Complaint to the NAEA: MACANTHONY REALTY INTERNATIONAL
I wish to put in a complaint about ‘MacAnthony Realty International’ (MRI). I am afraid that it is a long complicated story. I will try to make it as brief as possible, whilst including the main points.
I was researching buying a property in Bulgaria when I came across a site advertising property for sale there. The company was called ‘Collins Overseas’. I filled in my details and was contacted by a Mark Dyer, who worked for MRI. I asked Mr Dyer many questions about the company and the properties they had for sale.
The main things I wanted to know were:-
1) Would we get a guaranteed rental on the apartment we bought - enough to cover any outgoings? I was assured that we would.
2) Were the developers that MRI used reliable, reputable and trustworthy? I was assured that MRI only used developers that fitted this criterion and that they thoroughly checked them out.
3) Would MRI be able to sell any apartment we bought when we wanted to do so? I was assured that they could, either prior to, or after completion.
4) Were the apartments we would be shown on a good development, in a good area, and would there be capital appreciation? Again, I was assured that MRI only sold apartments that fitted this criterion.
We wanted something off-plan to allow for capital growth before completion and full payment had to be made. I told Mark that we had a total budget of 60,000 euros for the purchase of the apartment, legal fees, furniture etc. He said that MRI could find us a one-bed apartment that was within our budget. We made it clear that we wanted an apartment as an investment - not a holiday home - so we needed to know that we would get income from it – this was our main concern. Again, we were told that this would be done. We added that we specifically wanted to look at Nessebar Fort Club, which we knew was within our budget.
I had done a lot of research before actually contacting any companies, and was very clear as to what I wanted. As everything MRI told me sounded very positive and appeared to be what I was looking for, my husband and I agreed to go on an inspection trip. We got a letter from Mark Dyer stating “our Company Executive will be showing you properties that specifically match your requirements, however, we can show you any developments that you wish at your request. If you have thought of additional developments, please let me know, so that we can schedule your time here as effectively as possible.”
Despite asking several times for an agenda, so that we would know which properties we would be looking at when we visited Bulgaria, and to ensure that they were exactly what we wanted, I was told that this would be sorted out when we arrived. Mark was unwilling to give me any kind of agenda or tell me which developments we would be taken to see. With hindsight, perhaps alarm bells should have started ringing at this point. I specifically said that we wanted to look at Nessebar Fort Club (which was off-plan), as we knew this was within our budget. I was assured that this would be sorted out.
We went to Bulgaria on 17 February 2006. We had been told that it was an individual viewing trip for myself and my husband – but, in fact, there were six other people who were taken around with us, making it far from an individual viewing trip and obviously limiting the time we had to look at apartments, as we had to accommodate other people in the short time we had.
I recently watched a programme on MRI’s TV channel called ‘Why Buy MRI – Bulgaria’. They said pretty much what we were told when we were initially contacted by MRI :
“Tailor-made property viewing, looking at budget/location. We find the best developments that meet location, criteria and budget. The more you’ve thought about it the better – we can put together a portfolio of properties. We don’t want to take you over there and show you properties that are way over budget. The more the client tells us the more chance of finding their dream property. We ask about hobbies, time of year it is to be used, whether you want it south facing etc.”
It also states on this programme that it is one-on-one with an investment specialist – which, as I have said, didn’t happen. Most of the other claims made on this programme were also not what we experienced.
We were very clear about what we wanted when we went over to Bulgaria, but what we eventually got was very different.
We were picked up from our hotel along with the six other people, on the Saturday morning. I stated that we wanted to look at Nessebar Fort Club (which is a ‘Fort Noks’ development). Atanas, who was our guide, said that he would sort it out, but he had other places to take us first. We were taken to look at a re-sale apartment in a different Fort Noks development, but Atanas said that the build quality wasn’t of a high quality so it would not be a good idea to buy there, so he would show us apartments at another development which were cheaper but of a higher quality. I found it strange that if they thought Fort Noks build quality is not very good, then why was MRI selling apartments for this company? Why are they still selling apartments for this company? In addition, why, in the television programme I mentioned previously, does the MRI employee state that Fort Noks is “renowned for build quality and attention to detail”.
