given the antecedents we know.
  2. Criminal action for misappropriation and swindle by theft: this option is seriously weakened given that a bank guarantee was obtained, and therefore, the use given to funds would not constitute, in principle, criminal misuse, or embezzlement. 
  3. Action against lawyers: Equally, lawyers in this case would be able to rightfully put a defense on the basis that, although no individual guarantees were issued, Bancaja did agree in writing to guarantee the deposits. 
  4. Ordinary civil action: The very last resort given the minimal impact it would have on the status of claimants. 

Uncategorized , ,

Los de Cerros de Turre: Proposed Legal Action

May 21st, 2011

Purchasers at any of the affected developments will have several options open to them, if they decide to proceed legally. The options are placed by what I consider the most appropriate to the least, and are different in the case of each development. Will start with Los Cerros de Turre.

Proposed Actions

  1. Criminal action for misappropriation and theft by swindle, given that funds were taken by Citrus Playa Macenas S.L. and Ready2Invest, both being instrumental in the creation of an illusion, that of promoting, building and selling property in Spain. Citrus goes even further as he sold the plot without advising their clients and furthermore, did not refund the advance payments nor guaranteed them with bank guarantee. Misappropriation will necessarily occur, pursuant to Spanish case law, where funds have been diverted to uses different from the construction of the units, regardless of intent to misappropriate, since funds received by developers are always in concept of “escrow” and never in ownership, as with the purchase of, generally, all items. Theft by swindle will require proof that there was intent although such activity need not be active, as it can be accomplished by false representation as to either past of future facts.
  2. Action against the bank involved: this option is placed second for we don’t have knowledge of Cajamar having provided a bank guarantee, which if we were to confirm was the case it would automatically take precedence over criminal action.
  3. Action against lawyers involved in the transaction, for professional negligence: An acting lawyer would presumably be faced with a negligence claim if he/she had provided the client with positive advice and the client had placed reliance on such advice to pursue the investment. Lawbird Legal Services clearly saw fundamental flaws in the investment and advised against purchasing in this development, advice that Jonty craftily managed to play down by making use of trickery. It is not known if any other law firm took up an instruction in this matter.
  4. Ordinary civil action: the very last resort given the minimal impact it would have on the status of claimants.

Uncategorized , ,

Questions on Citrus Europe and Ready2Invest that Need an Answer

May 20th, 2011

There are a number of points that are crucial to establish where liabilities lie and the type of action that would have to be pursued. This list is not comprehensive and is likely to increase as more information pours in.

  1. What is the relationship of Ready2Rent/Ready2Invest with Citrus Europe Ltd. and Citrus Playa Macenas S.L.?
  2. What is the historical background of Citrus Europe Ltd.?
  3. How many of the developments that Ready2Rent has intervened in have actually been completed?
  4. Why did Jonty Crossick handle very significant sums of money on behalf of Citrus, if he was only an acting real estate agent?
  5. If Citrus Playa Macenas S.L. and R2R (note that I am now considering them to be one entity, or a joint venture) received 14.600.000 Euros by virtue of a mortgage deed with Bancaja for La Cadima project, (on account of a global of 35.000.000 Euros), as an initial draw down (no information on further draw-downs is available), on the 8th of July 2005, plus an unaccounted amount from unsecured buyers (our estimate is 60 buyers x 70k Euros=4.200.000 Euros), and the cost of the works would presumably not exceed 10.000.000 Euros at the most, where are the remaining funds?
  6. The plot at Turre was sold for 11.500.000 Euros. Why were the funds not returned to the buyers? How much was invested in the project?
  7. Why do García-Bosch lawyers, on behalf of Citrus Playa Macenas S.L. confirm that the deposits were not paid to Citrus Playa Macenas S.L. but to Citrus Europe, with whom the contracts were signed, if the plot was owned by their former. If this is the case, do these lawyers not realize that Citrus Europe Ltd. has been deceiving buyers as this company never owned property in Spain?
  8. Why is the letter sent out by Garcia-Bosch, where he tags the communication sent by Lawbird Legal Services of libelous, dated 30th of April 2007, for exposing the legal status? Why do they not refer to the sale the Cerros/Turre development in Cerro Colorado S.L. on the 11th of October 2006? What is therefore the connection?
  9. Why does Legalex, on a report dated 29th of October 2008, advise that the purchase draft contracts for La Cadima comply with Spanish laws, when it is clearly in breach of consumer regulations?
  10. Legalex, in its report, seem to mistake La Cadima in Mojacar for Cerros, in Turre. In this report they refer to a mortgage deed signed on the 8th of July 2009, with protocol number 2171, with the financial entity Cajamar, when this deed is signed with Bancaja. Bancaja confirms, on a letter dated 10th of April 2006 that a special account has been opened with them to the effect of guaranteeing the sums. Furthermore, Bancaja states that the bank will issue a Bank Guarantee to each depositor which guarantees that the money will be released to Citrus Playa Macenas S.L. only when as they build the property and if the property is not completed, the money will be returned to the depositor. The letter is signed by Jose Enrique Molina Chasserot, “Banc Director”, who happens to be the representative who signed the title deeds on behalf of Citrus Playa Macenas S.L. where a loan for 35.000.000 Euros was granted. If this is the case, why does Garcia-Bosch insist that funds are to be paid in the United Kingdom as not only is Citrus Playa Macenas S.L. a Spanish company, but also owned the plot and was the beneficiary of a loan that ultimately, was to build Spanish property? Furthermore, can a lawyer be so incompetent as to hold ground on this stupid allegation when even Bancaja admits that the deposits are to be paid in the nominated Spanish account of Bancaja, opened in the name of Citrus Playa Macenas S.L., and also guaranteed by them? Or do they form part of a scheme to deceive consumers?
  11. To this date, we only have account of 6 deposits having been refunded on Turre and none on Playa Macenas. Where are the deposits that were never returned?

Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , ,

The Ready2Invest Alleged Scam: A Bit of History

May 19th, 2011

Citrus Playa Macenas S.L. and Ready2invest (formerly Ready2Rent), represented by Jonty Crossick, set out in 2003 to organize, elaborate, promote, sell, construct and deliver 2 developments in the province of Almeria to an undisclosed number of consumers in the United Kingdom and Ireland who, mostly, mortgaged homes to finance the initial deposit. Seven years later, properties are half built (or not at all) and no prospect of delivery is visible.

The uncontested marketing and selling skills displayed by Jonty Crossick and his team, working from a front-line Brighton town house, ensured that only high quality promotional material and brochures were printed, that the best telemarketing operators were trained to capture bona fide willing investors and that a friendly law firm was hired to represent the interest of the buyers (our firm ended up being selected). I happened to meet the team when on a business trip in Brighton and witnessed how well organized this company was.

From the very beginning, in our capacity as lawyers of the buyers at both developments, Lawbird Legal Services did not seem to find it easy to work with Jonty. They both seemed to be intent on gathering as many deposits as possible, even before contracts were signed, had their marketing and sales engines running full steam well ahead of the legalities of the cases, in spite of the warnings we were issuing to both companies, and generated an amount of confusion that still today will require, most probably, a forensic accounting report to identify where the funds ended up.

The price-reduction bait on the second development, Playa Macenas, utilized by Jonty Crossick caused enormous tension when Lawbird was negotiating contracts as he had linked one to the other, legally, to ensure that most buyers in Turre would also be enticed to take on Playa Macenas. Quoting Jonty in an email correspondence, Playa Macenas is a very successful development, where prices have been offered to customers for 2.600 Euros per square meter when re-sales were already topping 5.000 Euros per square meter.

Lawbird, who held the deposits sent by the customers in escrow until the legal options were made clear and safe to the customers, fought a lost battle with Jonty, and eventually, when it was clear that their influence over our clients would outweigh our legal recommendations, and specifically on instructions of the clients and against our advice, the deposits were transferred in full to Citrus Playa Macenas Limited. It is important to note that when the deposits were sent, no individual bank guarantee was available nor was a license issued. The land, bought by Citrus Playa Macenas S.L., was heavily mortgaged and therefore of little collateral for the property buyers.

It was with further surprise that we found out later that Citrus had then sold the project at Turre to a company named as Promobys, acting in this purchase as Urbanización Cerro Colorado S.L. The refusal by the company director to provide us with a copy of the contract, compounded with the already worrying trail of disconcerting information fed to buyers, aroused serious doubts about the legitimacy of their intentions. We then obtained a copy of the title deeds where this sale was consummated and found out that not only had the buyers´ interest not been named but also, no reference to the down payments made or the private purchase contracts was made. At the most, the deeds included a clause that stated that “within a year from the signing of this title deed (11 October 2006)”, the buyer will undertake to finalize and obtain the LFO (License of First Occupation) for 17 units built on the named plots, units that will be transferred to an undisclosed number of contract holders whose names will be given by the seller to the buyer”. The deeds also has a surprising revelation as it states that the costs and taxes of the transfer of the units will be borne by the buyers, when a) they are not named and b) they do not form part of the title deeds and thus cannot commit themselves to anything.

At present, Jonty denies liability and property buyers are still trying to recover their deposits.

Uncategorized , , , , , ,