Dear All,

Lets be clear about the legal position. J&A are contracted directly by you to create the future purchase contract and then prepare and sign the final purchase contract. They charge extra for additional work.

My intention and duty to clients is to find the best choices for you. What we have learnt over the years is that when markets are immature and chaotic it is better to stick with one provider; one that we can develop and build to work better for our clients. When the markets mature, competition and quality increase greatly and the options available to you as an investor increase as well. Our role is then to ensure that we present the best providers for you to then make the best choices.

i-PA approached J&A to assess their ability to assist with renegotiation and advised them that clients would prefer a success based service rather than an upfront fee or an hourly rate for the service. J&A did not want to move away from the hourly rate structure which I believe to be over priced and as a result we have asked other solicitors to quote for the required work.

Ideally we would like to work with J&A. They have the history of the projects and they are known to you and us. We are still trying to seek an offer from them that will give you a better price.

The key part of the process however is the negotiator. The solicitor will document and formalise the outcome but the true work is in the face to face negotiation. This is where the time and money should be spent and the incentives aligned so that you get the best outcome.

The solicitor is there to work for you under whatever instruction you provide. They should advise and formalise the terms of agreement. But I do not think that they should do this at several hours per unit when the negotiation is driven by a different party and the outcome will be for multiple clients. This should be several hours split across the group of investors.

May I also point out that the i-PA services and the initial finders fee service from PS are integration activities. For example, we do not become the property manager of your unit and we are not responsible for the speed in which the developer builds the project. We are here to integrate you with the various providers that will provide the required services. We constantly analyse the markets and remain aware of all the providers and what they are doing. We do this to give you choice in what you should do. We provide a UK based single point of contact to assist you with your investment.

I hope this clarifies some of the points raised and establishes your understanding and expectations.

regards

Oliver Watts

Oliver:

Some comments regarding your recent post, extracts and my comments below.


"i-PA approached J&A to assess their ability to assist with renegotiation and advised them that clients would prefer a success based service rather than an upfront fee or an hourly rate for the service. J&A did not want to move away from the hourly rate structure which I believe to be over priced and as a result we have asked other solicitors to quote for the required work. "

Sorry Oliver but I don't recall requesting a success based fee ..... I specifically requested a 'costing', alongwith the probability of success for securityh a discount (which I did not receive an answer to) J&A should have been able to produce an estimate for this addition of simple appendix, just as they were able to cost their fee for producing the initial purchase agreement. Compiling a clause and adding it as an appendix to the original contract should have been a technical exercise for them. I think they took exception of having been excluded from the role of 'negotiator' which obviously would have been more lucrative for them.

Secondly:

Your extract:

May I also point out that the i-PA services and the initial finders fee service from PS are integration activities. For example, we do not become the property manager of your unit and we are not responsible for the speed in which the developer builds the project. We are here to integrate you with the various providers that will provide the required services. We constantly analyse the markets and remain aware of all the providers and what they are doing. We do this to give you choice in what you should do. We provide a UK based single point of contact to assist you with your investment.

I disagree totally with your point above. PS sold a product based on estimates to the client of completion dates. Although I agree you are not responsible for the speed the developer works at, I do hold PS partly responsible for making efforts to ensure the project reached succession completion. The developer is NOT a provider your clients purchased apartments based on the information PS provided, otherwise why not have charged an 'introduction fee' as opposed to a 'finders fee'. Please do not try and offload some of the responsibility that Visium Group as a business should shoulder.

According to the website the apartments at Jucu South were completed to Black finish at 30 June so I am sure we are all comforted by this.

I would like to repeat my (as yet unaswered) request of 28 June:

"The power of the PS format in Completion and ongoing property administration is clearly the collective nature of a group of investors with common goals. PS have squandered this in these markets. I, for one, have lost faith in the promises that it will get better.

In order to be positive, I would suggest that PS do the decent thing and make it easier for investors to manage the developments themselves, by enabling a free exchange of information within a closed group. I would be willing to pay a small fee for Ben to set up and administer a closed network of investors for each development PS have exited (which covers all those I have invested in but perhaps PS are more established in places like Poland where I didn’t invest?)

This could be on the basis of each owner (no outsiders) being asked whether they want to register (to cover data protection) and share email addresses etc. Investor’s interests would not always be aligned, but I think the positives would far outweigh the negatives. This could be up and running in a week."

Any answer this time?

David

After speaking to PS/iPA this week, it appears that the negotiations that PS are undertaking with the developer are for extras/ discounts OVER AND ABOVE the contractual discounts that we are entilted to which are currently around 14% of the original cost. There could also be further reductions due to the reduction in the VAT rate from 19% to 5% on the overall cost of the appartment (excluding finish and outside areas such as parking bays). This all adds up to a potential 24% reduction to the original cost (including VAT). That's substantial!! - and that's before any further benefits negotiated by PS.

If anybody has any comments, positive or negative, to this or my calculations, please let me know!

Dear all

I would truly check with the lawyers on this. I have heard things that have been said that I know are not correct so please do not take things on face value and heresay.

I have contacted the lawyers for an update and also Radu.

Also please be aware that I do not do this as a Visium employee because I am not. I am in the office helping to sort things out.

Kindet regards
Debbie

HELLO,
Thanks Debbie for your proffesionality.
Anycase, I thing it is interesting to have the contacts of all of as. I suppose the group of yahoo you are saying is the group about Platinum, I am there. If there is another one about Jucu, please, let us know.

Hi Charles:

Thank you for the updates, it's heartening to read that projects targetting the executive market are being built and things may be picking up in Cluj generally.

What's quite disheartening is the way Jucu investors' money was used to fund other projects... This was irresponsible and unprofessional. You claim that Radu may soon be in position to fund completion of the project and realizes that he will have to pay penalties, provide discounts or finish the apartment, well thank goodness he has finally seen the light. He was legally contracted to provide a finished apartment by a deadline which he has failed to do. Investors have also been provided with false information regarding completion dates and delivery. It's this false information I very much object to. I'm presuming that the false information claiming Block B was completed did in fact come from Radu and wasn't a fabrication from I-PA.

I'm very happy that Radu stands to profit substantially from his new project if it ever happens but it does leave a bad taste somewhat knowing that it was funded with PS investor funds. Also, the fat lady hasn't sang yet so the worst case scenario of PS investors being out of pocket to the tune of 30K sterling is still very much a reality so let's not be too 'gung ho' until Wednesday arrives shall we.

Radu is fully aware of his responsibilities and contractual requirements. Let's hope at some point he complies with these.

Just to let you know that I am in contact with the jucu yahoo group whilst not a member of it. I'm feeding them as much info about the history and current situation as I can. If you have not already joined I strongly urge you to do so. A consolidated approach is the best way out of this one.

All the best


Charles

please, where is this forum. I only know the platinum forum. Could you give us any referente to join it?
thanks

Could you also tell me about the platinum form? What development does it relate to?

Charles