We were then taken to ‘Poseidon’, which seemed a nice development. Again we were shown a re-sale apartment, despite the fact that this was not what ourselves, or anyone in our party, wanted. Atanas then said that we could get an apartment by the same developer who built Poseidon, but off-plan and cheaper. He told us it was called ‘Palazzo’, and there was just one apartment left with a sea view - which, obviously, interested us.
Even though we were not interested in a re-sale property ourselves, we were actively put off buying the two re-sales we were shown – again, this is not what MRI tell their customers. In fact, they tell them that MRI will indeed be able to resell their properties when they wish to do so. In the TV programme they state: “We may have to sell the property for you again, so if we find a better unit, you are going to have a better resale value.” Again, this is not what we experienced. How do they expect to sell re-sales if they are telling prospective buyers that they have better properties off-plan? We have currently had our apartment up for resale with MRI for well over 12 months, with no sign of a sale. I will go into this later.
We were then taken to Palazzo 1, which was under construction. Palazzo 2 – a mirror image of Palazzo 1 - was planned to be built opposite Palazzo 1 the following year. I enquired about this development, as I thought it might suit us better if it gave us a longer time period before it had to be paid for. However, we were told that all apartments at Palazzo 2 had been bought by a developer. But when I got home and contacted other people via the internet, I discovered that this was untrue, and others had bought at Palazzo 2 – through MRI!
We were shown the apartment at Palazzo 1 that Atanas said had a sea view. It was only a very slight sea view, but it was there. It was also overlooking the swimming pool, was the end apartment on the top floor and seemed to be well situated. We asked how much the apartment was. At this time and for some time after, MRI were advertising one-bed apartments at Palazzo from 60,000 euros. Yet we were told that this apartment was 67,782.50 euros and was the cheapest one-bed available. There were, in fact, none for 60,000 euros – so why, we wondered, was MRI advertising that there were, when the cheapest was actually almost 8,000 euros more expensive? We were very interested in the apartment with the sea view, but we said that it was over our budget and couldn’t afford it. Atanas then told us that the apartment complex was due to be finished in May 2006, but if we agreed to purchase the apartment, we wouldn’t have to complete until March 2007. He added that despite not completing until March 2007, we would still receive rental income from the developer for 2006, followed by a guaranteed rental contract from 2007, and this would be enough to cover any loan or mortgage we had on the apartment. He said that this effectively meant that we always receive money in advance to pay for any loan or mortgage payments. He also said that the rental income would be taken into account when we applied for a mortgage.
We weren’t actually quoted a figure for the rental (only that it would be sufficient to cover our expenses), but other people were apparently told that we would get around 7% of the purchase price as rental per year – around 4,744 euros in our case.
We thought this over and as it seemed to be a very good opportunity, so we agreed to buy the apartment even though it was way over our budget (despite MRI’s claim that they don’t want to take you to places that are over your budget). It seems in hindsight that we were specifically targeted to buy at Palazzo. We had asked to be taken to Nessebar Fort Club, but weren’t. Palazzo was over the budget we had given MRI, but we were still taken there. This was in fact the only development we were shown apart from the two re-sales, which we were told weren’t a good option. We were also pressured by the fact that we were told other people were viewing Palazzo after us, and if we didn’t reserve an apartment there and then, it would probably be bought by the next viewing party.
Later that evening we went out for a meal. Another couple who accompanied us on our viewing said that, unfortunately, they could not afford to buy any of the apartments due to the properties being more expensive than quoted on the website, and the fact that they were not being taken to view the less-expensive Nessebar Fort Club - despite asking to view this. As we and the rest of our party had agreed to buy an apartment, and therefore had to go to the lawyer’s office to sign contracts, we didn’t drink much alcohol at all. The couple who weren’t buying an apartment, however, drank a very large amount of alcohol. In fact, they were having trouble speaking and were unsteady on their feet. Atanas then asked to speak to them in private, and a few minutes later they returned and announced that they had agreed to buy an apartment after all. We were concerned by this, as we thought they were far too drunk to make such an important decision and repeatedly asked them to wait until the following day before deciding what they wanted to do. At this point we weren’t too worried, because we were sure that the lawyer would not allow them to sign a contract given the state they were in.
It was now 10.30pm. We asked if we could wait until the following day to go to the lawyer’s office, but were told that we had to do it that night.
We were taken to the lawyer’s office and six of us were shown into a room, while the drunken couple were taken into another room. We believed this was because the lawyer realised that they were in no fit state to make the important decision to buy an apartment or to sign contracts. However, we were horrified to later learn that they had been taken back to the hotel to get their passports and credit card, and had indeed been allowed to sign the contract. We were amazed that they were allowed to buy an apartment, (after earlier, when sober, stating that they couldn’t afford to buy one) whilst very drunk, and which they hadn’t even seen!
The lawyers are Legal Independence (LI), who said they wanted 1500 euros plus VAT to deal with the purchase of the apartment. When I said that this was very expensive, I was told that if I wanted to go to a different lawyer, then I was free to do so. But it was after 11pm on a Saturday night! They knew that there was no way we could find a lawyer at that time of night, so we reluctantly had to agree to their demands.
We were assured that LI were totally independent from MRI, yet we have since been told that this is not the case at all.
We were also taken to see Capital Financial Partners (CFP) during our trip (who, ‘coincidentally’, operated from the same building as MRI). We were told that this firm was also independent, but have since been informed that this it isn’t the case at all and the head of the firm is marrying Darragh MacAnthony’s sister. CFP assured us that they could get us a mortgage for the purchase of our apartment. I expressed my concerns that, as my husband was self-employed, perhaps he wasn’t earning enough to get a mortgage for the apartment. However, CFP assured us that they would sort it out. We had to pay them money there and then, because, we were told, people often got home and then decided not to pay CFP, despite having done work for them.
We paid around 30% of the purchase price in March 2006.
We contacted CFP immediately when we returned home from the viewing trip, to enquire about our mortgage, but they said they that couldn’t deal with it until nearer to the completion date. Then some months later when we contacted them again (after paying 30% of the purchase price of the apartment), it became apparent that they couldn’t, after all, get us a mortgage. Now they insisted that my husband would have to lie about his earnings and say that he was earning more than he actually was, in order for us to get a mortgage. They also said that rental income from the apartment would not be taken into account – despite previously being told by them that it would be. This, of course, meant that we didn’t find out that they couldn’t get us a mortgage until after we had paid the 30% deposit. This has also happened to other people and I believe that some have lost their apartments as a result of being told that a mortgage could be arranged, then this not being the case. Once we realised that CFP couldn’t get us a mortgage, we were forced to get a loan in the UK.
When we returned home from the viewing trip to Bulgaria, I started contacting MRI on a regular basis asking for information about the rental income for 2006 which we had been promised. After months of being told that this would be sorted out and being passed from one person to another, eventually MRI phoned to say that we would not, after all, receive any rental income for 2006 - totally contradicting what we had been told. They said this was because the tour operators had refused to put people in Palazzo because there was a great deal of building work around it. Yet we later learned from a fellow purchaser that Palazzo was, in fact, fully booked for 2006. We telephoned MRI to tell them this, but they said that a nearby hotel had been flooded and the manager of Palazzo was merely helping out by housing these guests, but they were the only people there. We looked into this and found it to be a complete lie, as Palazzo was advertised on Thomsons’ website for summer 2006. When I contacted MRI again to tell them this, they finally admitted the developer was renting out apartments, but that he was legally entitled to do this because we hadn’t yet completed on the property – but we had paid 30% of the price and therefore would not be getting a brand new apartment and pristine furniture when we completed the following year. I didn’t consider it my job to go about proving that the developer was renting out apartments, but I had to because MRI appeared to be accepting anything he told them.
MRI said that in place of the promised rental income for 2006, there would be a 3-year rental contract from 2007 instead - although this has never materialised. They also promised to work hard to get a very good rental deal, to make up for not receiving income for 2006 - again this has not come about.
After some months of wrangling, the developer finally offered us 1000 euros or three year’s free maintenance. We were not happy about this at all, as it was nowhere near the amount MRI had told us we would receive. However, this was a take-it-or-leave-it offer, so we reluctantly had to accept it.
I was continually contacting MRI asking about the 3-year rental contract we had been told we would be offered from 2007. I emailed various people, but nobody would give me any answers. I made it clear to MRI that we were very unhappy that we had not received what they had promised.
Eventually we were offered 1500 euros compensation by MRI because we didn’t receive the promised rental. Yet this was still way short of the amount we had been told we would get.
So many promises were now unfulfilled (especially the important ones which finally persuaded us to buy the apartment) that we were in constant contact with MRI. I received an email from Michael Liggan in December 2006, stating that MRI would have a solution to our problems by Christmas. Yet we are now 18 months down the line and this still hasn’t happened!
I was told in January 2007 by Michael Salter from MRI that they could sell our apartment, which would get us out of the dire situation we found ourselves in. This was another thing I had checked out with MRI prior to the viewing trip, and again whilst actually on the viewing trip, before purchasing the apartment. I was assured that MRI could sell any apartment we bought when we wanted them to do so.
We debated whether or not we should complete - given the problems we had had with MRI – in March 2007. But they told us that if we did not complete by the end of that month, we would lose all our deposit – around £12,000. There was no way we could afford to lose this amount of money, so we decided to complete and then put the apartment up for sale, as MRI had assured us that they could sell it for us. We are aware of people who haven’t completed, because of the problems, and have lost thousands of pounds.
When we got to Bulgaria to complete, things got even worse. We thought things were bad before, but this was far more serious. We decided to stay in our apartment on the night we arrived, as we hadn’t seen it since it had been completed, and needed to inspect it before finalising the deal. But, to our horror, the MRI employee took us to a completely different apartment to the one we had agreed to buy. This one, instead of being at the front of the complex and overlooking the pool, was at the side of the building. We told him immediately that this was not the apartment we had agreed to buy, yet he was adamant that we were mistaken. He let us go into the apartment which we were sure was ours, and when we went onto the balcony and saw that it did indeed overlook the swimming pool, we confirmed that this was the correct one. It became obvious that there had been a huge mistake, but it was very late at night and pointless trying to argue with the MRI employee at that late hour. But there was no heating in our apartment, nor were there any blankets, utensils, towels etc. It was freezing cold so we tried to get back into the first apartment which has been prepared for us, but couldn’t gain entry. We had to spend an extremely uncomfortable night, fully clothed, freezing cold, and without even a kettle to make a drink.
We still thought at this point that there had been a mistake on the part of the MRI employee, as we were 100% sure which apartment we had agreed to buy, and had witnesses to this. We went to the lawyer’s office the following day to sign the contract. But to our horror, she confirmed that, according to the contract, we had agreed to buy an apartment on the side of the building. We argued and argued about this, but she was adamant that we either complete on this apartment or lose our deposit. We could not believe that this had happened! We were actually stood in the apartment when our guide telephoned his office to reserve it for us back in February 2006. A fellow purchaser had agreed to buy an apartment on the side of the building, and we commented at the time that we would not want one like his, and our apartment was in a far better position.
There were no doors – let alone numbers – on the apartment when we went on the inspection trip, so we were totally reliant on MRI and the lawyers to put the correct number on the contract. It turned out that the apartment we agreed to buy was No. 515, but No. 514 was put on our contract. We hadn’t even viewed this apartment! We were very, very angry and upset. We didn’t even have time to go and view No. 514 before we had to sign the contracts, due to time constraints. We felt that we were left with no choice but to buy an apartment that we knew was inferior, being on the side of the building, not overlooking the pool and with no sea view, and that we had not even viewed. We had enough problems with the purchase of the apartment before this, but this took it to a whole new level. We were devastated!
When we got home I contacted Michael Salter about what had happened. He admitted that when he heard what had happened, he put his head in his hands and said he couldn’t believe it. I later said to him that if this had been his reaction, how did he think we felt?
MRI tried to blame the developer for this situation, insisting that he changed the numbers - but the developer categorically denied this. He agreed that the numbers had been changed and apartment No. 515 was now No. 407, and No. 514 was now No. 405, but this did not alter the position of the apartments. Our lawyer sent me a plan of the apartments, showing that the apartment we thought we had reserved was indeed 515 and the one we ended up with was 514. MRI had either deliberately or accidentally put the wrong number on the contract. Surely, this should have been checked and double checked.
I am in contact with numerous other MRI buyers and this has also happened to some of them. Yet each time the person concerned ended up buying an inferior apartment – nobody found that they have a better apartment.
We were later told by our lawyer that No.515 had been reserved by someone else on
15 February 2006, a few days before we viewed it. If this apartment had already been sold, we should not have been shown it. This is what makes us believe that we were deliberately shown a better positioned apartment – overlooking the pool and with sea view, to persuade us to buy, then an inferior apartment was reserved for us. If it had been a mistake, then the people who reserved No. 515 would have got the wrong apartment as well, given the short time scale between them reserving and us reserving.
MRI offered us a refund of 5% of the purchase price because of the ‘mix up’. We were not very happy with this, as it only amounted to 3,389 euros. We felt that this in no way compensated us for the fact that we had been forced to buy an inferior apartment which we didn’t want, plus all the stress and upset it had caused us. When we told MRI that we wanted more, they said that they were withdrawing the offer and were unwilling to give us any future help. After discussions, however, we eventually accepted the 5% compensation, as it was that or nothing. I was also told that I had to send a ‘thank you’ email to Darragh MacAnthony, before they sent the money to us.
After further discussion, MRI offered to try to get us a different apartment, which was on a par with the one that overlooked the pool. We thought carefully about this and were willing to consider it. However, there were no such apartments available at this time. We would have had to wait for one to become available (this would probably only happen when someone decided not to complete, or were unable to complete because of the promised mortgage not materialising). It would have meant another trip to Bulgaria to sign new contracts, which we couldn’t afford. There was no timescale on this, but we were desperate and just wanted to get rid of the apartment as soon as possible. As MRI had constantly assured us that they could sell the apartment, we decided to stick with the one we had and put it up for sale immediately, thinking that at least this way we could get out of the situation we were in. With hindsight, if we had known that 16 months later the apartment still wouldn’t have sold, we would have taken this option. The fact that MRI assured us they could sell the apartment is what stopped us.
We’d had enough at this point, and asked MRI to put the apartment up for sale (April 2007). We were told that 82,000 euros was a reasonable price to ask, which we were happy with, as this covered everything we had paid for the apartment plus costs.
But we were horrified to then learn that MRI added 10% commission to this amount, plus 20% VAT. They wanted a whopping 8,200 euros plus 20% VAT for selling the apartment for us. They do not tell you this when they sell the apartment to you, and neither do they mention it when claiming that they can resell it for you in the future.
This increased the price of our apartment to over 90,000 euros, and we quickly realised that there was no way the apartment would sell at this price. We reduced the price in May 2007 to 75,000 euros plus MRI’s commission, making a price of 84,000 euros. We asked about reducing it still further but were assured that 84,000 was a reasonable asking price, but since then there has been no interest whatsoever in the apartment. We were shown two re-sale apartments when we were in Bulgaria, but were actively put off buying them. I have recently been in contact with someone else who went on a viewing trip specifically for a re-sale apartment, but he was also persuaded to buy off-plan. I have been told that MRI makes more commission from off plan apartments than re-sales.
We have recently reduced the amount we will accept for the apartment to 65000 euros (and MRI agreed to reduce their commission to 7.5% plus VAT), which is less than we paid for it, but there has still been no interest whatsoever. MRI are very good at selling apartments, which makes me wonder if they are actively trying to sell our apartment at all, despite being told, before and after purchase, that they could do this..
I have also been in touch with a fellow purchaser who went to an MRI exhibition in May 2007 (after we had put our apartment up for sale). The man he spoke to said they only had one apartment for sale at Palazzo, which, was a lie. Apparently, the focus was on trying to get people to buy off-plan in Bansko instead. The MRI employee said that Sunny Beach was overbuilt and prices were not rising - so it is no wonder there hasn’t been any interest in our apartment!
We were eventually told, again after numerous emails and phone calls, that the developer was offering just 1500 euros rental for the summer of 2007. This was absolutely ridiculous and nowhere near what we had been told to expect – so much for MRI negotiating a really good deal for us! We thought about renting it out ourselves, but were told that the developer was making this very difficult for us. Not exactly the ‘reputable’ developer that MRI claim they use, and they had, by now, finally admitted that he wasn’t reliable. Apparently, the developer had retained 51% of the apartments at Palazzo 1 for himself, and had therefore had the maintenance and cleaning contracts for the building, plus control over the reception desk. He then said that if we rented our apartment independently, we had to have the apartment cleaned every day at a cost of 15 euros per day. This adds up to 105 euros per week! We couldn’t possibly make a profit under these restraints. He also said that we, or any guests, would not be able to use the reception desk either. MRI had said they would offer us a rental package, but then realised that they couldn’t do this either because the developer was making it too difficult. (Providing rental packages for purchasers is another of MRI’s claims – but again, this failed to materialise).
MRI said that they would try to negotiate a better deal for us, or would take legal action against the developer because of the restrictions he was placing on us. Once again, this has not happened. They persuaded him to change the rental contract slightly, but for people who didn’t sign the contract, the restrictions were still in force. Eventually we signed a contract with the developer for 1500 euros (for the second year, nowhere near the amount MRI told us we would get). For this amount, the developer was allowed to use the apartment from 15 June to 20 August 2007. It was in the contract that the money had to be paid to us after 20.8.07 but not later than 30.9.07. After many, many emails to our lawyer, we were finally paid the 1500 euros - less bank charges and money which the developer claims he had deducted for tax, giving us just 1,313.44 euros – on
30 November 2007. We received no compensation for the late payment of this money, and I am aware that some people who signed the rental contract still have not been paid. This is the same developer who MRI had supposedly thoroughly checked before selling apartments to their clients!
The amount we received comes nowhere near covering the loan we took out for the purchase of our apartment – despite being verbally assured by MRI that it would. This has left us in a horrendous financial position.
We are also aware that the developer rented out apartments belonging to people who had not signed the rental agreement, keeping the rent for himself. I asked MRI on the viewing trip, how we would know that the developer wouldn’t do this. I was told that he couldn’t possibly get away with this, and if he did, he would be in serious trouble. He has also rented out other people’s apartments outside of the agreed rental period without the owners’ permission. Despite being told that this was a serious matter, nothing has been done about it. We feel that we have paid MRI and the developer a lot of money for this apartment, but the developer seems to think that he still owns them all and can do with them as he pleases. But, once again, MRI are doing nothing about it.
MRI has constantly assured us that they were going to sort out the problems with the developer, but haven’t. They also denied knowing that he intended keeping 51% of the apartments for himself. But as they were sole agents at Palazzo, they must have known. It was their duty to know!
I admit that I have hounded MRI in an effort to get out of this mess, and have had a lot of contact back from MRI – a point which they keep reminding me of. However, as I have said to them, the amount of contact I have had is irrelevant given that we have made no progress and are no nearer to finding a solution to our problems.
I have constantly asked for updates as to whether there have been any viewings of our apartment, and if there is anything we can do to get a sale. We were told months ago that MRI were going into the Russian market and were having exhibitions there, and this should help us get a sale. Yet this has had no effect whatsoever. We even said that we were willing to have a purchaser pay a 30% deposit in 2007 and the balance in 2008, making it the same deal as an off-plan – but still nothing. This is not what MRI tells their customers! I know that they can’t force people to buy the apartment, but they assure you (always verbally) that they will be able to resell the apartment for you. If it won’t sell for less than we originally paid for it, then we feel that the apartment was either overpriced in the first place, or no effort is being made to sell it.
We were told in March 2008, ‘in confidence’, and, ‘this is only for you’ (which I know is a tactic they use to stop communication between unhappy clients) that MRI were arranging to put a select few properties in an auction. We were told that our apartment would be included in the first auction, which would be in April, but we weren’t to tell anyone else as this was only for a select few. I immediately started emailing the people who were dealing with the auction to find out details and what we needed to do. Again, I was passed to various people who didn’t really tell me anything. I emailed Brigitte Stone, who was the one who had telephoned me earlier about the auction, several times. We were told when the auction was, but nothing else. Eventually she rang me on 14 April and said that our property wasn’t included in the auction after all. I was absolutely furious and felt this was yet another of MRI’s delaying tactics to keep us quiet – saying that they were going to do something to help us, then not going through with it.
Because I was so angry, Brigitte said that she would get back to me. She telephoned a few hours later to say that they would, after all, include our property in the auction. I telephoned the auction house on the eve of the auction, but they said they had no knowledge of our apartment whatsoever, and therefore, it hadn’t appeared in the brochure. Our apartment was eventually entered in the auction at the last minute but, needless to say, it didn’t sell.
I asked for feedback from MRI as to whether there had been any interest in the apartment. They didn’t get back to me, so I rang the auction house. But when I told Brigitte I had done this, she was furious and said I had no right to do this. It is MY apartment. I had every right to do this. We were then told that it would be included in the next month’s auction and MRI would make sure that it appeared in the brochure – this hasn’t happened and no mention of the auction has been mentioned since.
I was told in January 2008 that MRI would try to get us a long-term tenant – a sales rep, perhaps - for our apartment for the 2008 season. We felt that this would help us out short term until we could sell the apartment. They told me that they should have no problems getting us a tenant. I received an e mail from Michael Costello dated 30 January 2008 stating that he had spoken to Olivia Mullan, Head of Rentals, and she was extremely confident that MRI could get us a long-term tenant for the season. I was told that the season started in March/April and would last until about September. I was also told that we could expect 500 to 600 euros per month, which would have given us a minimum of six months rental at 500 euros per month (total: 3,000 euros), and a possible maximum of 7 months at 600 euros per month ( total: 4,200 euros).
This, if it had materialised, would have helped us out enormously. But, yet again, MRI failed to deliver. We have not had a tenant at all – a fact that has cost us even more money, as we couldn’t rent out the apartment privately because MRI kept assuring me that they would get us a tenant.
MRI have various programmes relating to Bulgaria on their TV channel – Overseas Property, channel 287 on Sky. They are still making all the claims they made to us.
I have enclosed information about some of the claims MRI make, and added comments as to what is our experience of these claims. I have stated who made these claims: eg presenter, MRI employee.
To summarise –
• MRI say that viewing trips are individual – there were 8 people in ours.
• MRI say that they only use reliable developers – yet they have admitted that the developer of Palazzo isn’t.
• MRI say that they don’t take you to developments which are over your budget – yet this is exactly what they did with us.
• We were told that we would get rental income in 2006 to cover our mortgage or loan in 2007. We didn’t get this.
• We were told that we would receive guaranteed rental income from 2007, which would be enough to cover our loan. Yet our developer only offered 1500 euros for the summer season - less tax, garbage tax, insurance etc - which goes nowhere near covering the cost of the loan on our property.
• MRI claim that they provide a short-term letting service. Yet they have said that they can’t do this for us, as the developer has made it too difficult.
• MRI told us - even before we went on the viewing trip - that they would be able to sell our apartment when we wished to do so. Yet we have had our property up for sale for around 16 months with no sale. We have now reluctantly reduced the asking price to less for it than we paid, but still MRI can’t sell it.
• MRI state that there will be capital appreciation on property that they sell. As stated above, they can’t even sell our apartment at a loss for us.
• MRI has consistently told us that they would find a solution to our problems, but they haven’t.
We have given them over two years to sort this out to our satisfaction.
MRI cannot keep being allowed to sell apartments by making false claims.
We have ben interviewed by the Serious Fraud Office:
Our MP contacted the Serious Fraud Office and we have recently been interviewed by them.. They have been looking into our case and reviewing all the evidence we have given them. If other people feel that they have grievances, I suggest that you contact the SFO and send them details of what has happened to you.
Our MP has also been in touch with Arlene McCarthy, who is an MEP. She is currently liaising with Meglena Kusneva, who is a member of the European Commission.
Ms Kusneva quotes the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCP), which requires that traders operate according to the requirements of professional diligence and that they do not present the consumer with false or untruthful information. We feel that MRI did present us with false, untruthful information to persuade us to buy an apartment. She also states 'Misleading consumers about which property they have bought and whether it would generate income'.
We didn't get the apartment we reserved and were told that we would get guaranteed rental income.
If you believe you have been a victum of fraud you should contact your MP and the Serious Fraud Office
Here are the contact details for the Serious Fraud Office
You can write at:
Serious Fraud Office
Elm House
10-16 Elm Street
London
WC1X 0BJ
Ring on:
Tel: 020 7239 7272 (Switchboard)
Fax: 020 7837 1689
Or use the on line contact form:
http://www.sfo.gov.uk/contact-us.aspx
|
